anticommunists who believed that hellman was the mastermind of the conference. now, hellman to be sure had participated in she was no means the mastermind and only one of 600 members of the organizing committee, hellman, nevertheless, gets the blame for the conference. the conference then when it took place was picketed and here just in a short paragraph let me give you a sense what it was like. the american leaguen, the catholic war veterans rounded up hundreds of members to protest outside the wall discoure astoria, along them were a line of nones which delegates had to pass. but the most effective critic teeing of the conference and the one with the most long lasting

effects, excuse me. -- the one with the most lasting effects would come from a range of individuals on the left who fundamentally disagreed with fellow travelers over the causes of the cold war. to their mind, russia bore responsibility for the escalation intenses. the most effective guarantee of peace, they argued was a strong military defense, peace nearly allow the soviets more room for aggression. conference of dill gaits selectedded by the soviet union there were a handful of delegateds could expect only to serve the cause of propaganda. devastating opponents accused conference organizers wittingly or not playing in to the hands of the soviets. a hand of the 600 sponsors encouraged the organizers to make space for the critics of

the soviet union. but the organizers were committed to a conference that would not conversation gait either side. it intent as one of them put it bring together the people of discuss the possibility of peaceful coexistence that had a clear international flavor to it. that's the line that hellman took and the line that thraft condemned her as a stalinist. it was out of that conference that anticommunist largely grew. so i'll going read you one more short piece although there could be many more. and this comes toward the end of her life. ..

>> an intellectual who did not stand up for those who were called before the committee. she argues that freedom of speech, the right to decide, was

integral to american democracy. and that in that period, it was the liberals who became anti-communists and who therefore passively allowed mccarthy to do what he was doing. they were the real criminals of the period. that produces a resurgence of all the conflicts of the 1960s, and hellman is caught right in the middle of it. she is accused of people on the left as well as people who have now moved to the right, trying to denounce the soviet union, all of her life, stone is thrown at her repeatedly and repeatedly

and unlawfully. among the by product of fact, for a variety of political reasons, we often mary mccarthy who was in a difficult political faction and then hellman was. she had been attractive in her younger days and anti-stalinists she had a long history with lillian hellman. let me read you the peace and you will see it. hellman has just published a book that is less well-known than the others, as it should

be. in 1980s, mary mccarty lit a match to the firestorm that would serve as a metaphor for the 20th century. the moment provided a ready supply of fuel. debate over the legitimacy and sexual preferences and the values and the traditional nucleus of the family. declining opposition to left-wing ideologies, including communism, and resulting escalation in the politics and language and anti-communism. i remember the beginning of the reagan period. the rise of identity politics is a factor in domestic and world politics, the vanishing influence of the intellectuals and simultaneous rise of a

seemingly mindless celebrity culture. all these created a tinderbox of politics and emotion in the agency seemed to have provided a spark to reach each of them. and the conservation, twinges of common jealousy and sparks of rage, when the fire died down, her reputation was reduced to ashes. on october 18, 1979, mary mccarty arrived at the studio of the educational broadcasting corporation to take an interview with dick cavett. she had a new novel to publicize, cannibals and visionaries come in the first in eight years. she hope for the kind of success that would bring her back into the interview. she was lively, witty,

opinionated and striking on camera. the interview was going smoothly, when in response to a question about overrated writers, she mentioned among others lillian hellman, who, i think, is tremendously overrated, about a writer and a dishonest writer. but then she dismissed her. she really belongs to the past. cabinet all about. what was dishonest about hellman, he asked. on occasion he had dinner with her. he had previously interviewed her on his show and claimed to like her a lot. she answered everything. i said once in some interview that everywhere that she writes is alive, including and end up.

the audience laughed, the moment passed, and cavett went down to other arenas. the lawyer complimented her afterwards on a nice show and she was stashed away. january 24, 1980. two months later, alone in her bedroom, lillian watched the show on a cold saturday night. listen to mary mccarty mccarthy accused her of being a liar. when i buy the accusations of stalinism and unwarranted sympathy for the soviet union which followed the publication. tired of the never-ending negativity by her personalized

self-aggrandizing nature, she was unprepared for this new assault. the following morning she called her own friend and lawyer from london. one of the two people to whom she had dedicated the memoir. she wanted to know if there were grounds for a lawsuit. and they agreed that there might be. during this time, she demanded to know why he hadn't descended. she would be suing the whole darn bunch of you, cavett recall her telling him. very mccarthy heard rumors of a pending lawsuit. on february 18, a servicemen knocked on her door and was handed the formal notice.

it had caught her underwear, she protested. and millions came to the forefront accidentally. surely come her opinion was not actionable. they suggested that mary mccarthy was lying. several days before the interview, she had offered mccarthy a range of questions, including one about overrated drivers. she discussed which ones were overrated and underrated and suggested it could be like a game. >> afterwards, mccarthy continued to deny that lillian had been on her mind. that seems highly unlikely. for more than 40 years, they had shared a climate of hostility,

their opinions conflicting and confronting all they encounter. seven years younger than lillian, mary mccarthy was like lillian. a woman with quick wit and a sad temper and a strong political opinion and famous for her mouse. both women had married young and enforced fairly quickly. both had lived sexually adventurous lives, it abused alcohol and liberals reserved for men. each had a passion for good food and drink and generous hospitality. but there the similarities ended. mccarthy, graduating from vassar in 1933 as a self-declared socialist had soon chosen trustee is a rather than the communist party us or our ecological home. from the beginning, she described what she called the

brutality of stalinism. she became the only female dissipate in reviving partisan review, the champion of the non-stalinist left. in the late 1930s, she served as its drama critic. and it was that way for many years after. i'm going to have to stop because our time is running out. i could we do more. there are several wonderful examples of how mccarthy, because she is being sued by lillian hellman, claiming that hellman is a liar, the only way she can defend herself is by proving that lillian hellman is a liar. and so she sends her friends, she writes everybody she knows to try to ascertain stories of

hellman having lied. but the stories together in a huge variety of ways around the hellman's sexual exploits and what she did on which trip anywhere. around a particular kind of place. the result that by the end of this process, lillian hellman is labeled in public is the quintessential liar. a reputation that has started hellman for all her life. the reputation has come out of her intentions as a dramatist. partly out of this 20th century tension to emphasize the

individual collective, but more than anything else, out of the long history of conflict -- political conflict that was part of the american left in the 20th century. i will stop there. thank you. two. [applause] >> if any of you would like to ask questions? >> in your research, you talk about hellman in 1934. at that time, he writes to her and he says he is in albuquerque. hammett's wife had been immersed in new mexico. there was work on the whole production. possibly leaning towards

[inaudible] possibly [inaudible] , technology. do you know whether hellman was involved in those postwar scientific things? >> the question is what we know about hellman in the 1930s, particularly in terms of her relationship to new mexico and hammett's wife and their relationship to new mexico and during that period. i think the answer there is helen certainly had no relationship, at least as far as i know, in 1934 she was finishing up the children's hour. and then she was producing "the children's hour", which hit the stage later that year.

she and hammett have lived together that summer on an island off the coast of connecticut. hammack, when hellman met him, was married and remained married for another decade. to the mother of his two children. the wife who hammett did not live with during that period,, he lived would sometimes in california and sometimes in new mexico. so she may well have been there. but as far as i know, hellman never had any connection. never had any connection with the rubber industry. she was beginning to organize the drama it was then called the drama writers guild. i think that is the best that i can do without.

>> so many fascinating things in so many questions to ask. thinking about the left in the '30s, there are two things about this industry. what is the relationship with the playwriting left and what is that about? [inaudible question] to join at 39 years old, writing about the soviets basically being settled, and anti-fascist moment is reborn, given the same

fire of political imagination, she joins the party in a very odd moment. how do you deal with -- what are the reason she joined and quits in terms of the timing? it is odd timing. >> you are right. it is odd timing. the question has two parts. the first is what was her relationship to other left wing play writers in this period? including the best-known playwright. the second come up when she joined the party in 1949 and quit -- both for joining and the quitting are on time. she likes him, and she knows that she likes liked so much better. later, after the war, she allies with mark wilson, who turns

"little foxes" into regina. what i saw a couple of years ago. but she does not want to be like them. she sees them as political playwrights, and she sees them encompassing a rather narrow audience. and she wants a big audience. she thinks that she has important things to say. and she wants the large audience. so she is always writing without audience in mind. those she is friendly with, let me put it that way, the playwrights of the left, she is never part of that group or -- although she allied with some people. some who were originally part of

that. >> the second question, why did she join the party in 1939 -- i find it completely fascinating. she describes herself as having been in having made the decision, basically, having become attached to communism as opposed to various other things. after she comes back from spain, she visits spain for several weeks -- she writes about it, she is quite moved by the suffering there. she is rather angry that america -- the u.s. won't patient to save the few reelected government people -- fascists from the general led by franco

who are trying to take it over. she is so angry with them. and she has been an anti-fascist for a while. the anti-fascism shop -- but saying that she wanted to support the only country that is going to support the legally elected government of spain. that country is the soviet union, which had weapons and so on. anyone who knows the history of that civil war knows what the soviet union did -- more bad than good. they brought in weapons and also ideological legitimacy that literally eliminated what she

wanted to see was how anti-fascism was could be played out. my own guess is that just as she, in this period, she signs off on an oscar trials -- signs a letter, saying that, you know, she is part of the hundred or so other people that are stars and celebrities and writers, all saying that the moscow trials will probably be legitimate and necessary for the soviet union to, you know, make sure that the boundaries and borders are secure. she is in this moment, 1937 in 1938. she is so embedded in this anti-fascist mission.

because of this anti-fascist stance. the curious thing is that in june of 1939 when the soviets signed the peace pact with nazi germany and many other people quit the party at that point, hellman does not quit. she stays in. helman stays in. my own guess is that hammett was probably an influence. hammond is much more committed to the party than she is. but also one of the reasons she stays in is because she doesn't quit, you know, when the country is down or when a friend is down. she argues. the arguments that many make, that the soviet union passed a tactical maneuver.

tactical maneuver to build up strength before it goes to war with hitler. she is willing to allow the soviet union. while she is in the party, she is writing a book. at the same time, the soviet union has adopted this one of less make peace with the fascists, she is not obeying the party lines. she is writing a play, which is the major american play that condemns the fascists. so either she has both laurel struggling in the air. she pulls out of the party before hitler attacks the soviet union. so she doesn't wait until hitler attacks. she is out of their astonishing

things that it doesn't draw any attention in some ways so, you know, the soviet union has already made a commitment -- or commitments clearly not of the soviet union. it is to be anti-fascist cause. once the u.s. is geared towards the attacks -- she's ready to get out of there. it is a mystery. there are explanations -- we don't know what they are. we can only guess at them. that's what seems to make sense. >> okay. >> you could guess with arthur

schlesinger in the 60s. presumably in orting on come he was one of the people specifically denouncing democratic action [inaudible question] >> yes, yes. it comes out after this develops in this period. she's not one of the chief annunciators. people who denounce. certainly one of them. that is one of the curious things about hellman in the 1960s. she has gone through this tremendous anti-communist period in the mid-1950s. by the 1960s, she is willing to let bygones be bygones. that part of politics are over. it is not in any sense a piece

of her life. she makes them not only with arthur schlesinger, but by the 60s, she is a buddy, she is a good friend of marty peretz. lots of political liberals tending to the right. if i can put it that way. she becomes close to in this period, and close enough to so that when the time comes out, 14 or 15 years later, she breaks up a relationship with arthur schlesinger again. she does not because he is personally attacked -- you know, he basically supports people who are attacking her and she says no, you don't have dinner with a friend right now one might and

then come back the next night. i don't want anything more to do with you. schlesinger, you know, write a letter to joe rao, who had defended her and says, okay, i'm back on the enemy list. so i think in this period of the 60s from the best way to look at it that she gets a kind of new lease on life. she is a supporter of the new left, which is, you know, an old lefty to support the new left was a rather unusual position to take. but she gives money and supports the mccarthy campaign. she is one of the original funders of the g.i. coffee house movement, the anti-war movement.