August 29 September J, 2002

Boston, Massachusetts
2
3
C

\
c
s
l

l
l
r
s
l

S
l
r
c
c
l

S
t
l
l
c

3
3
C

C
l
a
r
c
n
c
n
l

C
A

t
T
7
T
T
\
\
\
.
c
l
a
r
c
n
c
n
l
.
c
r
,

\
\
\
.
l
c
t
n
c
l
n
,
.
c
c
n

(
t
C
t
)

G
2
T

G
B
2
3
T
l
l

C
l
A
R
l
M
O
N
T

l
N
S
T
l
T
L
T
l
F
O
R

T
H
E

S
T
U
D
Y

O
F

S
T
A
T
E
S
M
A
N
S
H
I
P

A
N
D

P
O
L
I
T
I
C
A
L

P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
Y
T H L C L A R L M O N T I N S T I T U T L
IOR THL STUDY OI STATLSMANSHIP AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
American Political Science Association
Annual Meeting Program
Leo Strauss: J899-J973
by Harry V. Jaffa
N
O
N

P
R
O
F
I
T

O
R
G
.
U
S

P
O
S
T
A
G
E

P
A
I
D
P
E
R
M
I
T

N
O
.
5
0
4
C
L
A
R
E
M
O
N
T

C
A
APSA Annual Meeting, 2002
The Claremont Institute
for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy
Ken Masugi
Glenn Lllmers
Panel Organizers
A reception ror rriends and associates or the Claremont Institute will be
held on 1hursday, August 29, at 6:30 P.M. in the Salon G Room or the
Boston Marriott Copley Place
Panel J
Thursday, August 29, 8:4S A.M.
Reason and Revelation in the American Iounding:
A Roundtable on
Philip Hamburger's 5.juru:1on o1 Chur.h und 5:u:.
Chair: John C. Lastman, Cbapvav |virer.ity cboo of ar
Participants: Daniel L. Dreisbach, .vericav |virer.ity
1homas G. Vest, |virer.ity of Daa.
Philip Hamburger, |virer.ity of Cbicago
Panel 2
Thursday, August 29, J0:4S A.M.
New Studies on Leo Strauss
Chair: George Anastaplo, oyoa |virer.ity, Cbicago
Papers: Vas Leo Strauss Vrong About John Locke`
James Stoner, ovi.iava tate |virer.ity
Author as Lducator: Leo Strauss`s 1worold 1reatment or
Maimonides and Machiaelli`
Steen Lenzner, arrara |virer.ity
Discussants: Villiam Kristol, 1be !eey tavaara
Charles R. Kesler, Carevovt McKevva Coege
Panel 3
Thursday, August 29, J:30 P.M.
The Political Philosophy of John Locke
Chair: Michael Zuckert, |virer.ity of ^otre Dave
Papers: Locke on lilmer and the Bible`
Robert laulkner, o.tov Coege
Locke`s Doctrine or Human Action`
Mark Blitz, Carevovt McKevva Coege
Locke and the American lounding`
1homas G. Vest, |virer.ity of Daa.
Discussant: Peter Myers, |virer.ity of !i.cov.iv, av Caire
Panel 4
Thursday, August 29, 3:30 P.M.
Reason and Revelation: The Legacy of Lrnest Iortin
Chair: Robert laulkner, o.tov Coege
Papers: Vhat Does Lrnest lortin Hae to Say to Americans`
Phillip Munoz, ^ortb Caroiva tate |virer.ity
Vhat Does Lrnest lortin Hae to Say to Catholics`
Valter Nicgorski, |virer.ity of ^otre Dave
Vhat Does Lrnest lortin Hae to Say to Political
Philosophers`
Douglas Kries, Covaga |virer.ity
Discussant: Patrick Powers, .vva Maria Coege
Panel S
Iriday, August 30, 8:4S A.M.
Shakespearean Warriors
Chair: Bradley C. S. Vatson, t. 1ivcevt Coege
Papers: Or Philosophers and Kings: the Case or Richard II`
Leon Craig, |virer.ity of .berta
Re-1hinking the Values or Var: 1he 1rojan Battle
Deliberations in Shakespeare`s 1roiv. ava Cre..iaa`
Henry 1. Ldmondson, Ceorgia Coege c tate |virer.ity
Ciil Blood: 1he Political Science or Roveo ava ]viet`
Daid M. Vagner, Regevt |virer.ity cboo of ar
Discussants: John Alis, |virer.ity of Daa.
Pamela Jensen, Kevyov Coege
Panel 6
Iriday, August 30, J0:4S A.M.
Progressivism and Contemporary Politics
Chair: Glenn Lllmers, 1be Carevovt !v.titvte
Papers: Modern Political Science and Its Progressie Roots`
John A. Marini, |virer.ity of ^eraaa, Revo
A New Look at the ^er reeaov`
Ronald J. Pestritto, |virer.ity of Daa.
Progressiism and the Party System`
Scot J. Zentner, Caiforvia tate |virer.ity, av ervaraivo
Discussant: Vill Morrisey, i.aae Coege
Panel 8
Iriday, August 30, 3:30 P.M.
Property: Ancient, Modern, and Contemporary
Chair: Ken Masugi, 1be Carevovt !v.titvte
Papers: Cicero`s Derense or Property Rights`
J. Jackson Barlow, ]vviata Coege
Saages, Barbarians, Property, and Philosophy:
Montesquieu`s Lscape`
V. B. Allen, Micbigav tate |virer.ity
Property, Morality, and Society in lounding-Lra Legal
1reatises`
Lric Claeys, aivt ovi. |virer.ity cboo of ar
Discussant: Dennis J. Coyle, 1be Catboic |virer.ity of .verica
Panel 7
Iriday, August 30, J:30 P.M.
Roundtable: Can Military Virtue be Taught: What the
American Military Learns in its Schools and How it Affects
American Ioreign Policy
Chair: Llizabeth Spalding, Carevovt McKevva Coege
Participants: Stephen l. Knott, |virer.ity of 1irgivia
Mackubin 1. Owens, |vitea tate. ^ara !ar Coege
Don M. Snider, |vitea tate. Miitary .caaevy
Karl Valling, |vitea tate. ^ara !ar Coege
Panel J0 (APSA Panel 4J4)
Saturday, August 3J, J0:4S A.M.
The American Hero in Literature and Politics
Chair: Douglas Jerrrey, i.aae Coege
Papers: 1he Man Vithout a Country, and Other American
Lrrusions`
Joseph Bottum, 1be !eey tavaara
Vhy the Open American lrontier is Still Populated by
Democratic, Christian, Hero Knights: How High Culture
Has Come to the Breathtaking Rescue or Popular Culture
Once Again`
1homas Lngeman, oyoa |virer.ity, Cbicago
Preparing ror the Crowded Hour: Courage and Heroism
in the Vritings or 1heodore Rooseelt`
Lance Robinson, |vitea tate. .ir orce .caaevy
Discussant: Diana J. Schaub, oyoa Coege iv Maryava
Panel 9 (APSA Panel 4J3)
Saturday, August 3J, 8:4S A.M.
Title: Natural Right and Biotechnology: A Roundtable on
Irancis Iukuyama's Cur 1oo:hunun 1u:ur.
Chair: Kenneth C. Blanchard, ^ortberv tate |virer.ity
Participants: Daid Sloan Vilson, tate |virer.ity of ^er Yor, ivgbavtov
lrancis lukuyama, ]obv. opiv. |virer.ity
Kenneth C. Blanchard, ^ortberv tate |virer.ity
Claremont Institute Reception
Iriday, August 30, 6:30 P.M.
Marriott Copley Place, Salon G
Panel J2
Saturday, August 3J, 3:30 P.M.
The Iamily as the Molder of Citizens:
James Q. Wilson's 7h. murr1ug. 1rooI.n
Chair: Susan Orr, |.. Departvevt of eatb ava vvav errice.
Paper: 1he Marriage Problem`
James Q. Vilson, |C.
Discussants: Joel Schwartz, ^atiova vaorvevt for tbe vvavitie.
Lloise Anderson, Carevovt !v.titvte
Panel JJ
Saturday, August 3J, J:30 P.M.
Islam, Christianity, and Natural Right: A Roundtable
Chair: Jerr Morrison, Regevt |virer.ity
Participants: Joseph Kickasola, Regevt |virer.ity
Hillel lradkin, tbic. ava Pvbic Poicy Cevter
Daid lorte, Cereava tate |virer.ity cboo of ar
Muqtedar Khan, .ariav Coege
Panel J3 (APSA Panel 49)
Sunday, September J, 8:4S A.M.
Roundtable: A Ioreign Policy for the United States of
America
Chair: Brian Kennedy, 1be Carevovt !v.titvte
Participants: Angelo Codeilla, o.tov |virer.ity
1BA
Panel J4 (APSA Panel 4J0)
Sunday, September J, J0:4S A.M.
Roundtable: The Administrative State Goes to War
Chair: Ken Masugi, 1be Carevovt !v.titvte
Participants: Mackubin 1. Owens, |vitea tate. ^ara !ar Coege
John C. Lastman, Cbapvav |virer.ity cboo of ar
Panel JS
Sunday, September J, J0:4S A.M.
Morality and Politics
Chair: Sean Sutton, Rocbe.ter !v.titvte of 1ecbvoogy
Papers: 1he Morality or the Second Amendment`
Jerrrey Sikkenga, ..bava |virer.ity
1he Challenge or Sustaining Morality in a Democracy:
Insights Drawn rrom 1ocqueille`s Devocracy iv .verica`
Llizabeth Lastman, Caiforvia tate |virer.ity, vertov
Herbert Croly`s 1ransrormation or the American Regime`
Daid Alis, orabav |virer.ity
1he Mind and Mood or Shakespeare`s Henry 1udor`
Morton lrisch, ^ortberv !ivoi. |virer.ity
Discussants: lilippo Sabetti, McCi |virer.ity
Daniel C. Palm, .v.a Pacific |virer.ity
LLO STRAUSS: J899-J973
by Harry V. Jaffa
Ve are met here today to honor the memory or Leo Strauss. It is ritting that we
should do so. But honor depends upon the competence-ir not the irtue-or
those who gie it, as well as upon the excellence or him who is to receie it. A great
man once said or his teacher that he was such a one as bad men had no right een
to praise. Ve cannot admit that we doubt our own wisdom without casting one as
well upon him whom we would honor. Still, no one would hae insisted more
rigorously upon the necessity or both doubts than Leo Strauss.
Villmoore Kendall called Strauss the greatest teacher or politics since Machiaelli.
I do not think that we-or at least I-know enough about politics to know who
was its greatest teacher, either berore or arter Machiaelli. But I think I know
what Kendall meant by that assertion, and why it is eminently plausible. lor it was
Strauss who, in a long series or works culminating in 1bovgbt. ov Macbiarei, laid
bare the Machiaellian roots or modernity, and or the speciric teachings or the
great moderns. Strauss proed beyond a reasonable doubt that, with ery rew
apparent exceptions, the great political philosophers arter Machiaelli-ror example,
Spinoza, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx-were all, in
the decisie respects, disciples or Machiaelli. All or them attempted in their
doctrines to guarantee the actualization or a certain kind or just or legitimate
regime by taking their bearings, not by that regime which is eerywhere best, but
by what all men actually eerywhere are. 1hey tried to assure the rulrillment or
the goal or political lire by lowering that goal.
Kendall rightly obsered that Strauss would not hae been able to penetrate the
Machiaellian origins or modernity had he not himselr transcended those origins.
Machiaelli had denied that political lire can be understood best or guided best by
what is highest. \et Strauss, notwithstanding his respect, or een awe, or Machiaelli`s
greatness, quietly denied that denial. No brier quotation can epitomize the ast
sweep or Strauss`s work, but I commend to you the rollowing ror its concise
simplicity- indeed, ror the classic grandeur-with which it denies Machiaelli`s
most rundamental denial. It is taken rrom the prerace to the 1968 translation or
pivoa`. Critiqve of Reigiov. It is sarer,` wrote Strauss, to try to understand the
low in the light or the high than the high in the light or the low. In doing the latter
one necessarily distorts the high, whereas in doing the rormer one does not deprie
the low or the rreedom to reeal itselr rully as what it is.` Clearly, all or the state-
or-nature theorists and all the historical schools tried to understand decent ciil
society-the high-in the light or the most indecent and powerrul passions. Kant`s
doctrine or the Categorical Imperatie would seem to be that point in modern
philosophical thought rurthest remoed rrom Machiaellianism. In it, eery
consideration or personal adantage, eery element or expedience, would seem to
be remoed. But what is the good will` celebrated by Kant Is it not an abstraction
rrom that iew or morality that is drawn rrom the distinction between mere
interestedness and disinterestedness And is not this iew blind to the dirrerence
between noble and base interests Is not Kant`s attempt to democratize` morality,
by getting rid or the wise man as the judge or the moral man, an attempt to
present the high in the light or the low 1here are other and een stronger
proors that, in the decisie respects, Kant too was a Machiaellian.
Strauss neer thought that Machiaelli, or his greatest disciples themseles,
understood the high merely or simply in the light or the low. Had they done so,
they could not hae created works or such complex beauty, and Strauss thought
that Machiaelli`s works were ery beautirul. 1he distinction between the wise
rew and the unwise many was as rundamental to Machiaellianism as to the
classics. Political philosophy, Strauss orten said-and wrote-was constituted
essentially by permanent questions to which there were no rinal answers. 1he
great moderns agreed with the great ancients, both as to the permanence or
these questions and or the lortiness or the lire deoted to their consideration.
But they did not think that the kind or man deoted to this lire-the man or
utmost rerinement-could be the prototype or the political man. 1hey placed
more conridence upon institutions, institutions whose dark roundations would
be laid by unrerined men, institutions which would incorporate their rerined
understanding or political reality, but whose success would not require such
understanding ror its operation. Still, only theoretical men could hae denied so
comprehensiely to theory its soereign role, or hae constructed such theoretical
books to enshrine that denial. 1he contemplation or the modern-or
Machiaellian-alternatie itselr, in the light or the permanent questions, belongs
to the horizon or classic thought. 1he tragedy or that alternatie is that it points
toward the annihilation or that ery horizon within which its greatness is isible.
On what we may call the practical leel, Strauss`s career was constituted by
the articulation or the dirrerence between ancients and moderns. lor it was by
this dirrerence that he proided us with the bearings ror understanding where
we are, and whither we are tending.` On the purely theoretical leel, it turned
rather upon the dirrerence between reason and reelation. 1hese two principles
represented the most rundamental alternaties to the most permanent or
questions, concerning how man ought to lie. Modernity itselr was seen by Strauss
as the most determined-and comprehensie-or human errorts to escape rrom
the dilemma arising rrom the conrlicts engendered in political lire by these rial
and ambiguous principles. Vithin the Jewish community, Spinoza was the greatest
authority ror that new conception both or reason and reelation, in which all
hitherto insoluble dirrerences were to be reconciled. Spinoza, as the philosophic
rounder or the critical-historical study or the Bible, was a rounder-ir not tbe
rounder-both or liberal Judaism and liberal Christianity. He was moreoer the
rirst great political philosopher who may be said to hae been a proponent or
liberal democracy, or that regime which, among its other adantages, transcends
the age-old dirrerences or race and religion and allows men to become rellow
citizens under a rule or law on a ground supplied by natural right.
Vhen Strauss wrote that rirst book on Spinoza he was, as he tells us in that
same prerace, a young Jew born and raised in Germany who round himselr in
the grips or the theological-political predicament.` Vhat was that predicament 1he
Veimar Republic was a liberal democracy, says Strauss, which proclaimed its moderate,
non-radical character: its resole to keep a balance between dedication to the principles
or 189 and dedication to the highest German tradition.` In short, the Veimar
regime represented, in a high degree, that resolution or the human problem that
modernity at its best had promised. Strauss neer railed to see the weakness or the
Veimar regime as a paradigm or the weakness not merely or German liberal
democracy, but or modernity. Vhile he neer railed to appreciate all the particular
reasons ror the tragedy or German liberalism, he neer thought that the deepest
and, in the long run, the strongest reason ror that tragedy was merely German. No
one appreciated better than he-nor was anyone more graterul than he-ror the
strength no less than the decency or Anglo-American democracy. But he began his
Valgreen lectures in 1949 with a prophecy, that what was happening here would
not be the rirst time, that a nation, dereated on the rield or battle, had imposed the
yoke or its thought upon its conqueror. Still, that thought was radically modern,
rather than radically German.
1he young Strauss knew the weakness or the Veimar Republic. He knew the
ulnerability or the German Jewish community-also the most liberal in Lurope-
should Veimar rall. But neither he nor anyone else could guess that the regime
that would replace it would hae no other clear principle, as he says, than murderous
hatred or the Jews. Strauss was certainly attracted then by political Zionism. But
political Zionism was an attempt to proide a political solution to a problem
originated by religious dirrerences, the ery dirrerences that liberalism was designed
to transcend. It was essentially a liberal solution, howeer, since it was based on an
idea or nationality-or humanity and culture-diorced rrom Jewish orthodoxy.
But there was no idea or Jewish nationality or culture possible that did not point to
Jewish orthodoxy as its core. Political Zionism proed to be a selr-contradiction. In
this context, Strauss`s Jewish studies led him, not merely to a more proround
understanding or Spinoza, but beyond Spinoza to that greater Jewish thinker,
Maimonides. And it was Maimonides who pointed the way ror him to larabi and,
ultimately, to Socrates. Hencerorth his Jewishness would not take the rorm or any
political commitment as such, but or a quiet pride in a tradition that he now knew
incorporated the highest as well as the most sacred wisdom.
1he establishment or the state or Israel, Strauss thought, procured a blessing
ror all Jews eerywhere regardless or whether they admit it or not.` But it did not
sole the Jewish problem. 1hat problem was at bottom the problem arising rrom
the challenge or reelation itselr, which science had not reruted, and ror which the
ethics or humanity was no substitute. 1he Jews, whose heritage made them the
highest symbols or the demand or God himselr that men lie on the highest leel,
had become symbols or that cosmopolitanism which ultimately represented the
lowering or the goals or political lire in the interest or the uniersal and
homogeneous state. 1he Nazis had singled out the Jews as representaties or
international banking and international communism, the ostensibly degenerate
symbols or the lowered goals or modern cosmopolitanism. But the Nazis were
not Christians. 1heir hatred or the Jews was a hatred or the entire tradition or
the Vest. Hitler`s romantic longing ror the Middle Ages was an irrational longing
ror a noble past purged or the reality or its struggle with reason and reelation.
1he Jewish problem was, in the end, the human problem.
Strauss did not beliee that the principles or reason and reelation could
eer be reduced, one to the other. Nor did he beliee in the possibility or a
synthesis, since any synthesis would require a higher principle than either, a
principle which regulated the combination. Catholic Christianity, which round
its highest expression in 1homas Aquinas, attempted such a synthesis. Strauss
admired the magniricence or 1homas` errorts, and he saw in them a great
humanizing and moderating or Catholic theology. Perhaps the greatest gain
rrom the 1homistic synthesis was that Aristotle, arter being a rorbidden author,
eentually became a recommended one. But only in traditional Judaism did the
idea or reelation, and or a tradition undiided and uncompromised by
syncretism, rind its rull expression. And Vestern ciilization at its highest
expressed the tension between Greek rationalism and Jewish reelation.
Strauss may in the end be best remembered ror his works on Socrates, the
preoccupation or his last years. lor Socrates was the man who seemed to hae
discoered, or hae inented, political philosophy. lor he was the man who
either rirst asked the questions which rorm its core, or at least rirst asked them
in such a way as to make their asking itselr a way or lire. 1he Socratic way or
lire was a continual demonstration that the rulers or Athens-and, or course,
or eery political regime anywhere-did not really know the things that they
thought they knew, knowledge or which was implied in eery action they took.
By implying that statesmen should know what they needed to know, Socrates
intimated that eery existing regime was derectie, and that it had a duty to
transrorm itselr, into something better-ultimately into the best regime. 1hat,
or course, implied a disloyalty to Athens surricient to justiry Socrates` execution.
\et Strauss did not think Socrates` teaching was utopian, in the sense that he
taught that eeryone should strie to introduce the best regime. Socrates
conressed that he knew nothing, and that knowledge or ignorance is, or should
be, moderating, ir not humbling. Statesmanship inrormed by the awareness or
ignorance is not likely to aim at rinal, much less at uniersal, solutions which
imply that we actually do know what we do not know. 1he best regime is not a
political regime, it lies in speech and not in deed. But it i. the best, and we need
not transrorm the world in order to lie there: we need only transrorm ourseles.
No one who has experienced the magic or Leo Strauss`s teaching can doubt
that the best regime not only is possible, but that it has been actual. Nor can he
doubt that whateer amelioration or our condition is possible will come about
by the inrluence or its spirit on those who exercise political power.
I hae been asked to say a word about my own studies or Lincoln and the
American regime, in their relationship to Strauss. 1he most obious connection
is between Strauss`s many expositions or Locke, and Locke`s massie inrluence
on America. Locke certainly represented modernity in its soberest rorm, although
Strauss was carerul to emphasize Locke`s ultimate, ir concealed, insobriety. But
Strauss also thought that American politics, at its best, showed a practical wisdom
that owed much to a tradition older than Locke. Indeed, Locke`s exoteric teaching,
which emphasized that older tradition, was taken with the greatest seriousness in
America. But the American regime was not rormed only by Locke. Many a rrontier
log cabin, which had in it no philosophical works whateer, had the King James
Bible-and Shakespeare. And Shakespeare was the great ehicle within the Anglo-
American world ror the transmission or an essentially Socratic understanding or
the ciilization or the Vest.
Most American studies begin, and properly so, with the Constitution. 1he
Constitution does not derine the regime, but it is the most public and isible
expression or it. It is part or the derect or modern politics that it looks to the
character or the law, more than to the character or the men who make and
enrorce the law, howeer intimate the connection between them necessarily is.
Howeer admirable the character or the American Constitution, it was not, I
thought, the most admirable expression or the regime. 1he Constitution is the
highest American thing, only ir one tries to understand the high in the light or the
low. It is high because men are not angels, and because we do not hae angels to
goern us. Its strength lies in its ability to connect the interest or the man with the
duty or the place. But the Constitution, in dererence to man`s nonangelic nature,
made certain compromises with slaery. And partly because or those compromises,
it dissoled in the presence or a great crisis. 1he man-or the character or the
man-who bore the nation through that crisis, seemed to me-and Strauss gae
me eery encouragement to beliee it-the highest thing in the American regime.
1he character or Lincoln became intelligible, not on the basis or 1be eaerai.t-
proround as that work is-but on that or the ^icovacbeav tbic.. In the rinal
analysis, not only American politics, but all modern politics, must be clariried on
the basis or classical political philosophy. 1hat is because It is sarer to try to
understand the low in the light or the high than the high in the light or the low. In
doing the latter one necessarily distorts the high, whereas in doing the rormer one
does not deprie the low or the rreedom to reeal itselr rully as what it is.`
Ve leae to others-more detached and more objectie-the judgment or
Strauss`s place among the political philosophers. lor us who hae had the priilege
or knowing him as a teacher and as a rriend, we can only say: or the men we hae
known, he was the best, and the wisest, and the most just.

From
The Conditions of Freedom: Essays in Political Philosophy, by Harry V. Jaffa.
The Claremont Institute, 285 pages, $15.95.
\ttentlen lrelessers! :u|scrl|e te the
tlarenent 8ele el eeks ana recele
a !5 alsceunt!
:u|scrl|e teaa.
T
he mission of the Claremont Review of Books is
to make war on the progressive administrative
state and to restore the principles of Americas
founding to their rightful and preeminent place in our
national life. Thats a tall order. A century has not
diminished the hold of progressive ideas on the
American mind. We think that conservatives need,
persistently and farsightedly, to wage their battles at
the level of ideas if they are to be successful at the level
of public policy. And the fact is, every month important
conservative books and arguments languish, liberal
tomes escape censure, and intelligent works of biography, history, politics, and
literature remain unexamined. We aim to change that.
Highlights of previous issues include:
Angelo Codevilla on Victory: What It Will Take to Win the War on Terrorism,
Larry P. Arnn on Churchills empire, Hadley Arkes on Alan Wolfes moral
philosophy, Charles Kesler on the legacy of Ronald Reagan, Thomas B. Silver
on Americas progressive century, John Marini on political philosophy in John
Fords westerns, Bernard DeVoto on the perfect martini. And much more.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Mail to: The Claremont Institute, 250 W. First Street, Suite 330, Claremont, CA 91711
Or for more information call (909) 621-6825
I wish to subscribe to the Claremont Review of Books for (check one):
G one year (four issues @ $19.95) special rate: $14.95
G two years (eight issues @ $34.95) special rate: $29.95
G three years (12 issues @ $54.95) special rate: $49.95
G My check is enclosed G Please charge my G Visa G Mastercard
Card number Expiration
Signature
Name Department
College or University
Address
City State ZIP
crbapsa-0902