Mr. JENNER. I am speaking in the abstract.
Mr. THORNLEY. I think he was extremely intelligent, with what
information he had at hand he could always do very well and in an
argument he was quick. He was quick to answer, and it was not a matter
of just grabbing at something. It was a matter of coming back with a
fairly precise answer to your question or to your objection to his
argument.
Mr. JENNER. I take it then it was your impression--I will change my
question because I don't want to ask a leading question here.
What was your impression as to whether his learning, in the sense we
are talking about now, was superficial or was he able to master that
which he read, and engage in personal self-critique of that which he
read, discover its weaknesses, and apprehend its major thrust?
Mr. THORNLEY. Well, I would say as I have said before, he certainly
understood what he read. How much he had read, I don't know, but I
do know that when he got on a subject in which he was interested, he
showed a grasp of it. This is true with the book "1984," for example.
It is true with Marxism.
Mr. JENNER. Now that interests me also. You mentioned that before;
that is, his espousal of or interest in Marxism as such. What was his
ability, if he had any, and I am talking now idealistically only, to
compare Marxism, communism, democracy?