To the Editors:
Having read Hilton Kramer’s reference in the March issue of The New Criterion to my review of Whittaker Chambers’s Witness (“The Faiths of Whittaker Chambers,” The New York Times Book Review, May 25, 1952), I re-read what I wrote. There are many things that I have published in the past which, in the light of further reflection and subsequent experience, I would have liked to modify and correct. But I would not alter a line of what I wrote about Witness and Chambers, both in praise and in criticism. (Today I would only add a footnote expressing the hope that Witness would be on the required reading list of any course in the political history of the twentieth century.)

What I found startling about Mr. Kramer’s discussion was his failure adequately to present the views of Chambers that I criticized in my review, the grounds of my criticism, and the evidence bearing on what is and isn’t an intelligent guide to defending freedom against Communism. I do not in any way disagree with Mr. Kramer in his assessment of the heroic character of Whittaker Chambers—indeed, for reasons I make clear in my autobiography, Out of Step, I was in a better position than most to appreciate Chambers’s heroism. I agree with Lionel Trilling that Chambers was “a man of honor.” I regret that Diana Trilling—writing about Chambers in your May issue—does less than justice to herself in now contesting that judgment. That was not