You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The reading of Zeligs' remarkable book,* to which he devoted six years of labor, was for me a highly emotional experience, compounded of unhappy memories of a dark period in our recent history. Above all, there is the need for objectivity in evaluating the important problem of methodology.
Similar problems had confronted Zeligs when he undertook his formidable task. We may be sure that he was aware of the necessity for maintaining a distance from his topic. It is of interest to note that the first impulse for his study came in 1953-54 from a British jurist, Earl Jowitt who, in his The Strange Case of Alger Hiss, addressed a special appeal to American psychiatrists to help solve the riddle of the trial when confronted with “all the new circumstances revealed in Witness.”
We find striking contrasts between the attitudes of Hiss and Chambers toward Zeligs' study of the “case.” Despite his general reserve and reticence, Hiss never refused his cooperation, was open for any interview and close personal confrontation; Chambers, the flamboyant crusader and prolific writer, refused every attempt at interview and shunned any contact with the author.
During and after his imprisonment, Hiss, who suffered the stigma of a traitor and perjurer, did not avoid the author, never stopped corresponding with his friends and his family. Throughout his ordeal, he displayed remarkable stoic equanimity and did not show any sign of bitterness toward the legal authorities. He preserved his stoicism and objectivity toward himself and his destiny, and his values remained stable and unperturbed.
In contrast, Chambers, who emerged as the victorious knight after having slain the dragon of darkness, shunned all