LEO STRAUSS

'Leo Strauss' (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973), was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of devoted students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as an intellectual source of neoconservatism in the United States.

Biography

Leo Strauss was born in the small town of Kirchhain, Hesse, Germany, on September 20, 1899, to Hugo Strauss and Jennie Strauss, née David. According to Allan Bloom's 1974 obituary in ''Political Theory'', Strauss "was raised as an Orthodox Jew," but in fact the family’s relationship to Orthodox practice was not completely faithful and may be categorized as Conservative in light of the German language study ''Mittelhessen- eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain'' (Joachim Lüders and Ariane Wehner,''Central Hessen- A Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain'' [1989]).
In "A Giving of Accounts", published in ''The College'' 22(1) and later reprinted in ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity'', Strauss noted he had come from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home," but one in which there was little Jewish knowledge beyond a strict adherence to ceremonial laws. His father and uncle operated a farming supply and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (1835-1919), a prominent and outspoken leader of the Jewish community. Leo Strauss would dedicate his second book to his father.
After attending the Kirchhain ''Volksschule'' and the private, Protestant ''Rektoratsschule'', Leo Strauss was enrolled at the famous Gymnasium Philippinum (affiliated with the University of Marburg) in nearby Marburg (from which Johannes Althusius and Carl J. Friedrich also graduated) in 1912, graduating in 1917. During that time, he boarded with the Marburg Cantor Strauss (no relation); the Cantor's residence served as a meeting place for followers of the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen. Strauss served in the German army during World War I from July 5, 1917 to December 1918.
Strauss subsequently enrolled in the University of Hamburg, where he received his doctorate in 1921; his thesis, "On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi," was supervised by Ernst Cassirer. He also attended courses at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg, including some taught by Edmund Husserl and his pupil Martin Heidegger. Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein but he also was friendly and intellectually engaged with Karl Löwith, Gerhard Krüger, Julius Guttman, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Franz Rosenzweig (to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), Gershom Scholem, Alexander Altmann, and the great Arabist Paul Kraus, who married Strauss's sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted their child when both parents perished in the Middle East). With several of these old friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life; many of these letters are now being published in the ''Gesammelte Schriften'' as well as elsewhere, some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in an important discourse with Carl Schmitt, who was instrumental in Strauss's receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship; when Strauss left Germany, he reportedly ceased communication with Schmitt and failed to reply to his overtures.
After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin for Paris. He returned to Germany only once, for a few short days 20 years later. In Paris he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child whom he had known previously in Germany. He adopted his wife's son, Thomas, and never had a biological child of his own. At his death he was survived by his son, Thomas, his daughter, Jenny Strauss Clay - the child born to his sister - and three grandchildren. Strauss became a lifelong friend of Alexandre Kojève and was on friendly terms with Raymond Aron, Alexandre Koyré, and Etienne Gilson. Because of the Nazis' rise to power, he refused to return to his native country. Strauss found shelter, after some vicissitudes, in England, where in 1935 he gained temporary employment at University of Cambridge. While in England, he became a close friend of R. H. Tawney.

The University of Chicago, the school with which Strauss is most closely associated.

Unable to find permanent employment in England, Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage of Harold Laski, who bestowed upon Strauss a brief lectureship. After a short and precarious stint as Research Fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University, Strauss secured a tenuous position at the New School for Social Research in New York City, where, between 1938 and 1948, he eked out a hand-to-mouth living on the political science faculty. He became a US citizen in 1944, and in 1949 he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he received, for the first time in his life, a decent living wage. Strauss held the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship there until 1969, when he moved to Claremont McKenna College (formerly Claremont Men's College), in California for a year, and then to St. John's College, Annapolis in 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death in 1973.

Philosophy

For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined at their roots. He regarded the trial and death of Socrates as the moment in which political philosophy (as understood by Strauss) came to light. Until Socrates' life and death in Athens, philosophers were relatively free to pursue the study of nature and politics. Strauss mentions in ''The City and Man'' that Aristotle traces the first philosopher concerned with politics to have been a city planner many generations before Socrates. Yet Socrates was not a political philosopher in the modern sense, according to Stanley Rosen in ''Plato's Republic''.^[1] Socrates did not study political phenomena philosophically; rather, Socrates was the first philosopher forced by the polis to treat philosophy politically: "According to the traditional view, the Athenian Socrates (469-399 B.C.) was the founder of political philosophy" (Strauss and Cropsey 1)."Introduction" to ''History of Political Philosophy'', ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987).Thus, Strauss considered one of the most important moments in the history of philosophy to be the argument by Socrates and his students that philosophers or scientists could not study nature without considering their own human nature, which, in the famous phrase of Aristotle, is "political." The trial of Socrates was the first act of "political" philosophy, and Plato’s dialogues were the purest form of the political treatment of philosophy, their sole comprehensive theme being the life and death of Socrates, the philosopher ''par excellence'' for Strauss and many of his students.
Strauss carefully distinguished "scholars" from "philosophers," identifying himself as a scholar. He wrote that today most self-described philosophers are in actuality scholars, cautious and methodical rather than bold. He contended that great thinkers are bold but wary of pitfalls, whereas scholars benefit from sure ground. Strauss concluded that scholars exist because great thinkers disagree on fundamental points, and these fundamental disagreements enable scholars to reason.
In ''Natural Right and History'' Strauss begins with a critique of the epistemology of Max Weber, follows with a brief engagement with the relativism of Martin Heidegger (who goes unnamed), and continues with a discussion of the evolution of Natural Right in analyzing the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. He concludes by critiquing Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke. At the heart of the book are excerpts of classical political philosophy, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. A selection of Strauss's essays published under the title ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism'' offers an introduction to his thinking: "Social Science and Humanism," "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism," "On Classical Political Philosophy," "Thucydides and the Meaning of Political History," and "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" are among his topics. Much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of Heidegger. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible. For Strauss, Plato was the philosopher who could match Heidegger.
Strauss partially approached the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard through his understanding of Heidegger, which he placed under the general rubric of "existentialism", a movement with a "flabby periphery" but a "hard center" (see his 1961 essay, ''Relativism and the Study of Man''). He wrote that Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand relativism, an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian historicism. Yet Martin Heidegger sanitized and politicized Nietzsche. Whereas Nietzsche believed "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown themselves to be" and "the only way out seems to be... that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth", Heidegger himself believed that the tragic nihilism of Nietzsche was itself a "myth" formed by mankind, not guided by the defective Western conception of Being that Heidegger traced to Plato. For Strauss, as evidenced in his published correspondence with Alexandre Kojève, the possibility that Hegel was correct when he postulated an end of history meant an end to philosophy and an end to nature as understood by classical political philosophy. Strauss was much more sympathetic to Nietzsche's idea of tragedy in this prospect compared to Heidegger's belief that nihilism, properly understood, contained the possibility of mankind's salvation.

Strauss on reading

In 1952 Strauss published ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''; a work that advanced the possibility that philosophers wrote esoterically to avoid persecution by the state or religious authority, while also being able to reach potential philosophers within the pious faithful. From this point on in his scholarship, Strauss deepened his conception of this means of communication between philosophers and “potential knowers.” Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus) Strauss thought that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning. As Socrates says in the ''Phaedrus,'' writing does not respond when questioned, but this type of writing invites a kind of dialogue with the reader, thereby reducing the problems of the written word. It was therefore also a teaching tool and even a filter to help prevent the creation of Alcibiades-like students. One of the political dangers Strauss pointed to was that of students' too quickly accepting dangerous ideas. This was indeed also relevant in the trial of Socrates, where his relationship with Alcibiades was used against him.

''Persecution and the Art of Writing''.

Ultimately, Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an "exoteric" or salutary teaching and an "esoteric" or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. For maintaining this distinction, Strauss is often accused of having written esoterically himself. This opinion is perhaps encouraged because many of Strauss's works are difficult and sometimes seem mysterious. Moreover, a careful reading will show that he also emphasized that writers using this "lost" form of writing often left contradictions and other excuses to encourage the more careful examination of the writing. There are many examples of this in Strauss's own published works, providing a source of much debate surrounding Strauss.
Therefore, a controversy exists surrounding Strauss's interpretation of the existing philosophical canon. Strauss believed that the writings of many philosophers contained both an exoteric and esoteric teaching, which is often not perceived by modern academics. Most famously, he believed that Plato's Republic should never have been read as a proposal for a real regime (as it is in the works of Karl Popper for example). But, according to Strauss, this kind of exoteric/esoteric dichotomy had generally become unused by the time of Kant. Similarly well known are his espousals of the philosophical credentials of Machiavelli and Xenophon.

Strauss on politics

According to Strauss, modern social science was flawed. It claimed the ground by which truth could be discovered on an unexamined acceptance of the fact-value distinction. Strauss doubted the fact-value distinction was a fundamental category of the mind and studied the evolution of the concept from its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max Weber, a thinker Strauss credited with a “serious and noble mind.” Weber wanted to separate values from science but, according to Strauss, was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche’s relativism.^[2] Strauss treated politics as something that could not be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was impossible, not just tragically self-deluded. Positivism, the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber, in making purportedly value-free judgments, failed the ultimate test of justifying its own existence, which would require a value judgment.
While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question: ''What is the good for the city and man?''

Liberalism and nihilism

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism ("Epilogue"). The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.^[3] The second type — the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies — was a kind of value-free aimlessness and hedonism, which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.^[4] In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.^[5]

Cover of ''The City and Man''.

Noble lies and deadly truths

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether it is true that "noble lies" have no role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths," flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In ''The City and Man,'' Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's ''Republic'' that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Seymour Hersh observes that Strauss endorsed "noble lies": myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society.Seymour M. Hersh, "Selective Intelligence", ''The New Yorker'', May 12, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.^[6]
According to Strauss, Karl Popper's ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'' had mistaken the city-in-speech described in Plato's ''Republic'' for a blueprint for regime reform — which it was not. Strauss quotes Cicero, "''The Republic'' does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things — the nature of the city" (Strauss and Cropsey 68). Strauss himself argued in many publications that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from ''eros''" (Strauss and Cropsey 60). The city-in-speech abstracted from ''eros,'' or bodily needs, thus could never guide politics in the manner Popper claimed. Though very skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return" (which is the term he used in contrast to progress). In fact, he was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He spoke of the danger in trying to finally resolve the debate between rationalism and traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre-World War II German Right, he feared people trying to force a "world state" to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a tyranny.

Ancients and Moderns

Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy: Athens and Jerusalem (Reason vs. Revelation) and Ancient versus Modern political philosophy. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs, and the "Moderns" start with Niccolò Machiavelli. The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the public presentation of the possibly unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation. The Socratics, reacting to the first Greek philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political. The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in medieval society by promoting the possibilities of Reason very strongly — which in turn leads to problems in modern politics and society. In particular, Thomas Hobbes, under the influence of Bacon, re-oriented political science to what was most solid but most low in man, setting a precedent for John Locke and the later economic approach to political thought, such as, initially, in David Hume and Adam Smith.
Not unlike Winston Churchill, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Strauss believed that the vices of a democratic regime must be known--and not left unquestioned--so that its virtues might triumph^[7]. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodictic principle--not self-evident or beyond contradiction--he has gained a reputation for being an enemy to democracy^[8]

Critical views of Strauss

Critics of Strauss accuse him of mendacious populism (while actually being elitist), radical illiberalism and indeed anti-democratic sentiment. Shadia Drury, in ''Leo Strauss and the American Right'' (1999), argues that Strauss taught different things to different students and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders that is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury accuses Strauss of teaching that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss "was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean 'anti-liberal' today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."^[9] As evidence, Xenos cites Strauss's attempt in 1933 to gain favor with Charles Maurras, the leader of the right-wing Action Française, as well as a letter Strauss wrote to his friend Karl Löwith in 1933 in which he defended the politics of the right against the Nazis. Strauss wrote that "just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us, it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity."
Strauss is controversial not only for his political views but also because some of his students and their followers are themselves controversial public figures.^[10]
For example, Allan Bloom, best known for his critique of higher education ''The Closing of the American Mind'', was a former student of Strauss at the University of Chicago; their close relationship is lampooned in Saul Bellow's quasi-biographical novel ''Ravelstein'', where the minor character Davarr represents Strauss and the central character Ravelstein represents Bloom.
Another student of Strauss, Harry V. Jaffa, served as a speechwriter for 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and is a proponent of Declarationism constitutional theory.
Briefly a student of Strauss at the University of Chicago, Paul Wolfowitz, who was deputy secretary of defense during the US-led invasion of Iraq and, until his resignation in May 2007, as a result of controversy, president of the World Bank, attended two courses that Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu's ''Spirit of the Laws''. Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter than of Strauss.
The Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, which worked under Wolfowitz to gather intelligence for the Iraq War, was headed by Abram Shulsky, another of Strauss's students. William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Government at Harvard University, Harvey C. Mansfield, though never a student of Strauss, is a noted "Straussian" (as some followers of Strauss identify themselves) and a prominent neoconservative whose notable students have included Andrew Sullivan, Elliott Abrams, Alan Keyes, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, and Irving Kristol.
Strauss is also criticized by some on the right, especially by paleoconservatives. For example, Paul Gottfried expresses the viewpoint that Strauss' ideology is not really conservative or right-wing at all; for example:

The Democrats are less inclined than the Republicans to push the war policies favored by the Straussians. Although this reluctance may be due to their preoccupation with social questions at home, the Democrats are less open than the Republicans to Straussian imperial projects at the present time, if not necessarily for the future. Moreover, the establishment Right and its Republican organizational structure have become scavengers, living off yesterday’s leftist rhetoric. What Claes Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the neoconservative—and Straussian—controlled pseudo-Right is no longer "new." It is the warmed-over rhetoric of Saint-Juste and Trotsky that the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity. Republican operators and think tanks apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday’s leftist clichés.Paul Gottfried, "Strauss and the Straussians", ''LewRockwell.com'', April 17, 2006, accessed February 16, 2007.Cf. Paul Gottfried, "Paul Gottfried: Archives", ''Lewrockwell.com'', accessed February 16, 2007.

Similarly, the late Samuel Francis charged Straussian ideology with influencing a powerful neoconservative cabal that "provides for the left—to serve as a political formula for preserving the New Deal-Great Society regime, even as the real conservatism began to rip it apart intellectually and to win political battles against it with Richard Nixon, George Wallace, and Ronald Reagan."^[11]

Additional perspectives on "the Straussian" and "Straussianism"

In his book review of ''Reading Leo Strauss'', by Steven B. Smith, Robert Alter points out that Smith "persuasively sets the record straight on Strauss's political views and on what his writing is really about."Robert Alter, "Neocon or Not?", ''The New York Times Book Review'', June 25, 2006, accessed February 16, 2007, citing Steven B. Smith, ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism'' (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006). Smith questions the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics.Steven B. Smith, excerpt from "Why Strauss, Why Now?", 1-15 in ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism'' (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006), online posting, ''press,uchicago.edu'', accessed June 1, 2007. Those who do make such a link, Smith argues, misread Strauss's published writings.
Concerning links made between the political views of Leo Strauss and the Bush administration's policies leading to the 2003 Iraq War, and prior to focusing particularly on Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield, whom he calls "a major Straussian in action," in his "Thoughts: A Strauss Primer, with Glossy Mansfield Finish," ''Washington Post'' staff writer Philip Kennicott observes that

Much nonsense has been written on Strauss's political thought —often caricatured as crudely anti-democratic, obsessed with secret meanings and in love with white lies told by powerful men to keep the rabble in line. Some have suggested a dark cabal of Straussian intellectuals secretly pull the strings of the Bush administration — which is ridiculous: The mistakes and false suppositions that led us into the Iraq war are all on the record and understanding them requires no supplemental speculation about ulterior motives or conspiracy theories.Philip Kennicott, "Thoughts: A Strauss Primer, with Glossy Mansfield Finish", ''The Washington Post'', May 9, 2007, Arts & Living: C01, accessed June 16, 2007.

After noticing that, in his 2007 Jefferson Lecture, Mansfield "didn't mention the war, which is the big embarrassment to proponents of manliness [a key concept for Mansfield and subject of his book of that title] and powerful executives and especially to neoconservatives (who adore Mansfield)," Kennicott concludes:

It is the elephant in the room at every gathering of conservative intellectuals today, the thing that threatens to undo all their arguments and credibility. Mansfield, who defines manliness as the willingness to accept, even welcome, big risks, had nothing to say on the biggest gamble in recent American history. A strange omission.

But even though his argument was made with his trademark unflappable intellectual calm, it also had a hint of desperation — an argument showing signs of strain as the evidence arrayed against it mounts to crushing proportions. Plato once compared thumos to a dog that defends its master, a metaphor that suggests the passion of a cornered animal. Call it whatever you like, manliness, thumos, Straussianism, the worldview of boyish battle and braggadocio is looking awfully dangerous in light of recent events. It takes a lot of thumos to keep arguing for thumos these days.

Notes

1. Stanley Rosen, ''Plato's Republic: A Study'' (New Haven: Yale UP, 2005) 6.
2. Allan Bloom, "Leo Strauss," in ''Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960-1990'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) 238-39.
3. Leo Strauss, "On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero", in ''On Tyranny'', rev. ed. (New York: Free Press, 1948) 22-23.
4. Leo Strauss, "What Is Political Philosophy?", in "Crisis of Our Time" (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959).
5. Leo Strauss, ''Natural Right and History'' (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1953).
6. Brian Doherty, "Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?", ''Reason Online'', July 1997, accessed February 16, 2007.
7. Peter Berkowitz, "What Hath Strauss Wrought?" ''The Weekly Standard''.06/02/2003, Volume 008, Issue 37.
8. Shadia Drury, "Leo Strauss", ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (New York: Routledge, 1998).
9. Nicholas Xenos, "Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror," ''Logosjournal.com''
10. D.L. Levine, "Without Malice but with Forethought: A Response to Burnyeat," ''The Review of Politics'' (Special Issue on the Thought of Leo Strauss) 53.1 (Winter 1991): 200-18.
11. Samuel Francis, "Principalities & Powers: The Real Cabal", ''Chronicles'', September 2003, accessed February 16, 2007.

Bibliography

Publications by Leo Strauss

;Books and articles

★ ''Gesammelte Schriften''. Ed. Heinrich Meier. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996- . In 3 vols. (published to date [2006?]): Vol. 1, ''Die Religionskritik Spinozas und zugehoerige Schriften''; vol. 2: ''Philosophie und Gesetz, Fruehe Schriften''; vol. 3, ''Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft und zugehoerige Schriften-Briefe''.

★ ''Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921-1932)''. (Trans. from parts of ''Gesammelte Schriften''). Trans. Michael Zank. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002.

★ ''La Critique de la réligion chez Hobbes: une contribution à la compréhension des Lumières (1933-34)''. Trans. Corine Pelluchon. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, [date of publication?]. [A translation of an unpublished and unfinished manuscript by Leo Strauss of a book on Hobbes, written in 1933-1934, and first published in the ''Gesammelte Schriften'', vol. 3.]

★ ''Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch-politischen Traktat''. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1930.

★ ''Spinoza’s Critique of Religion''. Trans. Elsa M. Sinclair. New York: Schocken, 1965. (English translation of ''La Critique de la religion chez Hobbes''.)

★ ''Philosophie und Gesetz: Beitraege zum Verstandnis Maimunis und seiner Vorlaeufer''. Berlin: Schocken, 1935.

★ ''Philosophy and Law''. Trans. Eve Adler. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995. (English translation of ''Philosophie und Gesetz''.)

★ ''Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft in ihrer Genesis''. Neuweid am Rhein: Hermann Luchterland, 1965. [Published version of a book which Strauss completed in 1936 but, for political reasons, was not publishable at that time.]

★ ''The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis''. Trans. Elsa M. Sinclair. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. (English translation of ''Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft in ihrer Genesis''.)

★ "The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon". ''Social Research'' 6 (1939): 502-36.

★ "On a New Interpretation of Plato’s Political Philosophy". ''Social Research'' 13 (1946): 326-67.

★ "On Collingwood’s Philosophy of History". ''Review of Metaphysics'' 5 (June 1952): 559-86.

★ "On the Intention of Rousseau". ''Social Research'' 14 (1947): 455-87.

★ "On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero". In ''On Tyranny''. Rev. ed. 1948; New York: Free Press, [date of rev. ed.?].

★ ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952.

★ ''Natural Right and History''. 1953; Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1965. ISBN 0226776948.

★ ''Thoughts on Machiavelli''. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1958.

★ ''What Is Political Philosophy?''. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959.

★ ''History of Political Philosophy''. Co-editor with Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.

★ ''The City and Man''. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.

★ ''Socrates and Aristophanes''. New York: Basic Books, 1966.

★ ''Liberalism Ancient and Modern''. New York: Basic Books, 1968.

★ ''Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the "Oeconomicus"''. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1970.

★ ''Xenophon's Socrates''. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1972.

★ ''The Argument and the Action of Plato's LAWS''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975.

★ ''Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy''. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.

★ ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss—Essays and Lectures by Leo Strauss''. Ed. Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.

★ ''On Plato's Symposium''. Ed. Seth Benardete. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2001.

★ ''Faith and Political Philosophy: the Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964''. Ed. Peter Emberley and Barry Cooper. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1993.
;Writings about Maimonides and Jewish philosophy

★ ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought''. Ed. Kenneth Hart Green. Albany: SUNY P, 1997.

★ ''Spinoza's Critique of Religion''

★ ''Philosophy and Law''

★ "Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maimonide et de Farabi". ''Revue des Etudes juives'' 100 bis [?] (1937): 1-37.

★ "Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansicht Maimunis". ''Monatschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums'' 81 (1937): 448-56.

★ "Maimonides' Statement on Political Science". ''Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research'' 22 (1953): 115-30.

★ "Notes on Maimonides' Book of Knowledge''. 269-83 in ''Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to G. G. Scholem''. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

★ "How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed". In ''The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume One''. Trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963.

★ "The Literary Character of The Guide for the Perplexed". 38-94 in ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.

★ ''Maimonide''. Ed. Remi Brague. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1988.

Works about Leo Strauss

★ "A Giving of Accounts." In ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity – Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought'' Ed. Kenneth H. Green. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.

★ Benardete, Seth. ''Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002.

★ Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". 235-56 in ''Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960-1990''. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.

★ Bluhm, Harald. ''Die Ordnung der Ordnung : das politische Philosophieren von Leo Strauss''. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.

★ Brague, Rémi. "Leo Strauss and Maimonides". 93-114 in ''Leo Strauss's Thought''. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.

★ Bruell, Christopher. "A Return to Classical Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding." ''Review of Politics'' 53 (1991): 173-186.

★ Drury, Shadia B. ''Leo Strauss and the American Right.'' London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.

★ –––. ''The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss''. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.

★ –––. "Leo Strauss and the Neoconservatives". ''Evatt Foundation'', September 11, 2004.

★ –––. The Esoteric Philosophy of Leo Strauss, ''Political Theory'', Vol. 13, No. 3, Aug, 1985

★ –––. Leo Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor, ''Free Inquiry magazine'', June 2004.

★ –––. "Leo Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor". ''Free Inquiry'' 24.4.

★ –––. "STRAUSS, LEO (1899-1973)". Onine posting. Faculty webpage for Shadia B. Drury, University of Regina Canada Research Chair in Social Justice. Accessed May 26, 2007.

★ –––, and Matthew Rothschild. "Political Ideas of Leo Strauss". Interview of Shadia Drury. ''Progressive Radio'' (2005).

★ Green, Kenneth. ''Jew and Philosopher – The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss''. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.

★ Holmes, Stephen. ''The Anatomy of Antiliberalism''. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996. ISBN 0-674-03185-7.

★ Ivry, Alfred L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides". 75-91 in ''Leo Strauss’s Thought''. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.

★ Kinzel, Till. ''Platonische Kulturkritik in Amerika. Studien zu Allan Blooms The Closing of the American Mind''. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002.

★ Kochin, Michael S. "Morality, Nature, and Esotericism in Leo Strauss’s ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''." ''Review of Politics'' 64 (Spring 2002): 261-283.

★ Lampert, Laurence, ''Leo Strauss and Nietzsche''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.

★ Macpherson, C. B. "Hobbes’s Bourgeois Man". In ''Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

★ McAllister, Ted V. ''Revolt Against Modernity : Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin & the Search for Postliberal Order''. Lawrence, KS: UP of Kansas. 1996.

★ McWilliams, Wilson Carey. "Leo Strauss and the Dignity of American Political Thought." ''Review of Politics'' 60 (1998): 231-46.

★ Meier, Heinrich , ''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue'', Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.

★ –––. "Editor's Introduction[s]". ''Gesammelte Schriften''. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996- . 3 vols.

★ ––– . ''Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.

★ ––– , "How Strauss Became Strauss". 363-82 in ''Enlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor of Ralph Lerner''. Ed. Svetozar Minkov. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.

★ Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism". ''American Political Science Review'' 100 (2006): 279-295.

★ Minowitz, Peter. "Machiavellianism Come of Age? Leo Strauss on Modernity and Economics". ''The Political Science Reviewer'' 22 (1993): 157-97.

★ Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Hermeneutics and Classical Political Thought in Leo Strauss", 178-89 in ''Essays on Ancient and Modern Judaism''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.

★ Neumann, Harry. ''Liberalism''. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic P, 1991.

★ Norton, Anne. ''Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire''. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 2004.

★ Pangle, Thomas L. "The Epistolary Dialogue Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin". ''Review of Politics'' 53.1 (1991): 100-125.

★ –––. "Leo Strauss’s Perspective on Modern Politics,” ''Perspectives on Political Science'' 33:4 (Fall, 2004), 197-203.

★ –––. ''Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.

★ Pelluchon, Corine. ''Leo Strauss: une autre raison d'autres Lumieres; Essai sur la crise de la rationalite contemporaine''. Paris: J. Vrin, 2005.

★ Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". 87-140 in ''Hermeneutics as Politics,'' New York: Oxford UP, 1987.

★ Sheppard, Eugene R. ''Leo Strauus and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher''. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2006. ISBN 158465600X.

★ Smith, Steven. ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. ISBN 0-226-76402-8. (Introd: "Why Strauss, Why Now?", online posting, ''press.uchicago.edu''.)

★ Tanguay, Daniel. ''Leo Strauss: une biographie intellectuelle''. Paris, 2005. ISBN 2-253-13067-2.

★ Tarcov, Nathan. "On a Certain Critique of 'Straussianism'". ''Review of Politics'' 53 (1991): 3-18.

★ –––. "Philosophy and History: Tradition and Interpretation in the Work of Leo Strauss". ''Polity'' 16 (1983): 5-29.

★ –––, and Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy". 907-38 in ''History of Political Philosophy''. Ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. 1963; Chicago and London, U of Chicago P, 1987.

★ Verskin, Alan. "Reading Strauss on Maimonides: A New Approach". ''Journal of Textual Reasoning'' 3.1 (June 2004).

★ West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a "Declaration of Independence" Soul?" ''Perspectives on Political Science''31 (Fall 2002): 35-46.

★ Zuckert, Catherine H. ''Postmodern Platos''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.

★ Zuckert, Catherine H., and Michael Zuckert. ''The Truth about Leo Strauss''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Strauss Family

★ Lüders, Joachim and Ariane Wehner. ''Mittelhessen - eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain''. Marburg: Gymnasium Philippinum, 1989. (In German; English translation: ''Middle Hesse - a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain''.)

Selected aditional sources and resources

General resources

★ Claremont Insitute For the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy––Claremont Institute website. (Includes a search facility.)

Scholarly articles, books, and parts of books

★ Braque, Remi. Athens, Jerusalem, Mecca: Leo Strauss's "Muslim" Understanding of Greek Philosophy, ''Poetics Today'' 19.2 (Summer 1998): 235-59.

★ Deutsch, Kenneth L. and John A. Murley, eds. ''Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime''. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. ISBN 0847686922 (10). ISBN 978-0847686926 (13).

★ Gottfried, Paul. "Strauss and the Straussians". ''Humanitas'' 18.1&2 (2005): 26-29.

★ Levine, Peter. "A 'Right' Nietzschean: Leo Strauss and his Followers". 152-67 in ''Nietzsche and the Modern Crisis of the Humanities''. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995. Inc. notes to chap. 8: 260-65. (Published version of the author's Ph.D. dissertation; online posting on author's personal website, ''PeterLevine.ws''.)

★ Pippin, Robert B. "The Modern World of Leo Strauss". ''Political Theory'' 20.3 (August 1992): 448-72.

★ Robertson, Neil G. "The Closing of the Early Modern Mind: Leo Strauss and Early Modern Political Thought". ''Animus: A Philosophical Journal for Our Time'' 3 (1998). [Vol. 3 (1998) is on ''Modernity''.]

★ Ryn, Claes G. "Leo Strauss and History: The Philosopher As Conspirator". ''Humanitas'' 18.1&2 (2005): 31-58.

★ Smith, Gregory Bruce. "Leo Strauss and the Straussians: An Anti-Democratic Cult?" ''Political Science and Politics'' 30.2 (June 1997): 180-89.

★ West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a 'Declaration of Independence' Soul?" ''Perspectives on Political Science'' 31 (September 2002). "Jaffa Versus Mansfield". ("What were the original principles of the American Constitution? Are those principles true?") Online posting. ''The Claremont Institute'', November 29, 2002. Accessed June 1, 2007.

★ Xenos, Nicholas. "Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror". '' 3.2 (Spring 2004): 1-19. (Printable PDF.)

★ Zuckert, Catherine, and Michael Zuckert. "Introduction: Mr. Strauss Goes to Washington?" 1-26 in ''The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. ISBN 0226993329 (10). ISBN 978-0226993324 (13). Online posting of "Excerpt" (1-20), ''www.press.uchicago.edu''. (Book website updated May 21, 2007. Accessed June 1, 2007.)

Related journalistic commentary, other articles, and parts of books

★ Ashbrook, Tom, with guests Harvey Mansfield, Shadia B. Drury, and Jack Beatty. "Leo Strauss and the American Right". ''On Point''. WBUR Radio (Boston, Massachusetts), May 15, 2003. Accessed May 26, 2007. (Interviews. Inc. audio link to radio program.)

★ Barry, Tom. "Leo Strauss and Intelligence Strategy". ''International Relations Center'', February 12, 2004. Accessed June 1, 2007.

★ Berkowitz, Peter. What Hath Strauss Wrought? ''Weekly Standard'', June 2, 2003.

★ Cronkrite, Al. "Judeo-Christian Decadence at the Fount of Power". ''EtherZone'', May 15, 2003.

★ Doliner, Michael. Book Review: ''Leo Strauss and the American Right''. ''Swans.com'', October 10, 2005.

★ Franchon, Alain, and Daniel Vernet. "The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter". Trans. (for ''CounterPunch'') Norman Madarasz. Online posting. ''CounterPunch''. June 2, 2003. Originally published in French. ''Le Monde'', April 16, 2003. Rpt. with permission.

★ Goldstein, Yoni. "A Platonic Love Affair: Strauss in the White House". ''Moment'' (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor undergraduate student publication), Issue 3 (February-March 2004). Cf. ''Critical Moment''; issue 3 of the previous series, entitled ''Moment'' (on "Empire"), is not currently available online. (This article was written by an undergraduate student.)

★ Hersh, Seymour M. "Selective Intelligence". ''The New Yorker'', May 12, 2003. Accessed June 1, 2007.

★ .

★ "Leo Strauss". SourceWatch (A project of the Center for Media and Democracy), November 14, 2006. Accessed June 1, 2007.

★ Leupp, Gary. "The Philosopher Kings: Leo Strauss and the Neocons". ''CounterPunch'', May 24, 2003.

★ Lobe, Jim. "Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception", ''Alternet'', May 2003.

★ Madarasz, Norman. "Behind the Neocon Curtain: Plato, Leo Strauss & Allan Bloom". ''CounterPunch'', June 2, 2003.

★ McBryde, David. "Leo Strauss". N.d. Accessed June 1, 2007. (Self-published essay posted on author's website.)

★ Pfaff, William. The Long Reach of Leo Strauss, International Herald Tribune, May 15, 2003.

★ "The New Machiavelli: Leo Strauss and the Politics of Fear". CBC, April 27, 2005.

★ Shulsky, Abram N., and Gary J. Schmitt. "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)". Originally published in ''Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime''. Ed. Kenneth L. Deutsch and John A. Murley. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Rpt. ''Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007'' (personal blog of W. Patrick Lang.) N.d. Accessed June 1, 2007.

★ Silva, Jim. "Strauss and the Neocon Takeover". ''The Lompoc Record'', February 6, 2006.

★ Skidelsky, Edward. "No More Heroes". ''Prospect'', March 2006.

★ Wolin, Richard. "Leo Strauss, Judaism, and Liberalism". ''The Chronicle of Higher Education'', April 14, 2006. Accessed May 22, 2007.

This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.

psst.. try this: add to faves

	Great Time Travel
	Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel
	Optimum 1 Travel
	Aquaworld Cancun

	Marlin Travel - Yonge Street
	Temptation Resort Spa Cancun
	Temptation Resort Spa Los Cabos
	Bora Bora Lagoon Resort & Spa
	Destination Greece
	JRD Travel Company
	Golf Holidays International
	MarysTravelSpot
	Grenada Board of Tourism
	Travelonly - Dave Corless