Leo Strauss: September 20, 1899-October 18, 1973 Author(s): Allan Bloom Source: Political Theory, Vol. 2, No.

4 (Nov., 1974), pp. 372-392 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/190899 . Accessed: 26/09/2013 02:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LEO STRAUSS 18, 1973 20, 1899-October September

ALLAN BLOOM of Toronto University

OCTOBER18, 1973,LEO STRAUSSdied in has of menwhosethought small number He wasone of thevery Maryland. Annapolis, thirteen theory in ourtime.He published in political influence had seminal to come) and over his life(withat leasttwo morevolumes books during had articles, devoted ofunusually generations behind several and he left eighty do It is particularly to speakofhim, forI knowI cannot difficult students. himsawin himsucha power himjustice.Moreover, thoseofus whoknew of the of mind,such a unityand purposeof life,such a raremixture moral of thevirtues, expression in a harmonious resulting humanelements or and intellectual, thatour accountof him is likelyto evoke disbelief ridiculefromthosewho have neverexperienced a man of thisquality. in in the body of his works lefthis own memorial Finally,Leo Strauss liveson; and,aboveall,he was which to be hisessence whathe understood Butan as opposedto popularization. dedicated to intransigent seriousness urge meon in spite piety anda kindof filial need to pay himtribute inner of thereasons me. thatrestrain ofthepersuasiveness

LLN

Vol. 2 No. 4, November THEORY, POLITICAL 1974 Sage Publications, Inc.

1974

[3721

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS (373]

theonlyrealevents The story of a lifein which werethoughts is easily told. Leo Strauss was bornon September 20, 1899,in Kirchhain, Hessen, He was raised as an orthodoxJew and had a gymnasium Germany. education. He studied at the universities of Marburg and Hamburg, andhe spenta part-doctoral yearat Freibourg, Husserl of where wastheprofessor philosophy and theyoung washisassistant. FromthereStrauss Heidegger wentto Berlin and helda position at theAcademy ofJewish Research. In 1932, he received a Rockefeller grant and leftGermany, never to return exceptfora fewshort daysmore thantwenty years later. He livedin Paris and Cambridge until1938, whenhe cameto theUnited He taught States. at the New School forSocial Research until 1949, at theUniversity of Chicago fromwhich he retiredin 1968 as the Robert M. Hutchins Distinguished of PoliticalScience,at Claremont ServiceProfessor Men's He knewmany Collegeand at St. John's Collegein Annapolis. interesting men and spentmuchtimetalking to students, but the coreof his being wasthesolitary, ofthequestions he believed meticulous continuous, study mostimportant. Hisconversation wastheresult orthecontinuation ofthis His passionforhis work activity. wasunremitting, butfullofjoy; austere, he felt that he was not alive whenhe was not thinking, and only the gravestmishapscould cause him to cease doing so. Although he was with histime, one always knew thathe had unfailingly politeandgenerous to do. He was active moreimportant something inno organization, served in no position of authority, and had no ambitionsother than to understand and help otherswho mightalso be able to do so. He was neither daunted norcorroded orhostility. byneglect Thereis nothing in his biography thatexplains histhought, butit is to be notedthathe wasborna Jew in thatcountry where Jews the cherished greatest secular hopesand suffered themostterrible persecutions, andthat he studiedphilosophy the language of whichhad been in thatcountry almostidentical withthatof philosophy for 150 yearsand whosemost profound philosophic figure of thiscentury was a Nazi. Thus,Strauss had beforehim the spectacleof the politicalextremes and their connection withmodern He was forced to grapple philosophy. withthetheologicalpoliticalproblem at a timewhenit was mostfashionable to ignore it or think it solved.He certainly thatanymanwhois to livea serious believed life has to facethesequestions; he devoted his own lifenot to preaching answers to thembut to clarifying themwhentheir outlines had become obscure. His beginning favorable one forapproachpointwas a peculiarly ingthepermanent questions.

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[3741 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

Leo Strausswas a most controversial man, and his workshave not received theirdue measure of recognition. By callinginto questionthe of modern he presuppositions scholarship as well as muchof its result, offendedmany scholarscommitted to its method and the current of the tradition. interpretation By speakingof naturalrightand the community founded on thepolis, he angered thedefenders of a certain thatliberty is threatened of orthodoxy which insisted bytheconsideration and the thesealternatives. By his critiqueof the fact-value distinction it,he arousedtheindignation from of behavioral sciencewhichemerged he to because be both their seemed manysocial scientists, challenging bound up withit. scientific projectand the vision of societysuibtlv on the horizonwhichseems Philosophic doubt, the criticalreflection and Strauss wasawareof it. self-evident, alwaysevokesmoralindignation, forthesake of inner But thatdoubtis requisite freedom and forthesake Strauss' of mitigating the excesses of our questionableprinciples. scholarship was in the serviceof providing a standpoint fromwhich standards sensible evaluation of our situation can be made,foralternative and without of evaluation are not easilyaccessible the searchforthem convention willalways be criticized conventionally. that Strauss initiated The criticisms of behavioralism becamehighly of the new social science as certainof the consequences respectable in their becameevident; and some of thosewho had been mostvirulent of his criticism shifted without criticism withthe newcurrents, recantaof thecastof tion.Strauss' studyof socialscienceis an excellent example his mindand the way in whichhe proceeded.His attachment to the its history andwascharmed American was deep. He studied byits regime forthe refuge he was grateful it gavehim, particular genius.Practically, democracies arethesurest of his and he was awarethattheliberal friends and study, he knewthatliberal democracy people.Frombothexperience availableto modern is the only decentand just alternative man.But he is exposedto, notto saybeleaguered also knewthatliberal democracy by, bothpractical andtheoretical. is theaspectof threats thosethreats Among to thatmakesit impossible to giverational credence modern philosophy the principles of theAmerican conviction of the regime, thereby eroding early years justiceof its cause.The newsocialsciencewas in Leo Strauss' formin whichmodern, in America the powerful particularly German, itself I do notbelieve wasexpressing America. thathe in North philosophy intellectual movement. tookthenewsocialscienceto be a very important between its claimsand its Therewas,and is, a tremendous disproportion of itsown of a serious and it is notpossessed understanding achievements,

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [3751

intellectual roots.To spendtimeon it took Strauss awayfrom hiscentral it as his duty to have a careful look at it, concerns. But he regarded becauseit was hereand influential, and becauseit was alwayshis wayto ascendfrom popular opinion to more adequateformulations of problems, to takeseriously whatmensay and tryto see whatthere is in it.Thiswas it wasthat:he believed not onlya form of civility, thatin men's although is to be foundtheaccessto knowledge of thewaysthings opinions really are. Onlyby the careful and painstaking attempt to understand our own and situationcan one move beyond it while avoidingdoctrinairism abstraction. Strauss' socialsciencewas notto engage wayof approaching subversive in continuing polemicsor to make accusations concerning Norwas it to taketheordinary of thediscipline and motives. productions although severe make the easy rhetorical refutation, moralresponsibility he looked for those made him read almostall the literature. Rather, thinkers who were agreedto possessthe best mindsand whoseworks the movemenit. as he alwaysdid, he looked to the Nloreover, inspired fora position thearguments mademore becausethere areusually origins, seriouslythan later when thev are alreadyvictorious and have the self-evidence which attaches to success, andbecausethere one canfind the alternative whichhas been overwhelmed perspective by thenewone. In lookedto MaxWeber, he studied and particular, Strauss whom thoroughly He carriedon a dialoguewithhim.One of the important respectfully. of that dialoguewas that the fact-value conclusions distinction, which although very newhad cometo dominate moral discourse, neededstronger grounding ifit was to be takenas a fundamental of philosophic category themind.Strauss of MaxWeber's recognized theseriousness and nobility but he showed thathe wasa derivative somewhere mind, thinker, standing betweenmodern unableto resolve theirtension. scienceanidNietzsche, on thesenseof theword Thus,Strauss opened up a worldof reflection valueand thereasonableness of substituting it forwords likegoodandbad and pointedthe way to profounder reflection on whatis of the most immediate concern to all menof ourgeneration. This was one of thesources of hisgreat He began appealto students. wheretheybeganand showedthemthattheyhad not reflected on the presuppositions of their science or their politics andthatthese presuppositionshad been reflected on by great menwhomwe haveforall practical of thosethinkers how to read.The study purposes forgotten became both a necessity Thiswas Leo Strauss' and a delight. onlyrhetoric. Moreover, the critiqueof the principles of social sciencewas accompanied by an effort to look at political things as theyfirst cometo sight, to rediscover

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[3761 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

thephenomena or reduced which weretransformed by thenewmethods. of a richand concrete to the restoration Strausswas dedicated natural of the politicalphenomenon. His truly consciousness astonishing clarity the things aroundus came in largemeasure and freshness in describing himself the categories from from the way he used old books to liberate which bindus. When Leo Strausscame to America,the most advancedpolitical withpoliticalphilosophy as scientists asserted thattheycould dispense had dispensed physics withmetaphysics. Now,it can be safely said,there is more hesitation aboutthatassertion.

II Leo Strauss He wouldhavenever saidso himself, for wasa philosopher. he was too modestand he had too muchreverence fortherarehuman it to himself, typeand thewayof liferepresented to arrogate bythattitle in an age whenits use has beenso cheapened. is especially Myassertion inasmuch as Strauss particularly paradoxical, appears to be emphatically only a scholar. The titles of his books are typically 7he Political on Machiavelli, Hobbesor Thoughts and thosewith Philosophy of Thomas titles likeNatural to be but or TheCity andMan prove Rightand History reflections on more thanone old philosopher. withthe Strauss merges authors he discussed and can be understood to be nothing morethantheir interpreter. Moreover, whilephilosophers todayspeakonlyof beingand knowledge, Strauss spokeofcities and gentlemen. Butappearances can be deceiving, particularly whenourprejudices are in partresponsible forthem. A survey of Strauss' entire bodyof work will reveal that it constitutes a unifiedand continuous, ever deepening, investigation into the meaning and possibility of philosophy. It is the product of a philosophiclife devoted to an understanding of the philosophic lifeat a timewhenphilosophy can no longer givean account of itself and the mostmodern philosophers haveabandoned reason, and hence philosophy, in favorof will or commitment. It is an investigation carriedon in light of the seriousness of the objectionsand their proponents. Straussdid not give way to the modernmovement, yet neither couldhe devotehimself to science without facing thatmovement. He studied thereasons fortheabandonment of reasonreasonably, which meansthathe had to testthecontemporary assertions aboutthecharacter of philosophy and theneedfora newmodeof philosophy against theold

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [377]

philosophy. And thatold philosophy is no longer immediately accessible to us, forit is seenthrough a tradition whichdoes not takeits claimto truthseriously.An effortof recoverywas necessary, one rendered unusually difficult by the factthatwe no longer possessthe equipment withwhich to see ourselves theeyesofearlier rather through philosophers thanseeing themthrough ours.Ourcategories areinherited, questionable; theydetermine our horizons. meansdiscovery, and Leo Strauss Recovery embarked on a voyageof discovery in whatwas thought to be familiar terrain: thetradition of philosophy. He had to throw awaythemapsand the compasswhichwere made on the basis of principles alien to that tradition and which wouldhaveled himastray him to passby by causing what was not charted.His writings weretentative but eversurersteps towardunderstanding writers as theyunderstood themselves and thereby towardmaking the fundamental alternatives again clearto men whose choices had become impoverished. He founda way to read so as to perceive againwhatphilosophy originally meant.In his lastwritings, he feltfreeto tryto grasptheway of Socrates, finally thearchetype of the philosopher and theone whoseteaching Nietzsche and Heidegger mostof all tried to overthrow. Socrates came alive again in a readingof Aristophanes, andPlato,thosewriters Xenophon, whoknewhimand were captivated the Socraticway plausible by him. In making again,intransigently all theobjections confronting subsequently madeagainst it andall thewaysopposedto it, Strauss believed he hadaccomplished theapology of rationalism and thelifededicated to thequestforthefirst causesofall things. It is in thisspirit and not as a reformer, a moralist, or a founder of a movement that Leo Strauss undertook thestudy of political philosophy. His politicswere the politicsof philosophy and not the politicsof a particular regime.Without forgetting being,he turnedaway fromits contemplation to the contemplation of man-who is both the being capable of longing to knowbeingand themostinteresting of beings, the one whichany teaching about beingmustmostof all comprehend. To begin with the human things, to save them fromreduction to the nonhuman, and to understand their distinctiveness, was theSocratic way. To beginagainfromthe natural beginning pointis evenmorenecessary today,whensciencemorethanever is devoted to explaining manby what is not manand has thereby madeit impossible to comprehend thesource and instrument of thatscience, thesoul. The worldand man'smind have been transformed by science;thus,whenscience becomes questionable, it is peculiarlydifficult to find the natural mind. Science rests on

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[378] POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

pre-scientific foundations which arepresupposed butwhich can byscience no longer be seenby science.All thought thatproceeds without a return to the pre-scientific availableto us, is world,a worldnot immediately WhenLeo Strauss to contemporary beliefs. captive and spokeof tyranny he was gentlemen and philosophers, and naturalrightand statesmen of theproblem of knowledge. always thinking To restate all thisin a somewhat different Leo Strauss' believed form, that the Platonic image of the cave describedthe essentialhuman condition.All men begin, and most men end, as prisoners of the authoritative of theirtimeand place. Educationis a liberation opinions from thosebonds,theascentto a standpoint from thecavecanbe which seen for what it is. Socrates'assertion that he only knowsthathe is ignorant reveals thathe hasattained sucha standpoint, one from he which can see thatwhatotherstake to be knowledge is onlyopinion, opinion determined of lifein the cave. Philosophy, by the necessities in all its various forms,always has supposed that by unaided reason man is somehow and finding capableof getting a nonarbitrary beyondthegiven standard against it and thatthispossibility whichto measure constitutes the essenceof humanfreedom. WhatLeo Strauss facedas a youngman was the mostradicaldenialof thispossibility thathad everbeenmade. The objectionwas not thatof scepticism, a viewthathas alwaysbeen present in thephilosophic tradition, butthepositive or dogmatic assertion thatreasonis incapable of finding permanent, nonarbitrary principles. All thatwasmostpowerful either or explicitly implicitly accepted thetruth of thisassertion. Kantianism, in its neo-Kantian fragments, had ceasedto be plausible. Whatremained was positivism, whichunderstood its principles to be unprovableand dependenton their usefulness, and radical historicism whichwentfurther by asserting thatreasonhas its rootsin unreason and is henceonlya superficial phenomenon. It concluded that the positivists' principles, admittedly arbitrary, weretheproduct of only one of an infinite number of possible perspectives, horizons, or folkminds. themodern Heidegger, thinker whomost impressed Strauss, setto work to dismantle the Western traditional of rationalism in orderto recover the richsources out of which rationalism emerged butwhich hadbeencovered overbyit. Now Straussagreedthat modern rationalism had indeedreachedan impasse. What he was notsureofwaswhether thefateof reason itself was boundto thatof modern philosophy. It wastheelaboration ofthisdoubt that he set as his task. The singleadvantageof the total crisisof was thatit permitted philosophy a total doubt of received philosophic

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [379]

opinion thatwouldhavebeenconsidered before. Thebelief, impossible for thatKanthad forever the claims example, refuted of ancient metaphysics becamegroundless. was open. But suchbeliefhad fostered Everything a of what ancientmetaphysics forgetfulness was. We saw throuagh Kant's eyes,whether we knewit or not,foreventhephilology whichwe use as a tool for the interpretation of ancienttlhought is based on modern philosophy. Thus,whenLeo Strauss wrote a book entitled Natutral Riglit and Historv, he was not primarily theproblem ofjustice, investigating he was looking at the two great alternative standpoints beyond the cave-natureand history. Nature,and with it naturalright. hladbeen rejectedas a standard in favorof history. Strauss daredto makethat rejection, whichwas acceptedas certain, a problem; and hiedid thisby theperspective studying in whichthesestandards come to light, political commonsense.In short.Strauss returned to the cave. Its slhadows had faded; butwhenonelosesone'sway,one must go backto thebeginning, if one can.

III But I have spokentoo academically, and Leo Strauss'thlouaht was never academic.It had its sourcein therealproblems of a serious life.His intellectual odysseybegan with his Zionism.Assimilation and Zionism werethetwosolutions to whatwascalled"The Jewish problem." Zionism understoodassimilation to be both impossibleand demeaning. The establishment ofa Jewish state wastheonlyworthy and proud alternative. This formulation of the choicewas predicated on the assumption that orthodox Judaism-the beliefin the letter of Mosaicrevelation and the of thefateofJews acceptance in theDiaspora as part of Divine Providence to be changed onlyby thecoming of theMessialh-is no longer tenable for men.In fact, thesituation thoughtful of theJews couldonlybe lookedon as a problem, requiring and susceptible of a solution, in thelight of that "The Jewish assumption. Problem" wasa childoftheEnlightenment, with itscontempt forrevelation and its assurance thatpolitical problems, once posed as such,can be solved.Strauss, whileaccepting theZionist viewof assimilation, wondered whether a strictly political or secular response to the Jewish situation in Europewas sufficient and whether a Jewish state thatrejected thefaith in theBiblical revelation wouldlhave anymeaning. Could theJews becomea nation likeanyother? Andifthey could,would that not be just a higherform of assimilation, of acceptingthe

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[380] POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

undesirability of being Jewish? Strausssaw, moreover, thatpious Jews to thephilosophical who triedto salvageJudaism and respond denialof of the claimsof the Mosaic code tacitly acceptedmanyof the premises their and wereno longer orthodox. Unableto acceptthe adversaries really he tumedto theexamination of solutions facileand convenient available, boththealtematives, the greatthinker who suggested assimilation and a the higher criticism of the Bible which Jewish state,and who initiated to thewritten appeared to makelifelivedin adherence wordfoolish and to thisday;he turned to therenegade which prevails Jew, to Spinoza.With this,his first seriousscholarly undertaking, begunin his mid-twenties, on thejourney from he never Strauss which embarked returned. his criticism of the As it thenappearedto Strauss,'Spinozadirected two kindsof men-theorthodox who believein tradition Jewish against of every wordof theTorahand forwhom revealed character thedivinely and a andthe there was no needfor, positive hostility toward, philosophy; to that who tried show reason and in particular, philosophers, Maimonides arrived that Aristotelian at by the revelation are compatible, philosophy the and is Mosaic with unaidedreasonis in perfect harmony perfected by of that method textual revelation. Briefly, Straussconcluded Spinoza's as one believedthat the textual criticism was persuasive only insofar cannotbe explained as miracles or as theresult ofsupernatural difficulties ofthat and suprarational causesand thatSpinozagaveno adequateproof with Pascal, that the strictest belief. Hence, he found,in agreement orthodoxy whichrefused any concession to philosophy could stillbe maintained. Andhe also concluded thathe must study Maimonides, for he had to see whether it was a failure of reasonthatmadethisphilosopher book. For,unlike remain loyal to theJewish peopleand its sacred Pascal, he wasnotprepared to reject philosophy. to Maimonides. turned His first was bewilderSo, Strauss impression ment.It was not only thathe could makeno senseof it; he feltutterly aliento themanner of thought and speech.But it was always hisinstinct to look forsomething important in thatwhich seemed trivial orabsurd at firstimpression, for it is precisely by such an impression that our limitations are protected from challenge. Thesewritings weredistant from whathe understood to be, but he couldnot accepttheready philosophy explanations based on abstractions about the medievalmind. He kept to Maimonides returning and also to the Islamicthinkers who preceded and inspired Maimonides. Andgradually Strauss becameawarethatthese medieval thinkers practised an art of writing forgotten by us, an artof withwhich writing theyhid their intentions from all but a select few.He

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [3811

had discovered the texts esoteric writing. By the mostcareful readings, to rationalmen. This discovery, become intelligible for and coherent which Straussis famousand for which he is deridedby those who on conventional established their reputations interpretations, mayappear how to to be at best onlyan interesting historical fact,akinto learning forthe readhieroglyphics. But it is fraught withphilosophic significance, different mode of expression a different of reflects understanding reason and its relation to civilsociety. When one becomesawareof this,one is enabled to learn strange and wonderful thingsand to recognize the questionable character of our own view,to whichwe see no alternative. Out of thisdiscovery of thegreat thatdominated therest emerged themes Strauss'life: Ancients and Moderns, and Athensand Jerusalem. Real radicalism is never theresult of passionate but ofquietand commitment, serious reflection. Strauss found that the harmonyof reason and revelation was Maimonides' and Farabi'spublicteaching, whilethe private was teaching thatthere is a radical andirreducible he found that tension between them; the teachings of reasonare wholly with different from and incompatible those of revelation the and that neither refute side could completely claims of the other but thata choicehadto be made.Thisis,according to theseteachers, themostimportant issuefacing man.It turned outthatthe opposition between reason and revelation was no less extremein Maimonides thanin SpinozaandthatMaimonides wasno lessrational than Spinoza. Strauss and used also laterlearned thatSpinozatoo recognized the classic art of writing. Wherein, then, did the difference lie? Put enigmatically, Spinoza no longerbelievedin the permanent necessity of thatart of writing. His use of it was in theservice of overcoming it. He thought it possible to rationalize religion and,alongwithit, civilsociety. Philosophy, insteadof the secretpreserve of a few who accept the impossibility of themanybeing philosophers, or truly tolerating it,could be the instrument of transforming societyand bringing enlightenment. Maimonides' loyalty to the Jewish peoplemayhavebeen due less to his faithin the Bible thanhis doubt as to the possibility or desirability of depriving themofthatfaith. Spinoza, on theother hand,wasa member of a conspiracy the projectof which was the alteration of what were previously considered to be thenecessary conditions of human life.This projectrequired a totally different viewof thenature of things, and it is the essenceof modernity. It beganin agreeing withtheancients thatthe primary issue is thereligious question. With its success, its origins in this question disappeared from sight. Hence,to understand ourselves, we must

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[382] POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

return to thisorigin and confront it withtheviewof things it replaced. was wrong in hisbelief Strauss thatthere Nietzsche, is a single found, line of Western in the ancients rationalism and culminating originating in contemporary science. There was a great break somewherein the sixteenth century. Nietzsche'scritiqueof rationalism mightwell hold good for modern rationalism, but thecharacter of ancient to us. A rationalism is unknown choicehad beenmadebymodern butwhether thatchoicehadled to man, broader horizons a higher seenfrom plateauis notclear. in his study Moreover, of Maimonides and theIslamic thinkers, Strauss found that they understood themselves not as innovators, as did the but as conveyers of a tradition thatwent moderns, backto Platoandthat theyhad only adaptedthe Platonicteaching to the Judaicand Islamic revelations. Plato, he heard,was the teacher of prophecy. Whatin the worldthatmeant, he could not divine. So he turned to Plato,and it was by thisroutethathe cameto theancients. Hisaccessto their was thought by way of medievalphilosophy. He had, of course,had the classical educationcommonin Germany and was possessed of the conventional wisdomabout the ancients. But thateducation had made the precisely classicsuninteresting to him,little morethanlearning or general culture. No more than any of his contemporaries would he have gone to the ancient philosophers to solvetherealproblems ofhislife.Everybody was surethatthemostimportant issueshad been settled against theancients. Now,as his thought had been drawn backward in time by theforce ofhis vitalconcems,he discovered an inletto ancientthought through which thoseconcerns wereaddressed morefully than he hadimagined they could be. The unexpected perspective on the Greekphilosophers whichhad emerged from his original needs proved to be theauthentic one, forthe medieval thinkers, closerin timeto the Greeks and still preoccupied with thesameproblems as werethey, had a surer knowledge of them thandid the scholars who had, unawares, adoptedone version or another of the modernresolution of the religious questionand were most generally easy-going atheists(as opposed to atheists who faced up to the real consequences ofatheism). Strauss discovered that Plato,Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Thucydides, as wellas manyothers, wrote likethemedieval thinkers whohadpointed. in thisdirection. The execution of Socrates forimpiety is thethreshold to thePlatonic world, andtheinvestigation of philosophy's stance toward the gods is the beginning and end of thosedialogues which are the supreme achievement oftheancient artof writing. Strauss found herethebeginning

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [383]

point fromwhich we would "be open to the full impactof the all importantquestion which is coeval with philosophy althoughthe pronounceit-the questionquid sit philosophers do not frequently between Jerusalem and Athens andthe deus."2 The profound opposition he nowknewthatthis wasthe relation-and to alter their modern attempt the sole theme of his hidden originof modernphilosophy-became He was thus able to get a synopsisof the continuousmeditation. constituted he argued, theirpermanence, permanent humanalternatives; ofhistoricism. thedecisive refutation three roughly On the basis of these reflections, we can distinguish a continuous, It was,let me repeat, phasesin Leo Strauss'development. be calledthepre-Straussean there waswhatmight deepening process. First, und Philosophie of Religion, Strauss, represented by Spinoza's Critique Gesetz (the only one of his books not availablein English)and The Political Philosophyof Thomas Hobbes. These works treat of his themselves immediate concerns as they first presented political-theological bookswhich havea to him.Theyare enormously and wellargued learned history. Their books in intellectual formlike that of the best modern on further strain thatform and lead to his later contents, consideration, scholarship and the canons of modern breaking out of it. But theyfollow to the own questions theirhistorical premises. Thesebooks put Strauss' he has not yetlearned to see their as theythemselves questions authors; sawthem. their times. morecausedby thancausing He finds these thinkers He appliesa standard reality from to themrather thanlearning of reality andhe to themwhich theydid not recognize; them.He brings influences does not see radicalbreaksin the tradition whichhe latercame to see He knows of periodizations of thought. becausehe acceptscontemporary but not of Platonic. He is seekinga Epicureanreligiouscriticism, he does but he has not found it. In short, standpoint outsidethemodern, not yetknowantiquity. thattheHobbesbook,thebook It is no accident in the he likedtheleast, anduncontroversial remains theone mostreputed scholarly community. The second phase is dominated writing, by his discovery of esoteric which andhence with hisdiscovery ofantiquity is, as I havesaid,identical eye. His of a real alternative. He looks aroundthe worldwitha fresh is stillakinto thatof otherscholars, begin to but theconclusions writing opinionand are farfrom common appearoutrageous; theinterpretations seembased on a perverse this to detail.Three bookscomefrom attention Right On Tyranny, andNatural period, Persecution and theArtof Writing, and History.The first the general thesisabout hidden book elaborates

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[384] POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

communication and givesdetailedinterpretations of medieval texts.The second is his firstpresentation of a Greekbook. He chose Xenophon becauseXenophon seemsto us a foolbutappeared wiseto olderthinkers. In making his wisdom palpable again, a measure of thedifference between ancient and modernthoughtis established. Plato is always in high philosophic repute, for we can find in himthemes akinto thosestilltalked about today.But we are forced to neglect much more in himthan we pay attention to. He is closerto Xenophonthanhe is to us, and untilwe understand Xenophon, we do not understand Plato. Xenophon is more aliento us, but morereadily becausehe is really comprehensible, simpler andbecausewe arenotled astray bya misleading familiarity. Natural Rightand History a synthesis of Strauss' provides concerns and an unhistorical ofphilosophy. He wasbeginning to see theoutlines history ofancient philosophy while ofthemodern constantly thinking alternatives and confronting them with the ancients.He could now present the classical meaning ofnature andmakeplausible itsuse as a standard. Hence, he could see the intentions of the firstmodernphilosophers who understood thatviewof nature and tried to provide a substitute forit. The laterthinkers triedto resolve difficulties inherent in thenewviewor to improve on it. Thosedifficulties, mademanifest, led not to thereturn to the older view but to the abandonment of nature in favorof history, whichin its first stage seemedto preserve reasonand provide another standard, but which culminated in the rejectionof reason and the disappearance of any standard. He was alwaysthinking of whathe later called "the three wavesof modernity": modern natural right, prepared by Machiavelli and developedby Bacon, Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, and Locke; the crisisof modern natural right and theemergence of history, begunby Rousseauand elaborated byKantand Hegel;radical historicism, begunby Nietzsche and culminating in Heidegger. Strauss was comprehensive, yetprecise, grasping each of the stages at itsrootsandlooking to the most concrete expressions of its intention. He triedto showthatall thequestions arestill open,butthattheprogressive developments, andthe hopesengendered by them, had obscured thealternatives in sucha wayas finallyto make it appear that the perspective of history or cultural relativism is simply andwithout question superior. Eachof thegreat waves began witha Greekinspiration, but thesereturns wereonlypartial and endedin a radicalization ofmodernity. Strauss tookon all comers on their ownterms, addressed himself to thewholetradition. The thirdphase is characterized by a complete abandonment of the form as wellas the content of modern scholarship. Strauss no longer felt

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [385]

boundto makeany compromises or to see thetexts of thescreen through scholarly methodand categories. He had liberated himself and could understand writers as theyunderstood He talked as themselves. with them one wouldtalkwitha wiseand subtlecontemporary of aboutthenature things.The proof that he could do so is these late writings read in their conjunction with those writings about whichhe wrote.Although contents are extremely difficult forus to grasp, areamazingly they simple in form and expression, andsomehave so muchso thatsomemight think, actually thought, thathe was an innocent who pickedup thegreat books and readthem as wouldan ordinary reader thatthey are whowasunaware the preserve of an infinite ofdisconnected number of scholars in a variety disciplines who possess information withoutwhich one understands nothing of them.The distance between thenaivereader's vision and that of the scholaris as greatas the distancebetweenthe commonsense perceptidn oftheworld so great andthatofmodern mathematical physics; is thedistance thatthere them. set remains almost no linkbetween Strauss about restoring thenaivevision, thebelief thatthetruth which includes is the important consideration in the studyof a thinker, thatthetruth is eternal, thatone can study an old writer as one woulda contemporary and that the only concernis what is written, as opposedto its historical, economic, or psychological background. Straussratherenjoyed the for innocence,for it meantthat he had in some measure reputation succeededin recovering the surface of things. He knewthatinnocence once lostis almost impossible to recover. Thecries ofindignation, insisting thatwhathe was doingwas impossible, gavehimsomehope.Butwhat an of themindit took to getback to the simple effort business of thinking about Plato and the others!He had to becomeawarethattherewas a problem;he had to spend years working through the conventional scholarly views;he had to confront the challenges posed by the great founders ofthehistorical ofitsemergence; he schoolandtestthenecessity had to finda wayof seeing thebooksunderthedebris and through eyes which had been rendered to haveat thebeginning weak;he had somehow an inkling oftheancient of philosophy understanding which he couldonly grasp at theend. The wayto readbooks-so small a concern-is thepoint from of modern whichtheproblems philosophy comeintofocus. On this thefreedom ofthemind, question bothin thepractical sensethat depends he who does not know how to read can neverinvestigate the human potential and, in the theoretical sense,thatthe answerto the question determines thenature and thelimits of thehuman mind.Every sentence of these the with a tension from booksis suffused unprepossessing deriving

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[3861 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

of understanding difficulty menat thelevelof Platoand Machiavelli, the ofbeginning difficulty from a caveso different from theone in which they beganandtrying to find thecommon ofrational andthe ground discourse, difficulty thatthere posedby thepowerful is no suchcommon argument ground among ages and cultures.To repeat, Strauss' refutation of historicism consisted in understanding the old philosophers primarily as theyunderstood rather thanunderstanding thembetter themselves, than theyunderstood as did rational or in lightof a themselves, historicism, privileged horizon, as did radical To be ableto reproduce historicism. that olderthought in fullawareness oftheobjections to itis to philosophize. Strauss' writings of the firstperiod were treatedrespectfully, as of a manwithsomewhat scholarly productions interests. eccentric Those of the secondwereconsidered and causedanger.Those of the perverse third periodare ignored. thewaywe lookat Theyseemtoo farawayfrom things and theway we speak.Butthese booksaretheauthentic, thegreat Strauss to which all therestis onlyprolegomena. The earlyworks reveal his searchand his conversion and erectthescaffold forthestructure he was to build. It is only in the laterworksthathe made the concrete analysesof phenomena, elaborated the richdetail of political lifeand discovered thepossible articulations ofthesoul.He wasableto do without mostabstractions and to makethosereaders who werewilling to expend the effort look at the worldaroundthemand see things afresh. He presented things, not generalizations about things. He neverrepeated himself and alwaysbegananew although he was alwayslooking at the samethings. To see this,one needonlyreadthe chapter on theRepublic in The Cityand Man and observe whathe learned aboutthymos anderos as wellas abouttechne in whatmust havebeenhisfiftieth careful reading oftheRepublic. He wasnowtruly at grips with hissubject matter. Strauss beganthisgroupof writings withThoughts on Machiavelli. He foundMachiavelli to be the fountainhead of modern thought and the initiator of the first trulyradicalbreak with the Platonic-Aristotelian politicalphilosophy. Fromhere,through the eyes of a man who really understood theancients, he could mostclearly see how theyappeared to the founder of the modernproject,in both its political and scientific and precisely aspects, to whatMachiavelli objected in them; he couldthus see what Machiavellis' innovation was. Then came The Cityand Man, which moved fromAristotle to Plato to Thucydides, fromthe fully developed classical teachingto its problematic formulation to the pre-philosophic worldout of which it emerged and which it replaced. This enabledhim to see whatphilosophy originally meantand whatthecity

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [3871

The first was beforeit was reinterpreted forthe sake of philosophy. of these two books was his finalstatement on the quarrelbetweenthe The secondwas his attempt to reconstruct ancients and the moderns. not precisely the quarrelbetweenrevelation and reason,but the quarrel between thedivine of incident cityand thenatural one, themostnotable It is to be remarked whichwas theexecution of Socrates. thatin TheCity and Manhe,a manofoversixty forthirty whohad studied Platointensely years, permitted for thefirst ofa himself timeto publish an interpretation Platonic dialogue. The nextthreebooks weredevotedto Socrates of by wayof studies the Aristophanes and Xenophon, and accused poet who understood Socrates the student who defended him.I need not say how fresh versus this approachwas and what a new SocratesStraussfoundfor us in the old Socrates.Strausslooked, as no one else would contemplating today,forthe obviousand simple to wayfora manof delicate perception graspSocratesagain and see if he could evercharm us as he charmed Alcibiades and Plato.Compared to thisrepresentation, all modern studies of Socrates, including arefablesconvenus. Nietzsche's, Finally,his last book, to be published of soon by the University in his seventies, was his first book on Plato,an ChicagoPress,written of Plato'slastbook,theLaws,thedialogue interpretation which Avicenna said was the standard book on prophecy and whichStrauss said was the book on thephilosopher in therealcity, thatthetwoarereally implying one. Strauss toldmea fewweeks he diedthat before there weremany things he stillwouldwantto do ifhis healthwerenot failing. And,surely, with himwenta storeof the mostuseful knowledge. But it seemsto me,now thatI reflect on it,thathe accomplished whathe setout to do.

IV A finalwordon thewayLe'oStrauss wrote. For thosewhoadmire gain or wantto influence the world'sevents, his careeris a disappointment. Onlya tiny number of menwhodidnotfallunder thespellofhispersonal charm wereprofoundly affected byhisbooks.He wasreproached bysome of his friends and admirers for not speaking in the languageand the accentsof current discourse; for he knew so much and had so many unusual perspectives thathe couldhavebecomeone ofthecelebrated men of the age and furthered the causesthatinterested him.Instead, whathe

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[388J POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

wrotewasat onceunprepossessing He neither andforbidding. spoketo the of taste theage nortriedto createa newtaste.Hisretreat from thestage of literary to scholarly to a lack glory cannotbe attributed either dryness, of understanding of poetry, or to an incapacity to write beautifully and powerfully. His passionand his literary are undeniable. Goethewas gifts one ofhismasters, thathe understood andit wasno accident Aristophanes betterthan did Aristophanes' official keepers.Strauss'books contain manysentences of astonishing and paragraphs and force, andin an beauty essaysuchas hisresponse to Kojeveonecan see a rare of publicindulgence his rhetorical skills.His lack of popularity was an act of willrather than a of fate. decree The reasons forthisdecision, insofar arethree. as I can penetrate them, Firstand foremost, Leo Strauss andas with other wasa philosopher, every facetof the complex it is to this madeby thisunusual impression being, simplefact that his choice of literary formcan be traced.He often repeated Hegel'ssaying thatphilosophy mustavoidtrying to be edifying. He was primarily concernedwith finding out for himself and only withcommunicating secondarily whathe foundout,lestthe demands of communication determine theresults ofthequest.Hisapparent selfishness in thisregard was his modeof benefaction, forthere is no greater or rarer gift than intransigent dedicationto the truth.The beauty,he was was there fora certain persuaded, kindof mancapableofa certain kindof labor.The wordsmustreflect theinner beauty ofthethought andnotthe external tastesof the literary market, especially in an unusually untheoretical age.In converting philosophy intononphilosophy forthesakeofan no matter audience, whatother benefits might be achieved, one wouldlose the one thingmost needed. He once said of a particularly famous intellectual that he never wrote a sentencewithout lookingover his shoulder. Of Strauss, it canbe saidthathe never wrote one while doingso. But he is not particularly to be commended forthat,forit was never a temptation forhimto do so. Second,Strauss was acutelyawareof the abusesto which thepublic of philosophy expression is subject.Philosophy is dangerous forit must alwayscall everything intoquestion while in politics noteverything canbe called intoquestion.The peculiar horror of modern tyranny has been its alliancewithperverted philosophy. Strauss no lessand perhaps morethan anymanwas susceptible to theenchantment of therhetoric of Rousseau and Nietzsche, but he also saw to whatextent thepassions theyaroused and the deceptive senseof understanding theyengendered could damage the cause of decency as well as that of philosophy.Aristotleor Maimonides could neverprovide theinspiration or thejustification fora

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [389]

andattracted buttheir voicesweresofter tyrant. Theywereno lessradical, excessive less dangerous passionswhileabandoning hopes.Rousseauwas nor Nietzsche of the Nazis,but therewas not the cause of the Terror the in what they said and something way they said it whichmade it relevant in certain possibleforthemto be misinterpreted politically ways. forspeechand its power, withhis respect thatmenare Strauss, believed an accidentof for what they say. And it was not entirely responsible a attracted that Heidegger, who mostof all contemporaries personality theatmosphere forHitler buteagerly notonlyprepared cultbybrave talk, enlisted hisrhetoric in Hitler's cause. This leads to the third reason, which has to do with Strauss' observations of the differences between ancient and modern philosophy. Modern the unionof philosophy andthecity philosophy hopedto ensure or to rationalize The modern wasalsoliterally a ruler politics. philosopher and a reformer; he therefore became much more involvedin and on politics. thenthe He was first thebringer ofenlightenment, dependent leaderof revolution; thewholedestiny of manandevennature was finally, his responsibility. Modern evenmanifestos writings werepublicteachings, and party programs. Ancient writings had a muchmoremodest intention, on the opinionthatpolitics grounded mustalwaysbe less thanrational, thatreasonmustprotect and thatthereis onlya tinynumber of itself, menwho can potentially andhenceunderstand theteachings philosophize of philosophy. is an interest of philosophy, There one notidentical to that of any possibleregime, and that is what a philosopher mustdefend. to three Ancient intentions. philosophy had a rhetoric too,butonelimited the preservation of whatwas knownforthosewho could knowit and thosewho wouldadaptit to the needsof thetime;theattracting against of the fewwho could knowto a lifeof knowing and the discouraging of and theprocuring others; of a good reputation forphilosophy in order to ensureits toleration the variousregimes within as theycameand went. Strauss believedthe ancientviewwas correct to write and learned as he read.Ourspecialcircumstances required a reminder of thesevere discipline of philosophy and its distancefrom populartaste. Strauss had no great hopes.He lefthis works as resources forthosewho might experience the need to study thetradition, begging no one and condescending to no one. He thought it possiblethatphilosophy might disappear utterly from the he thought world, although nature supported it. He didhisbestby finding out whatphilosophy is and by trying to tell others. At mosthe hoped theremight be a third someday humanism, or renaissance, after thoseof Italyand Germany, but thistimeinspired neither by thevisual beauty of

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[390] POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

of their the Greeks' statues, and buildings norby the grandeur paintings, poetry, but by thetruth of their He provided thebridge philosophy. from whichwould help this new beginning. to antiquity But he modemity never he couldreform believed humankind. Strauss' tastealwaysled himto look at thesimple, theordinary, and the superficial. He said thatonly by theclosest attention to thesurface could one getto thecore;he also saidthesurface is thecore.It waspartly a gentleman's that caused him to preferJane Austen to restraint Dostoyevsky, but it was morethatherreserve, andapparent sensibleness, attention thedeeper andmoredangerous onlyto thenicethings pennitted He detested things to emergein theirproperproportions. the pose of profundity and thatcombination of sentimentality and brutality which not from constituted butbecausethey contemporary taste, anymoralism are philistine and boring.Most of all, he detestedmoralindignation, of self-indulgence, becauseit is a form All ofthis andit distorts themind. led himto delight in Xenophon, whoappeared to be thebluff retired army colonelwith of theevents endless stories he participated inand of themen he knew but to the level of whomhe never attained, yet who really dominatedwith his graceful ironythose who through the ages have thought theyweresubtle.Thiswas thewriter who presented us withthe liberal Cyrus and let us figure out forourselves whatMachiavelli tellsus: that thereare two forms of liberality, one practised withone's own and one practised property withotherpeople'sproperty, and thatCyrus in the latterform.The discovery specializedexclusively of such an intriguing, enigmatic writer was a wayof entering intoan alienworld of thoughtthat Strauss preferred to the well-traveled roads whichare probably of our construction. He preferred the commonplaceand he couldgeta firm rather neglected, becausethatis where on things grasp thanwords.He learned before he learned Xenophon Plato,and whenhe wantedto understand Plato he studied theMinosor theApologyrather thantheParnenidesor thePhilebus, not becausehe wasnotinterested in theideasbutprecisely becausehe was. Thus,thebooksof hisripeness arealmost as aliento us as arethebooks with which he dealt. I recently re-read Thoughts on Machiavelli and realized thatit is not at all a book as we ordinarily understand a book. If one sitsdownand readsit as one readsa treatise, itscontents areguarded by sevenseals;it provides us witha fewaridgeneralizations thatlooklike oases in a sandydesert.But the book is reallya way of life,a sortof philosophy kit.First one must knowMachiavelli's textvery wellandhave it constantly inhand.Andas soonas one getsacquainted with Machiavelli,

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bloom / LEO STRAUSS [3911

without one sees thathe cannotbe understood knowing Livy'stextvery well. One must firstread it on its own and try to forma Livian of Livy,and thenlet Machiavelli act as one'sguideinorder interpretation to arrive of Livy.It is in our coming to at a Machiavellian interpretation the awareness of thedifference these twointerpretations thatone between getsone's first inkling of whatMachiavelli is about.On theway one is forced to become involvedin concretedetails that take time and reflection. For example,Machiavelli's about shockingly wittyremark Hannibal's"inhuman and othervirtues"only takes on its full cruelty fromthe factthatit is based on a passagein Livywhere he significance discusses Hannibal's ofvirtues andvices;according mixture to Livy strange Hannibal's Thisis onlya sample of majorvicewas his "inhuman cruelty." of an infinity suchcharming and illuminating details whenput in which, constitute as opposedto an abstract, of order, a concrete, consciousness thepolitical Thenone realizes phenomenon. thatStrauss' book bearsthe same relation to Machiavelli's book as does Machiavelli's book to Livy's book. The complexity of Strauss' is mind-boggling; it is nota undertaking bornof the desire to obfuscate; it is a mirror of reality. One complexity mustcome to know Machiavelli's enormous cast of characters-Brutus, Fabius, David, Cesare Borgia,Ferdinand of Aragon, and so on-and be interested in their actionand see the problems theyrepresent. One must care aboutthemas one caresaboutthe persons in a novel.Thenone can beginto generalize And Machiavelli seriously. and Livywill not do, for Machiavelli pointsus to Xenophon, Tacitus, theBible,and many Cicero, otherwriters. One mustconstantly stop, consultanothertext,tryto penetrate another character, and walk aroundthe roomand think. One mustuse a penciland paper,makelists, and count. It is an unending task, one that continually evokes that wonderat what previously seemed which Aristole commonplace of philosophy. saysis the origin One learns whatit meansto live withbooks;one is forced to makethema partof one's experience and life.Whenone returns to Strauss' book,after having left it under his guidance,it suddenlybecomes as gripping as the denouement of a drama.As one is drawnthrough the matter by the passionto makesenseofwhathasinvolved one forso long, suddenly there a magic appears formula which thecloudslikethesunto illuminate pierces theappearance a gorgeous between of thisbook landscape.The distance is amazing. anditsreality It is a possession forlife. Whatthefateof thesebooks willbe, I do not know.Thosewho have as were livedwiththemovera periodof manyyearshavebeen changed Glauconand Adeimantus by the night theyspentwithSocrates. They

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

[3921 POLITICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1974

learned thesplendors of a kindof soul anda wayoflifewhich nothing in to political their wouldhaverevealed to them. experience Theyreturned life,stillordinary men-for nature cannotbe changed. But,sincepolitics of thebestpossible has as its goal theencouragement life,theyreturned withnew expectations witha radically and prayers. alteredperspective, For therest, I cannothelpbut believethatLeo Strauss' evenif writings, are not grasped, will exercisea powerful their broader implications of influence on the future. They are such a richlode of interpretations books still of concern that they will, due to the povertyof the attract theyoung. intellectual competition, Willy-nilly, political scientists, historians, medievalists, classicists,literarycritics,and, last of all, of philosophy, willfindthattheyhaveto usehisterms professors andhis thattheywill continually, withmore or less good will, interpretations, haveto respond to questions will outsidetheir conventions, and thatthey haveto facetheapostasy oftheir beststudents. Echoing theApology with what will seem a threatto some, a blessing to others,I believeour generation may well be judgedby thenextgeneration according to how wejudgedLeo Strauss. NOTES
1. If one wishesto see thedevelopment of Strauss'thoughtthrough his studies,it would be well to compare the "Prefaceto the EnglishEdition" of Spinoza's Critique ofReligion (Shocken, New York, 1965) withthe book itself. 2. TheCity andMan (Rand McNally,Chicago, 1964).

This content downloaded from 142.104.240.194 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 02:33:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions