No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
January 1939, the eve of World War Two, Waldemar Gurian and several of his colleagues, after months of meetings and negotiations, published the first issue of the Review of Politics. It realized a project dear to the hearts of Gurian and the others who had felt the need for a journal with a new blend of ideas. Tucked away on the inside back cover of that first issue and every issue for many years afterward were these simple words: “THE REVIEW OF POLITICS, without neglecting the analysis of institutions and techniques, is primarily interested in the philosophical and historical approach to political realities.” Over the years I have heard several explanations for the brevity and succinctness of the statement. Perhaps it was in keeping with the directness of the times or its war-worried atmosphere. From what I have come to know, however, given the personalities involved in the founding of the journal, this simple and straightforward statement of purpose was, as one of the subsequent editors said, basically what they intended to do.
1 Three close associates stand out. John U. Nef of the Committee on Social Thought wrote a compelling essay on Gurian's initiative, “The Significance of The Review of Politics,” Review of Politics 17, no. 1 (1955): 24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. M. A. Fitzsimons, a subsequent editor himself, discussed the formation years of the journal in his “Profile of Crisis: The Review of Politics, 1939–1963,” Review of Politics 25, no. 4 (1963): 419–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thomas Stritch, also a subsequent editor, has provided the best history of the era, giving ample references to the themes and authors published during the period in “After Forty Years: Notre Dame and The Review of Politics,” Review of Politics 40, no. 4 (1978): 437–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Fitzsimons, M. A., “The Human Prospect as Seen in The Review of Politics; 1939–1992: A Sesquicentennial Reflection,” Review of Politics 54, no. 4 (1992): 509–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The essay details many aspects of the Gurian era and closely analyzes several essays Fitzsimons came to consider emblematic of the journal's unique perspective on the human condition.