View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
1/17
University of Utah, Western Political Science Association and Sage Publications, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
University of Utah
Western Political Science ssociation
Leo Strauss on MachiavelliAuthor(s): Robert J. McSheaSource: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), pp. 782-797Published by: on behalf of theUniversity of Utah Western Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/445843Accessed: 17-02-2016 13:49 UTC
EFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/445843?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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 contentin 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.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/utahhttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/445843http://www.jstor.org/stable/445843?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/445843?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/445843http://www.jstor.org/publisher/wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/utahhttp://www.jstor.org/7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
2/17
LEO
STRAUSS
ON
MACHIAVELLI
ROBERT
J.
MCSHEA
Columbia
University
I
T IS
CUSTOMARY,
in
reporting
n the
views
of
a
political
writer,
o
go
di-
rectly
o his
work nd
discuss he
validity
nd
interest
f
his
findings.
curious
aspect
of
Strauss' ook
on
Machiavelli' s that
here
re,
n the
strict cademic
sense,
lmost
no
"findings,"
lthough
here
s
a
great
deal
that s
of
considerable
interest. he book
s,
n
fact,
ot o much
study
f
Machiavelli
s it s the
xempli-
fication f
an
ideology.
We have seen such
exemplifications
n
the recent
ast
Marxist
nalyses
f
Plato,
positivist
ewriting
f
biology,
roletarian
ovels,
sycho-
analytic
tudies f Hamlet
somemerely izarre, omethought-provoking;hey
ordinarily
hare he
characteristicf
telling
more f the
deology
hanof the
ubject
chosen o
llustratet.
That
Strauss'
tudy
s
of
thischaracter s indicated
n
the
beginning,
here
he
remarks
that
"...
we
shall
later
on
try
o
prove,
that
Machiavelli's
teaching
is
immoral
nd
irreligious...."
2
and,
"Our
critical
tudy
f
Machiavelli's
eaching
can
ultimately
ave no
other
urpose
han
o contributeoward
he
recovery
f
the
permanent roblems."
Hence,
n
discussing
trauss'
work,
we
ought
o direct
ur main
attention
o ts
ideological
quintessence.
n fact
we
must;
the
quotations
bove
indicate
learly
thatwecannot xpect o follow trauss hrough isstudy fMachiavelliunlesswe
first
nderstand hat
assumptions
nderlie hat
study.
How
does
one
"prove"
to
readers
who
are
of
various
eligious
ersuasions,
r
of
none at
all,
that omewriter
is
"immoral nd
rreligious"
A
scrutiny
f
theStraussian utlook s
hampered y
our
difficulty
n
discovering
what t
actually
s. The
interpretativeroblem
riginates
eithern his
vagueness
f
thought
or
n
ineptitude
f
expression.
trauss
has a
precise
nd
powerful
om-
mand
of
language,
n
outstanding
astery
f the tools nd
techniques
f
scholar-
ship,
nd
a most
uncommonlyrofound
ntellect.The current
mystery
s
to
the
nature
f
his
message
rises rom
is
own
ntentions;
e
does
not
wish o tell
us,
n
bald
propositional
erms,
hat son hismind.A
regrettableonsequence
f this
p-
proach
s
that,
hough
heusual rules
f
fair
nterpretation
illbe
attempted
ere,
t
cannot
e certain hat he onclusions ill
meetwith trauss'
pproval.
he
purpose
underlying
is calculated
bscurity
an,
of
course,
e
only
subject
or
peculation.
Strauss
s
most
generally
nown s a
modern-dayxponent
f
the
natural-right
thesis:4
Nevertheless,
he
need
for
natural
ight
s as
evident
oday
s
it
has been
for
enturiesnd even
millennia.To
reject
natural
ight
s
tantamount
o
saying
hat
ll
right
s
positive ight,
nd
1
Leo
Strauss,Thoughts
on Machiavelli
(Glencoe:
Free
Press, 1958).
2 bid.,p. 12.
SIbid.,
.
14.
4For
present purposes,
the
distinction
between natural
right
and
natural
law
is
not
vital.
Strauss' own method
of
using
"natural law" when
speaking
of the
classics and "natural
right"
when
alluding
to the
moderns,
s followed
throughout.
782
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
3/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON MACHIAVELLI
783
this
means
hatwhat s
right
s determined
xclusively
y
the
egislators
nd the
courts f the
various
ountries.5
It would
seem, hen,
hat
the
rejection
f
natural
ight
s bound to lead
to disastrous
on-
sequences.'
The exact
character f the
natural-right
hesismaintained
y
Strauss s not
made
sufficiently
lear.
Many
readers f
the
following assage
wouldconclude hat
Strauss as declared
imself
o
be a Thomist:
The
Thomistic octrine f
natural
ight
r,
more
generally
xpressed,
f
natural aw
is free
from
he
hesitationsnd
ambiguities
hich re characteristic
f
the
eachings,
ot
only
f Plato
and
Cicero,
utof
Aristotles well.'
...
the Thomistic
iew of
natural
aw
is
that
natural
aw
is
practically
nseparable
.
.
from
revealed
theology.8
Does Strauss
wish
o
separate
atural
aw
from
evealed
heology?
t would
not
appear
so:
Bowing
o
the
principle
f
authority
s sterile
f
t
is
not followed
y
surrendero
authority
itself,.e.,
to
this r that
uthority.
f
this
tep
s
not taken
ne
willremain nmeshed
n the
religiousonging
r the
religiosity
o
characteristic
four
centuries,
nd will
notbe iberated
y
religion
tself.9
Strauss
ppears
here o assert hat
natural-right
hesis
s
correct,
nd that
t
s
best
presented
n Thomistic
hilosophy,
herein
t is
shown
o be
inseparable
rom
e-
vealed
theology.
To
continue
he
exposition
f the
surface
f theStraussian octrine
n
another
field: Strauss efers
requently
o "the classical-Biblicalradition."
0
The
place
of this raditionn
history
s
explained
n
the
following
anner: The Bible
presents
an authoritative
orality
utnot science
f
politics
r a
natural-law
octrine.
he
classics
Plato,
Aristotle
nd
Cicero)
contain
political
hilosophy
nd a
natural-
law
theory
ontaining
hesitations
nd
ambiguities."
he two
raditions
re
synthe-
sized
by
Thomas.
Shortly
hereafter,
achiavelli
ejected
he
ynthesis
nd bothof
its
lements,
nd
naugurated
hemodern
ge.
There
are, then,
wo main
periods
n
political
hought:
he
classical
later
merged
withbiblical
lements)
asting p
to and
including
quinas,
nd
the
mod-
em,
starting
ithMachiavelli. "The
tradition hat
originated
n
classicalGreece
wasrejectedn thesixteenthnd seventeenthenturiesnfavor f a newpolitical
philosophy."
11
Strauss'
view
of
classical
political
philosophy
not
unreasonable
f
we
con-
fine
our
view
to the three hinkersmentioned
bove is that
t
aimed
at
virtue
rather han
freedom,12
t took its
bearings
y
how
men
ought
o
ive,"
3
and it
was
conservative.14
'
Leo
Strauss,
Natural
Right
and
History (Chicago:
University
f
Chicago Press,
1953), p.
2.
6
Ibid.,
p.
3.
7
Ibid.,
p.
163.
8
Ibid.,
p.
164.
SThoughts
onMachiavelli, pp. 165-66.
10
bid.,
p. 12,
et
passim.
'
Leo
Strauss,
What
is
Political
Philosophy?
(Glencoe:
Free
Press,
1959), p.
79.
a2
bid.,
p.
36.
*
Natural
Right
and
History, .
178.
14
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p.
298.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
4/17
784
THE WESTERN POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
Biblical
references
n
Strauss re
much ess
frequent
han classical
references,
yet
their
mportance
orhis
thinking
ight
e
considered
reater.
We
have noted
his ntent oprove hatMachiavelli's eachingsboth mmoral ndirreligious.he
general
irection rom
which hat
proof
erives
s ndicated
n
the tatement:
If it
is
true,
s I
believe
t
s,
that
he
Bible ets orth he
demands f
morality
nd
religion
in
their
purest
nd
most
ntransigent
orm
."
15
Indicated,
ut
no more
than
that: we still o
not
know,
nor
willwe
later
earn,
whose
xegesis
f theBible
s to
prevail.
Here
s
another eference
elated o this
ssue:
"But et
us
grant
hat
politi-
cal science
s autonomous
n
ts
phere
nd
can
be
treated
without
nyregard
o
the
teaching
f
the
Bible,
ince
the Bible tself
resents
he
non-prophet ethro
s
the
teacher f the
prophet
Moses
in
things
olitical."
6
The
operative
word here s
"since";
something
s true bout
political
cience
because the Bible
says
t
is
true.
Strausss an extremelyarefulwriter; e rarely sesthephrase political cience"
in
place
of
"political hilosophy."
e has used the
uthority
f
the
Bibleto
exclude
theBiblefrom
olitical
cience;
yet
t
certainly
as notbeen
excluded
rom
olitical
philosophy.
It
may
be concededthatcertain ommon
lementsn the
teachings
f
Plato,
Aristotle,
nd
Cicero
might
egitimately
e referred
o as
"classical
radition." ow-
ever,
he
phrases
the
Biblical tradition" nd
"the
teachings
f
the Bible" as used
by
Strauss ack
specific
eference.
s for classical nd biblical radition unless
an
oblique
reference
o Thomism
s
intended
in Strauss' wn terms o such on-
cept eems ossible.
A third
major
aspect
of
Strauss'
hought
s his attack
on
modernity.
peak-
ing
of
modem
cholars,
e
says:
They
misinterpret
achiavelli's
udgment
oncerningeligion,
nd likewise is
udgment
on-
cerning
morality,
ecause
hey
re
pupils
f Machiavelli.Their
eemingly
pen-mindedtudy
of
Machiavelli's
hought
s based on
the
dogmatic cceptance
f
his
principles.
hey
do
not
see theevil
character
f
his
thought
ecause
hey
re theheirs
f
the
Machiavellian
radition;
because
hey,
r
the
forgotten
eachers f their
eachers,
ave
been
corrupted y
Machiavelli."7
It
is not
easy
to
delimit
he
scope
of
the
attack;
few nstances
hould
uffice
to illustratehis
oint.
The
contemporary
ejection
f
natural
ight
leads
to
nihil-
ism nay, t is identicalwithnihilism";
8
the current tate of political heory
"became
understanding
f what
practice
as
produced
r
of the
actual and ceased
to
be
the
quest
for
what
ought
o be"
19
"theresult
f this eduction
f
the
political
to the
sociological
as
in
group
theory),
s
in
fact a formalism
nrivaled n
any
scholasticismf the
past."
0
For
moderns,
propaganda
s
to
guarantee
he
coinci-
denceof
philosophy
nd
political
ower.
Philosophy
s to fulfill
he
function
fboth
philosophy
nd
religion."
1
Elsewhere
he attack s concentrated n the
modern
'"
bid.,
p.
133.
"
Ibid.,
p.
176.
1 Ibid.,p. 12.
*
Natural
Right
nd
History,.
5.
19
bid.,
p.
320.
2
Leo
Strauss,
Epilogue,"
ssays
on the
Scientific
tudyof
Politics,
d. Herbert
. Storing
(New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart
nd
Winston,1962), p.
319.
n
Thoughts
n
Machiavelli,
.
297.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
5/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON
MACHIAVELLI
785
reliance
pon
nstitutions,22
n
humanism,23
n
parochialism
f modern
hinkers,24
on ethical
elativism,25
nd on
iberalism.26
Admittedly,riticismfa socialorder salways ppropriatendperhaps ever
more
o than
now,
whendecisive
hoices
eem o
exist,
nd
the
possibility
f
mend-
ment
s
real. But
there
re
at leasttwo ines f
objection
o
the
criticisms ade
by
Strauss.
Firstly,
hey
ontain
nothing
ew. Other
critics,
more at home
n our
society
han
Strauss
eems
o
be,
have
carped
t
modernism
ore
everely
nd
more
coherently.
econdly,
mostof his
readers re
likely
o
prefer
o bear the lls
they
have rather han
fly
o
others
hey
now
but
too
well,for,
lthough
is
censures re
responsible
o the
extent f
ncluding
n alternative
o
modernity,
t
seems
hat he
preferredystem
nvolves return o
some
unspecified
ld-time
eligion27
nd
pre-
Archimedean
echnology,28ecessitating
slave
conomy
nd an authoritariantate.
On thebasisoftheforegoingvidence,tmighteemfair oargue hat trauss'
natural-right
heory
s
close
to
that
f
Aquinas
nd that he
prevalent
iew
s to his
classical
preferences
oes not take
sufficiently
nto
account
his commitmento an
absolute
morality
nd
reliance
n biblical
uthority.
II
These
conclusions,
ased on
the
Straussian
ext,
may
not
atisfy
he
thoughtful
reader. Can
the
mpression
f
Strauss' xclusive ommitment
o the classical
deal
be
completely
istaken?Do
not the
enigmatic
haracter
f his
style,
he
frequent
appearanceofcontradictionnhisreasoning,ndhisownbeliefnotmerelyn the
existence
ut
in
the
desirability
f
concealed
eachings,
ntitle
s
to
searchfor n
esoteric
traussian octrine?
A
reviewer
f
What
s Political
hilosophy?
ited he
failure
fStrauss o notice
that "the
decisivebreak
withclassic
politicalphilosophy
as
accomplished
many
centuries efore
Machiavelli
y
theChurch
Fathers,
specially
y
St.
Augustine."
9
This
observation
s
critical
n
that t
focuses
n
a fundamentalncoherence
f the
exoteric
eaching
f
Strauss.
He
himself
ays
hat one
mayobject
to Machiavelli's
view of
the relation etween
moralvirtue nd the common
ood by
saying
hat t
abolishes he
essential ifferenceetween ivil
ocieties
nd bands
of robbers
....*30
This is a curious tatement;hephrase"bandsof robbers" temsnot from
Machiavelli utfrom
ugustine
ho,
fter
ffirming
hat
arthly
ocieties
re neces-
sarily
without
ustice, oes
on to
say
that
kingdoms
re
but
great
obberies.31
he
germ
f
the
thought oes
further
ack,
to
theearlierChurch
Fathers,
o
Paul,
and
to
the
aying:
Render hereforento
Caesar
the
hings
hich re
Caesar's;
and
to
22Natural
Right
and
History,
.
193.
23
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p.
78.
24
bid.,
p.
231.
'
Ibid.,
p.
11.
2
Ibid.,
p.
298.
2,
Ibid., pp. 165-66.
Ibid.,
pp.
296-98.
*
Herbert
A.
Deane,
Review
of
What
is
Political
Philosophy? by
Leo
Strauss,
American
Politi-
cal Science
Review,
55
(March 1961),
149-50.
3O
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p.
259.
3
Augustine
The
City of
God vi. 4.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
6/17
786
THE WESTERN POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
God the
things
hat
re
God's."
32
The
radical
eparation
f
morality
nd
politics,
thedenialof
the deal of
classical
olitical hilosophy,
oes
back
notto the
blasphe-
merMachiavelli ut to the
founder
f theChristian
eligion.
What
n
a less areful
writer
might
e
dismissed
s a harmless
malapropism
s,
n
Strauss,
more
ikely
o be
a
deliberate
ttempt
o communicate secret
eaching.
Apparently ontradicting
he
understanding
f
Strauss'
ntent hown
n
the
Deane
quotation
bove,
J.
H.
Hallowell
claims
of
Strauss:
"The
natural
aw
doc-
trine
f the
Middle
Ages ppears
o
him
to be
a
distortion
f
theClassical
tradition
caused
by
the
ntroduction
f beliefs
mported
rom
evelation."
3
The contradic-
tion
s
merely pparent:
Deane
is
arguing gainst
he Straussian xoteric
octrine
while
Hallowell
s
pointing
o
the
soteric octrine
True,
textual
upport
orHallo-
well's
bservation
s not
bundant,
ut
t
s
firmnd clear:
A work ikeMontesquieu's
pirit f
Laws ismisunderstoodf onedisregardshefact hat t s
directed
gainst
he
Thomistic
iew
of
natural
ight.
Montesquieu
ried o recover or
tates-
manship
latitudewhich
had
been
considerably
estricted
y
theThomistic
eaching...
it s
safe
to
say
thatwhat he
explicitly
eaches,
s a
student
f
politics
nd as
politically
ound
and
right,
s
nearer
n
spirit
o the
lassics
han
o
Thomas."4
Hallowell
has
interpreted
his
passage
to mean
that here s a real conflict
etween
theChristian thos
nd
the
lassical iew
f
politics.
In
the final
two
pages
of
Thoughts
n
Machiavelli,
Strauss
wonders what
essential efect f
classical
political hilosophy"
5
caused
tsdemise. He
goes
on to
suggest
hatunrestrained
echnological
hange,
articularly
f
a
military
haracter,
wastoblame. In the
period
f
Cicero,
lassic
olitical hilosophy
as nfull
loom;
in
the time f
Constantine
t was
utterly estroyed.
We
search
n
vain
forhistorical
evidence
f
a
degree
f
technological
hange
n
this
eriod
ufficient
o
account
for
the
break. Strausshas made
a
"blunder,"
significant
blunder,"
y
which
he
points
o thereal cause of the udden
eathof "The GreatTradition":
t
was Chris-
tianity.
For
some
reason,
which
will
be
explored
ater,
trauss
does
not
want
to
state
he eal cause.
Speaking
f
the
Thomistic iew
of
natural
aw,
Strauss
ays:
"Modernnatural
law was
partly
reaction
o this
bsorption
f
natural
aw
by theology."
6
There
aremany mplicationsn Strauss, imilar o thisone,to thefollowingffect: he
failure
f
modern heorists
o return
o the classical dea
of
natural aw
followed
from
he
factthat
the medieval hinkers
ad
so
thoroughly
elded
the
concept
f
natural aw
to
revealed
heology
hat
he atter ould not
be
discardedwithout
oss
of,
r serious
amage
to,
he
former.
hristianity
s
tacitly
eld
responsible
ot
only
for
he
original
ejection
f
classical
natural
aw,
but
also for
ts
perversion
nd later
rejection
t a timewhen
t
might
avebeenrevived.
We
have now
to
account
or trauss'
pparent
pproval
f
Christianity
n
gen-
eral and
of
Catholicism
n
particular.
Why
does he
shift
he
blamefor hedestruc-
32Matt. 22: 21.
a
John
H.
Hallowell,
Review
of Natural
Right
and
History,
by
Leo
Strauss,
American Political
Science
Review,
48
(June
1954),
538-41.
4
Natural
Right
and
History, .
164.
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
pp.
298-99.
Natural
Right
and
History,
.
164.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
7/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON MACHIAVELLI
787
tion
of the
classic view from
Christianity
o Machiavelli?
Why
the
frequent
favor-
able
references
o
Aquinas,
with whom Strauss has
no
real connection?
Of
all the
major political writers fterAquinas, why is Burke,not Catholic himselfbut with
an odd
(and
oddly reciprocated) affinity
or Catholic
thought,
he
only
one toler-
ated? In
the
attacks
on
modernity,
why
s it
necessary
o
explicitly
nd so often
to
except
Catholicism?
Strauss is not
merely
an admirer
of
classical
thought.
He
actually
desires
a
returnto
the
type
of
society
envisaged
by
Plato and
Cicero,
a
society
een
as
hier-
archical or
aristocratic,37
onservative,38
nd
endowed with a state
religion.
In this
Strauss is
at
one
with the
main stream
of
Catholic
thought.
He avers that
Spinoza
was
permitted
to
say things
which shocked
part
of
the
community
because he had
the
support
of
another
part.9
The
opening
phrase
of
Thoughts
on Machiavelli is:
"We shall not shockanyone....
."
40 From thestandpointof current cademic think-
ing,
Strauss'
attack on
Machiavelli
is, however,
hocking.41
Does
Strauss venture
his
shocking teachings,
as
did
Spinoza,
in
the
hope
of
support
from
strongminority
roup?
If this s
the
case,
we must ook further nto
the
reference o
Spinoza.
The
support
which
Spinoza
received
from
part
of the com-
munity
was
gained,
we are
told,42
n
false
pretenses;
n his esoteric
teaching
Spinoza
propounds
a
doctrine which would
(if fully omprehended)
have been
rejected
by
the
whole
community.
Does not a
study
of the
Straussian
esoteric
teaching
suggest
that
he
is,
as far as
religious
doctrine
s
concerned,
not a Catholic
fellow-traveler ut
that
he
proposes
to allow the Catholics to use him so that he
may
use them
4
Such
a
mutuality
f interest etween a monolithic tate church and a
philosophic
elite has
been
the rule in
Western states
up
until recent times
and
yet
survives,
most
notably
on the
Iberian
peninsula.
The surface
mprobability
f
this dea will diminish
when
we
come
to
consider Strauss'
theory
f
concealed
teaching.
Recalling
that Machiavelli was
not
against
religion
s
such,
that he
favored the
Roman
religion
over
the
Christianity
f
his
day
for
reasons of state
only,
we contend
that
Strauss and
Machiavelli are
in
agreement
on
some
of
the most
significant
s-
pects
of
political thought,
ven to the
details
of
a
return o
ancient
modes and orders
and
the
manipulation
of the masses
by
a
synthetic
eligion.
It
might
be
thought
hat the
unrelenting
ternnesswith whichStrauss
castigates
Machiavelli's
morality
ould be based
only
on
an
ethical absolutism." From
some
controversies
hat have
appeared
in
scholarly
ournals,
it
might
be
thought
that
Harry
V.
Jaffa
holds
a
position
at least similarto that of
Strauss.
Jaffa
declares that
"
Thoughts
n
Machiavelli,
.
294.
38
Ibid.,
p.
298.
39
What s Political
hilosophy?
.
225.
40
P. 9. This
placative
phrase
contrasts
with the
closing
nine lines of
the
book
(p.
299)
where
it
seems to
be
implied
that the destruction
f
the
world,
a real concern
today,
might
be a
good thing.
41
If not shocking, henamusing. It would certainly omplicatethe life of thepolitical student
if,
in
addition
to
his
present
duties,
he had to determine
the
degree
of
blasphemy
and
heresy
n
the
thought
f
each
major
writer.
42
What is
Political
Philosophy?
pp.
225-26.
3
It
is
not
implied
here
or
elsewhere
hat Strauss'
nterest
s
otherthan
philosophic.
SThis
moral criticism
s
treated
n
greater
detail below.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
8/17
788
THE WESTERN POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
no
classicalnatural
ight
octrine
would ver
ground
ny
rule
faction
n
universal
necessity.
...
All moral
action,
ccording
o
Aristotle,
s
in
accordance
with
pru-
dence. Prudence
ictates hatwe
always
eek
the
greater ood,
or
the esser
vil,
n
any
given
nstance.
....
It is obvious hatno one can tellwhatactionwill be
right
without ttention o the circumstancesn which he ction akes lace....
"
45
We
may
contend hat
Strauss annot
be committed
o an
absolute
morality
because he is committed
o
classic
political
philosophy.
Our
contention oes
not
merely
epend
upon
his
presumed
greement
ith
Jaffa,
ut
follows
qually
from
the
accuracy
of
Jaffa's
nterpretation
f Aristotle nd
from
he extent
o
which
Strauss s
committed
o the
Aristotelian
osition.
The classicalwriters
ased
theirnatural aw
theory
n a
seeming
eleological
order
f nature. This s
certainly
hemost vident
asisfor uch
theory,
fnot the
only ompletelyntelligiblene. If the moral aw is to exist utside f,and inde-
pendently
f,
he
mind f the
ndividual,
he
pparent
lternativeocus
of tsexist-
ence must ie in the
totality
f
the
external
world,
whether t be encountered
s
object
of
sense
xperience,
ntuited n the manner
f the
Parmenidean
One,"
or
pointed
o
as
noumenon r
thing-in-itself.46
f
that
niverse
Otherness,
xternality,
Objectivity
its
ontological
haracter
s
here,
no
pun
intended,
mmaterial)
s
to
be a
source
fnatural
aw,
of
morality,
tmust tself
e
moral, .e.,
purposive.
trauss
agrees
hat
the
scientific
uestion
s to the
nature
f
the
cosmos
eems
decided
n
favor f a
nonteleological
niverse;47
the
very
ook takento
be
an affirmation
f
the
natural-rights
hesis ontains
ut
n
attack
n the
onsequences
fthe
noncogni-
tive heory.
In this
onnection,
shift
n
Strauss'
hinking
s of
special
nterest.
n
the
two
earlier
books,
Natural
Right
and
History
and The
Political
Philosophy
of
Hobbes,
the
rejection
f classical
politicalphilosophy
s
seen to
start
withHobbes and
to
derivefrom
he
mechanistic
iew of the universe.
The
later,
nd more
ngenious
theory,
o
be
found in
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli
and
What
is Political
Philosophy?
reverses
he
process:
n
seeking
o
make
roomfor
tatesmanship,
o
rescue
politics
from
anon
aw,
Machiavelli
felthe had
to break
with
bothrevealed
heology
nd
natural
aw.
In
parting
rom he
atter,
e
rejected
he
teleological onception
f
theuniverse48nd thus reated heconditionsor heexistencefnatural cience.49
III
We turn
ow
to
Strauss'
heory
fconcealed
eaching
nd rules or
eading
nd
in
so
doing
movefrom
consideration
f
Strauss'
eneral
utlook o the
nalysis
f
his
tudy
f
Machiavelli.
The
principle
nvolved
n the oncealed
eaching heory
s:
4
Harry
V.
Jaffa,
Comment
on
Oppenheim,"
American
Political
Science
Review,
51
(March
1957), p.
62.
The comment
s in
reply
to the
immediately
receding
article
n the same
issue,
wherein
Felix E.
Oppenheim,
n "The Natural
Law Thesis: Affirmation
r Denial?"
pp. 41-53, argues
against
the natural-law thesis
n
general
and
particularly
s held
by
Strauss.
*
There are, of course,other bases for a belief n natural law. One puts it in themindofGod,
another
in
the
nature
of
man.
The
first
ppears
supererogatory,
he
second has never
been
coherently
ormulated.
4
Natural
Right
and
History, .
8.
8
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli, p.
222.
4
The break was
not
quite complete;
Machiavelli retained
"Fortuna,"
a
concept
which varies
in his
writings
rom
mere unforeseeable
ccident
to
"Fate."
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
9/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON
MACHIAVELLI
789
Philosophy
or
science,
the
highest ctivity
f
man,
is the
attempt
o
replace opinion
about
"all
things" by knowledge
of
"all
things";
but
opinion
is
the element
of
society;
philosophy
or
science is therefore
he
attempt
to dissolve the
element
n
which
society
breathes,
nd
thus it
endangerssociety. Hence philosophyor science must remain thepreserveofa smallminority,
and
philosophers
or scientistsmust
respect
the
opinions
on
which
society
rests. To
respect
opinions
s
something
ntirely
ifferent
rom
ccepting
them as true.
Philosophers
or scientists
who
hold this view
about the relation
of
philosophy
r science
and
society
re driven
to
employ
a
peculiar
manner of
writing
which would enable them to reveal what
theyregard
as the truth
to a
few,
without
endangering
the
unqualified
commitment f
the
many
to the
opinions
on
which
society
ests.
They
will
distinguish
etween the true
teaching
s the esoteric
eaching
and
the
socially
useful
teaching
as
the exoteric
teaching;
whereas
the exoteric
teaching
is meant
to be
easily
accessible to
every
reader,
the esoteric
teaching
discloses
tself
nly
to
very
careful
and well-trained eaders after
ong
and concentrated
tudy."0
Strauss believes that some
degree
of concealed
teaching
is to be
found
in
all
serious
philosophic
works
up
to
very
recent times.
He
specifically
ames
in
one
pas-
sage
twenty-two
riters,
anging
from
Anaxagoras
to
Kant,
who were
subject
to
per-
secution
to some
measurable extent
and who
may
be
expected
to
have
attempted
to
convey ndirectly
more than
they
xplicitly
aid.51
Strauss accuses our modern
age
of
having
lost
the art of
reading
the old texts
correctly
nd
presents
a set
of rules
for
reading
whereby
we
may regain
that
art.52
The
subjective
attitude of the scholar
applying
the rules
s also
important.
Precom-
mitment
s,
of
course,
disqualification:
If the
historian tarts
from he
acceptance
of
any
solution of the fundamental
problems:
if
he
knows
n
advance
that a
given philosophic
doctrine
which
he is
studying
s
false,
he
lacks the
incentivefor
tudying
hat doctrinewith
ympathy
nd
care...."5
Rather
disconcertingly,
t
turns ut that
ack of
commitment
s
also a
disqualifi-
cation:
One
cannot
see
the
true
character
of Machiavelli's
thought
unless
one frees himself from
Machiavelli's influence.
For
all
practical
purposes
this
means that one cannot see the true
character
of Machiavelli's
thought
unless
one recovers for himself and
in himself the
pre-
modern
eritage
f
heWestern
orld,
othBiblical nd
classical."
His
study
of
Machiavelli
contains
Strauss'
most extensive
application
of
his
theory
of concealed
teaching.
Let
us
follow
his
argument
and
attempt
to decide
whetherthe
method
produces
the resultclaimed for
t,
namely,
better
understand-
ing
of the
text.55
Machiavelli was a
good
choice. Here is
a
writer
who
evidently
s
aware of his
peril:
Although
he envious ature f
man,
o
prompt
o blame nd
so
slow o
praise,
makes
he
dis-
covery
nd
introduction
f
ny
new
principles
nd
systems
s
dangerous
lmost s the
xplora-
tion f
unknowneas
..
I
have
resolved
o
open
new
route,
which
as
not
yet
been
followed
by ny
one,
nd
may rove
ifficultnd
troublesome.
....
"5
What
is
Political
Philosophy?pp.
221-22.
"
Leo
Strauss,
Persecution and the Art
of Writing
Glencoe:
Free
Press,
1951),
p.
33.
52
bid., pp.
30-32.
*
What
is
Political
Philosophy?p.
229.
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p.
12.
*
The
questions
of
the existence and
importance
of "concealed
teachings"
are more
complex
than Strauss'
published
writings
n
the
subject
indicate;
acceptable
answers await more
extensive and
objective
studies. This
paper
deals
only
with Strauss' use of the
concept.
"
Machiavelli
he
Discourses. Introduction.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
10/17
790 THE WESTERN
POLITICAL QUARTERLY
Also,
he willbe
careful
fwhathe
says:
It
is advisable
hen
t times o
feign olly,
s Brutus
id;
and
this
s
sufficiently
one
by
prais-
ing, peaking,eeing nddoing hingsontraryoyourway f hinking... ."
For some ime never
ay
what
believe nd I never elievewhat
say;
and
if t
sometimes
occurs o me
that saythe ruth, conceal t among o many
iesthat t s hard o find t out.'
In
his
investigation
f the textof
Machiavelli,
trauss
mploys
number f
criteria nd
examples.
t is not
possible
o examine
ll of them
here;
we
shall
con-
siderhis
analyses
f
"silences," blunders,"
gradual
revelations,"
indirect
ttack,"
"number
dditities,"
nd
"vagueness
f
key
erms."
59
Silences
In The Discourses i.
10,
arguing
bout
the
mportance
f
money
n
warfare,
Machiavelli ays:
Titus Livius .
.
points
ut thatthere re
three
hings
re-eminently
ecessary
o success
n
war
plenty
f
good troops, agacious
ommanders,
nd
good
fortune;
nd . he drawshis
conclusion without
ver
mentioning
he
subject
of
money.
On this trauss omments:
The rule
which
Machiavelli
acitly pplies
can be stated s
follows:
if a
wise man
s
silent
about
a
fact hat
s
commonly
eld
to
be
important
or he
ubject
e
discusses,
e
gives
s to
understandhat hatfact
s
unimportant.
he
silence
f
a wise
man
s
alwaysmeaningful."8
The
rule ttributedo Machiavelli s
then
pplied
o the
nalysis
fthe
Machia-
velliantext. Strauss oints ut thatThe Princedoes notmention heconscience,
the common
ood,61
he distinction
etween
ings
nd
tyrants,
nd
heaven;
these
silences
nform s thatMachiavelli
id
not
believe
n the
things
e did notmention
or believed
hey
werenot
mportantnough
o mention
n that
particular
ontext.
As
against
trauss'
rgument,
t
should
be noticed
hatMachiavellidoes men-
tion hese
hings
n
his
other
works;
re we
to assume
hathe
changed
is
mind bout
their
ruth
r
importance?
urther,
Machiavelli's
cepticism
s
so
patent
hrough-
out his
writings
hat
any
attempt
n his
part
to
convey
t
by
ndirection
ould
be
otiose.
Blunders
"Machiavelli's
work
is
rich
in
manifestblunders
of
various
kinds.
. . It
is
a
ruleof
common
rudence
o "believe" hat ll these
lunders
re ntentional
nd in
each case
to
raise
he
question
s to
what
theblunder
might
e meant
o
signify."
2
The
blunders
hen
isted
y
trauss o
not
eem
articularly
ignificant.
or
example:
Machiavelli
refers o
King
David as one who
employed
measures most
ruel
nd
inimical,
ot
only
o
every
hristianmanner f
iving
ut to
every
umanemanner
57
Ibid.,
iii.
2.
"
Niccolo Machiavelli, Letter to Guicciardini ofMay 17, 1512, quoted in Strauss,Thoughtson
Machiavelli,
p.
36.
9
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
pp.
29-53.
60
Ibid.,
p.
30.
01
It
does,
in
Chapter
26.
62
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p.
36.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
11/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON MACHIAVELLI
791
of
living
as
well,"
63
and
then
quotes
the Bible
as
saying
of David: "He filledthe
hungry
with
good
things,
nd
sent the
rich
away empty."
4
Strauss
points
out that
the quotation is applied in the Bible not to David but to God and thatMachiavelli
is
by
means of
a
pretended
blunder
attributing yrannical
measures
to
God.65
L.
J.
Walker believes that
Machiavelli makes fewer mistakes than
one would
expect
and finds
them all
trivial,
ncluding
the one
just
cited.66
P.
Villari remarks
that
Machiavelli "received
in
his
youth
the
ordinary
education of
his
day, by
no
means that of
a man of
learning."
7
This
fact,
considered
in
connection with the
numerous
grammatical
and
spelling
errors
n
the
original
manuscripts
and with
Machiavelli's
impatient
and
passionate
character,
convinces students
of that
writer
that his
blunders
present
no serious
nterpretative
roblem.
Gradual Revelation
Machiavelli,
says
Strauss,
"reveals
his
teaching,
to the
extent to which he
does
reveal
it,
only
in
stages
. . . it is
necessary,
t
least
wherever Machiavelli
refers o
earlier statements n a
given
subject
...
carefully
o
compare
the
restatement
with
the
original
statement nd to see
whether he restatement
oes not
imply
consider-
able modification f the first tatement."
68
The
examples
which
then
follow
do
not
bear out the assertion.
Indirect
Attack
In
The
Discourses
i.
10,
Machiavelli
states: "Brutus
was
eulogized;
for,
not
being
able to blame Caesar on account of his
power, they
Roman
authors]
extolled
his
enemy."
Strauss
points
out that
in
The Discourses
i.
11,
Machiavelli utilizes the
tactic
he has
just
described;
by
praising
Roman
religion
he
inferentially
ttacks the
Christian
religion.69
The
point
is well
made as
regards
the
writers
nder the Roman
emperors,
nd
had Machiavelli
said
no
more
we
might
well
concede that Strauss
has
made a
point.
However,
Strauss has
failed to
cite the
following
chapter
of The Discourses where
Machiavelli
comments:
"We
Italians
then owe
to
the Church
of
Rome and
to
her
priests
our
having
become
irreligious
nd
bad,"
and
goes
on
to
predict
the
imminent
ruin or chastisement f the Church. The
"sophisticated"
readerwho had detected
the
secret
message
of
The
Discourses
i.
10-11,
may
feel he
has wasted his
ingenuity
when he arrives t the bold
and
open
attack on the Church in the
very
next
chapter.
In
any
case,
both
in
the
"concealed" and
in
the
open teaching,
Machiavelli
is
talk-
ing
not about the
truthof
religious
dogmas
but about the
political efficacy
f differ-
ent
religions.
63
The
Discourses.
26.
"
Luke 1:53.
65
Thoughts
n
Machiavelli,
.
49.
*LeslieJ.Walker, .J.,TheDiscoursesfNiccoloMachiavelli London: Routledge Kegan
Paul, 1950), II,
311.
*
Pasquale
Villari,
ife
and
Times
of
Niccolo
Machiavelli
London:
Ernest
enn,1891), I,
224.
6
Thoughts
n
Machiavelli,
.
43.
*
Ibid.,
p.
33.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
12/17
792
THE WESTERN
POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
NumberOddities
Strauss
scribes
he
strange
act hat he
number
f
chapters
n The
Discourses
is the sameas thenumber fbooksofLivy"
0
to Machiavelli's ntentiono com-
ment
n the
history
ot
only
f
early
Rome,
s indicated
n
the
full
itle,
iscourses
on the First
Ten Books
of
Titus
Livius,
but
of
Rome
up
to the
age
of
Augustus,
where
ivy's
history
nds.
There are
indeed
142
chapters
n
The Discourses nd 142
books
n
Livy's
his-
tory;
he coincidence s
curious. Strauss'
xplanation,
owever,
oes
not
explain.
There
was,
n
the
early
ixteenth
entury,
o rule
gainst
reating
f Roman
history
up
to thetime f
Augustus.
or
Machiavelli
o have done
so,
while
pretending
ot
to
have done
so,
when t can
so
easily
e
seen
that t has
been
done,
s
to have
done
nothing
t
all and at
great
nconvenience.
o
make
matters
worse,
Machiavelli
deals ndeedwith hewholeof Rome's
history,
ar
past
thetime f
Augustus,
hile
Livy,
f
course,
ould not do
so.
Strauss
ives
lmost
dozenadditional
xamples
of
number
ddities
n
the Machiavellian
ext,
ut
from
nly
ne of themdoes
he
attempt
o
extract
meaning.
He
is
here ike
prosecutor
ho
has
piled
the
court-
room
high
with
xhibits nd then
mitted
o
show
heir
elevance
o his
case.
Vagueness f
Key
Terms
"There
are certain
erms hich
equire articular
ttention,
amely mbiguous
terms
. .
this
obscurity
s
essential to
Machiavelli's
presentation
of
his
teaching.
It isrequired ythefact hat hereaders meant o ascend romhe ommon nder-
standing
..
to
the
diametrically
pposite
meaning."
1
The reference ere s
to
the
vacillating
manner
n which
Machiavelli
mploys
uch terms
s
"virtue"
nd "for-
tune." In
order
o
make his
point,
trausswould
have
to
show
a
change
from he
ordinary
meaning
f
a
word
n
the
earlypart
of the text o
its
oppositemeaning
toward
he
end. The
attempt
s
not made.
Such
key
value
terms
were,
fter
ll,
not
originally
oined o
play
the
part
f
countersn a dialetical
ame;
everyone
ho
usesthem
o finds hem
xtraordinarilylippery.
here s
a
further
oint
o
be
men-
tioned
here:
what
Straussmeans o
stressn this
ase
is not
an
attempt y
Machia-
velli to
communicate
nformation
espite
censor,
ut
rather
n efforto
corrupt
theminds fhisreaderswithoutheir nowledge,ubliminally,o tospeak. This s
suggestive
ess
of
"concealed
eaching"
hanofwhat
ome all
"subversive
ctivity."
It
does not
appear
that
he
pplication
f
either
he
theory
f
concealed
each-
ing
or of
the
rules
or
eading
o
the
text
f
Machiavelli
has
enlarged
r
clarified
ur
understanding
f
that
writer.
IV
Like
Wilhelm
tekel,
trauss s a
master
f
the
interpretative
rt;
like that
psychologist
e
too
has
difficulties
n
reconciling
is conclusions.
he
meaning
f
the
twenty-sixth
hapter
f The
Prince nd its
relation o
the
preceding
hapters
have longbeencontroversial.trauss roposes hreedistinct ays n whichthese
problems
may
be
understood.2
o
bid.,
p.
48.
Ibid.,
p.
47.
T
Ibid.,
pp.
63-72.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
13/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON MACHIAVELLI
793
Firstly,
trauss laims hat he
nspiring lea
of the ast
chapter
o
iberate
nd
unite
taly
s
really
imed
at Lorenzode'Medici.
A
change
n
thinking
bout
right
andwrongsnecessary;tmust e seenthat hepatrioticndhallows verymeans.
The
nobility
nd
the
independent
epublican
ities
must be
destroyed
nd
the
Church
ecularized,
eported
o
Switzerland,
r
replaced
by
a
pagan religion
more
adaptable
o
political
eeds.
The
evidence
hatThe
Prince
was
actually
ddressed
o Lorenzo
s to be
found
not
only
n
the
dedication
nd
in
the
nvocation
f Lorenzo
by
name
in
the
ast
chapter,
ut
most
learly
n
the
fact hat
hebook s to
a
great
xtent n
application
by
Machiavelli
or
mployment
f a
sort
which
nly
orenzo ould
provide.
Strauss
is
hardly ustified,
owever,
n
his
appraisal
f Lorenzo's
ctual
power.
How
could
Machiavelli
eriously
uggest
hat
Lorenzo,
hatweak
and
lazy
nonentity,
ndertake
thetremendousaskofunifyingtaly,particularlyn theunrealisticmanner ro-
posed?
Perhaps
he
only
xplanation
f the
twenty-sixthhapter
hat
overs ll
the
facts
s
the
musing
tory
hat
Machiavelli
eally
wrote
hebookfor
orenzo,
ot
s a
serious
ractate
ut
as
a
prefabricated
ay-dream,
Renaissance
Secret
Life of
Walter
Mitty."
Secondly,
trauss
ets
forth n
interpretation
hich
upports
he
popular
use
of the
pejorative
djective
"Machiavellian";
The Prince s
the devil'shandbook:
"Is
it
not
possible
o
understandhe
patriotic
onclusion f
The Prince
s
a
respect-
able
coloring
f the
designs
f a
self-seeking
talian
prince?
..
The
final
ppeal
to
patriotismuppliesMachiavelliwith n excuse or aving ecommendedmmoral
courses
f
ction.73
The
idea that
Machiavelliwas
a scoundrel as never
ppealed
muchto
those
who
have
studied im. His
biography
efuteshe
charge
fmeant
ersonally.
Mak-
ing
due
allowancefor
he
changed
imes,
t
s not
entirely
mplausible
o
compare
him to
some
iterary tough
guys,"
or
whom violence
s an
aesthetic
echnique.
Walker
uotes
Guicciardini s
saying
fMachiavelli: "He
always
akes mmoderate
delight
n
extraordinary
nd
violent
measures."
4
Werenot
the
imes
xtraordinary
and
violent? It is
hardlypossible
o
read
Machiavelliwithout
eing
deeply
m-
pressed
y
his
ssential
esponsibility
nd
humanity.
Parenthetically,tmight e mentioned hatthere re,depending ponone's
point
of
view,
some
contemptibly
ulgar
or
delightfully
abellaisian
aspects
n
Machiavelli's
iography.
trauss oes not mention
hem,
ither
or
easons
f
deli-
cacy
or
becausehe
faced he
ame
problem
s
did
Milton n
describing
atan.
After
all,
it is
incongruous
o
accuse a man or
an
angel
of
mperiling
he foundationsf
religion
nd
morality
nd then
dd that
he also robbed n
orchard 75
Thirdly,
trauss
presents
truly
ovel
outlook
n
The Prince.
The book s
addressed
either o
Lorenzonor
to
any existing
rince
ut to
the
young
who are
"much
oo
confident
f
human
goodness
.. and
hence oo
gentle
nd
effeminate
..
Machiavelli's
upils
must
o through process
f
brutalization
n
order
o be
freed
3
Ibid.,
p.
80.
7
Walker,
The
Discourses
of
Niccolo
Machiavelli,
I,
124.
7
Strauss
says
of
Machiavelli
(Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p. 13)
: "Even
if,
and
precisely
f
we
are
forced
to
grant
that
his
teaching
is
diabolical and he
himself
devil,
we
are
forced
to
remember
he
profound
heological
truth
hat the
devil himself s
a fallen
angel."
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
14/17
794
THE
WESTERN
POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
from
ffeminacy
..
some
of
themost
utrageous
tatements
f The
Prince
re not
meant
eriously
ut
serve
merely
edagogic
unction: s soon
as one
understands
them, nesees hat heyreamusingndmeant o amuse."
6
Under this third
nterpretativeypothesis,
he
twenty-sixthhapter
s
once
again
to be
taken
eriously
s a
clarion's
ummons o the
iberation f
taly,
ut the
shocking arly
hapters
re to
be seen s
a
propaedeutic
onditioning
or
he
bene-
fit
f
the
rising eneration
hich
will
ctually
arry
ut
the
iberation.
No
evidence
is
brought
orward
o
support
his
xplanation.
Neither
n
the
context
n
which
these
hree
ncompatible
nterpretations
re
presented
or
elsewheren the
book,
s t
made clearwhich
f
the
hree s
preferred
or
why
o
many
re offered.
ecalling
he
ssemblage
f
unused
vidence
luttering
the ceneof the
exemplification
f the
rules
or
eading"
nd the
ncompleted ro-
gramfor therecoveryf thepermanent roblems,"nemight ecomemelancholy
at
sight
f such
promising
ut
unfinished
ntellectualtructures hich trauss
om-
mences o
brilliantly
nd abandons o
ndifferently.
V
Machiavelli s
the
first
hilosopher
ho
believes hat
he coincidence
f
philosophy
nd
political ower
an
be
brought
bout
by
propaganda
...'"
Propaganda
s to
guarantee
he
oincidence
f
philosophy
nd
political
ower.'7
At the
center f the
Straussian
ontradistinction
etween
he classic
nd mod-
ernperiodsshisbelief hattheformerested
n the
assumption
hat
the
primary
object
of the
statewas
theeducation f tsmembers
n
virtue,
whereas
n
the
atter
period
he tate eeks o
manipulate
he itizens
or
ts
wn
purposes.
his
manipula-
tion s
variously
escribed
s
conditioning,ropaganda,
s
indoctrination,
nd
is
contrasted
s
sharply
s
possible
with
heclassical
deal
ofan
unfolding
romwithin
of individual
otentiality,
somewhat
lant-like
evelopment,
hich
can be
pro-
tected nd
encouraged
utnever irected
y
he
tate.
What
Straussmeans
by philosophy
s
a
ruling
dea,
not a
consensus
r
climate
of
opinion.
His
conception
f the nature
f modern
political
hought
s
not com-
pletely
ncongruous
ith he
practice
f
the Soviet
Union and with
he attitude
f
someof theright-winguthoritariantates f modern imes. t is moredifficulto
see the
United
States,
ndia,
Japan,
or France
as
states
perating
n the
principle
of a
union
of
philosophy
nd
political owerbrought
bout
by
propaganda.
The
power
nd the
propaganda
re evident
the
philosophy
s not.
How
did the
classical
tates,
ctual
or
ideal,
measure
p
to Strauss'
riterion?
Ancient
olitical
ractice
new
f
the
ame
struggle
or
ower
f
whichMachiavelli
wrote.
Graeco-Roman
deals as
propounded
n
the
writings
f
Plato,
Aristotle,
nd
Cicero
are not
unambiguous.
icero'sCommonwealth
s rendered
espectable nly
by
age; surely
t
is the east
reflective
f
political
econstructions,
hat
which s the
most
unashamedly
evoted
o the
material
nterests
f ts
uthor's
atrons.79
What-
"
Ibid.,
pp.
81-82.
"7
bid.,
p.
173.
78
bid.,
p.
297.
""Ronald
Syme,
The Roman Revolution
(London:
Oxford
University
Press,
1960), p.
319.
Also see
Cicero's
Pro
Sestio,
particularly
5-99.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
15/17
LEO
STRAUSS
ON MACHIAVELLI
795
ever
Aristotle
conceived
as the ideal
state
is
beyond
our
ken;
what
emerges
most
clearly
from his
writings
s the demand for
stability.
Plato's
ideal
republic
is
sus-
tained on a firmMachiavellian base ofsynthetic eligion, error, ensorship, n iron
curtain,
and a
steady
flow
of
propaganda.
Not
only
s
the education
toward
virtue
limited to a small
minority,
ut
that
minority
s
protected
n
everypossible
way
from
arriving
at
any
notion of
virtue other than
that
held
by
Plato.
The name
for
this
kind
of
education is
indoctrination.
Finally,
the
particular
moralities and virtues
anctioned
by
the
founders
of
the
classic
ideal states
are
as
simply
directed
toward the interests
f
the
state,
or
the
common
good,
as
Machiavelli
himself
might
have wished.
Granted that there
are
fundamental
political problems,
Strauss has
not
begun
to
demonstratemore than
the
superficial
hetorical
differences
etween the classic and modern
proposed
solu-
tions. His invidious comparisonofmodern withclassical political philosophy eems
refuted
y
a
simple
tu
quoque
argument.
VI
We have
quoted
Strauss' intention of
proving
that Machiavelli's
teaching
is
immoral
and
irreligious.
The
charge
of
irreligion
s
almost
ncontestable
nd,
nowa-
days,
not
widely
considered
interesting.
"Immorality"
is
a
more serious
matter.
The
following possible
grounds
for
a moral
judgment
are
tentatively
ub-
mitted:o80
Customarymorality:That is consideredrightwhich is in conformity ithpre-
vailing
standards.
Prudential
morality:
Actions are
presumed
to be
right
f
their
anticipated
con-
sequences
are
desired.
Religious
morality:
The
will
of God is
the
sole
basis
of moral
judgments.
Inspirational
morality:
Ethical
values
are
directly
ntuited
(Bergson,
Tolstoi,
Thoreau).
Natural
law
morality:
Actions are moral if
in
conformity
with the
supposedly
intrinsicmoral
nature
of
things.
"Inspirational" and "customary"moralitiesare not relevant to our discussion.
Machiavellian
and
current
naturalistic
morality
re subsumed
under the
cate-
gory
of
prudential
morality
and
are,
to that
extent and as
Strauss
maintains,
the
same. It
is to be
expected
that
there should
be some emotional
objection
to
this
identification.
Modern
ethical
writers
o
not
plead
in
support
of
hypocrisy,
ssassi-
nation,
and the
breaking
of
treaties,
t least not as
general
propositions.
The
seem-
ing
difference
etween
Machiavellian and
naturalistic
ethics,
however,
ies
only
in
the ad hoc
determination
of
real
prudence.
Whatever else
appears
to
distinguish
them is
variously
to
be understood
as cultural
lag, customary
morality
nternalized
as
super-ego,
nd the
operation
of
sentiment r of
what
Hume
calls
"sympathy."
It
could
be
argued
that a
moral
position
can
be
questioned
only
on
the
basis
of
logical
incoherence
or
as not
agreeing
with someother
moral
position.
Disregard-
ing
the
question
of
incoherence
as
not
immediatelygermane
to
the
issue,
we must
"
The
holes in
this
categorical
net are
large,
but
not,
t is
hoped,
too
large
for
the
catch
sought.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
16/17
796
THE WESTERN POLITICAL
QUARTERLY
ask
fromwhich
moral
position
oes
Strauss ttack
the
morality
f
Machiavelli's
teaching.
It has been shown hat Strauss' xoteric octrines classical-biblicalnd his
esoteric octrines
classical. It follows hathis moral ondemnation
f Machiavelli
must e basedon
natural aw
or
on
religious rounds.
The reasons
hat
prevent
trauss
rom
eriving
is
opprobrious
udgment
n
Machiavellifrom
atural aw are two:
(1)
Natural
aw and
prudential
moralities
are both
pervaded
by
"hesitationsnd
ambiguities";
either
rovides
sufficiently
certain
ase
fromwhich
to launch
a
convincinglyassionate
ttack
on
the other.
(2)
Strauss'
anguage
n
commenting
n Machiavelli's
morality
s
always
eligious.
Machiavelli s called a
devil, heretic,
blasphemer,
nd
a teacher f
evil."8
The
authority
or
his
anguage
eems
lways
o
be
theBible.
Nonetheless,trauss s nota religiousmoralist. t hasbeen shown arlier hat
he
cannot
e a moral bsolutist. t remains ut
to
point
utthat ll
religious
morali-
ties
must e
morally
bsolutist.82
Strausshas condemned
modernity
nd
the
writings
f Machiavelli
on
moral
grounds
nd
in
terms
f
the
utmost
everity.
is theoretical
asisfor
oing
o seems
to be
nonexistent,
r
at best
to
be
so
confusing
r
ambiguous
s to
put
his
charges
beyond
he
reach
f
rational iscussion.
VII
In his study fMachiavelli, trauss et out to provethattheauthor fThe
Prince s
irreligious
nd immoral.
During
the
course
f this
disquisition
e
were
inevitably
onfronted
ith
he
question
f whether trauss'
easoning
oes
not dis-
play
traces
f
ntellectual
inship
ith he
ubject
fhis
fascinatingnquiry.
t
may
well be
that
n
apologist
or
trauss ould
repudiate
he
egitimacy
f
this
uestion.
His next
askwould
be
to
explain
he
necessity
or deliberate
bscurity
f
anguage
which
pens
he
way
o
almost
ny
onceivable
nterpretation.
Strauss
has statedhis
object
in
writing
n
Machiavelli
to be a
contribution
"toward he
recovery
f
the
permanent
roblems."
This s a modest
nough
ropo-
sal: notto
solve,
ut
merely
o
state hese
roblems.
At the
xoteric
evel,
however,
Strauss asneithertated or olved heproblems, hile n the soteric lanehehas
solved hemwithout
tating
hem. he solutions a
closed,
tatic,
nd
aristocratico-
ciety
with
state
eligion.
Are
we to
think f
Portugal,
or
nstance?Nowhere
oes
he mention heconcrete
roblems
o which
his
roposed
ociety
s
the olution.
In all his
writings,
trauss
propounds
natural-law
r
natural-rights
hesis
which
s
never
xplained.
He
readily
dmits
he normous heoretical ifficulties
n
his
thesis,
ut
makes
no
attempt
o
solve
hem.83
We
are told
thatnot to
believe
n
Strauss' two
principal
historical
personages,
representing espectively
he classical and biblical
traditions,
might
well be
Socrates and
Christ,
the former xecuted for
corruption
f the
young,the latterforblasphemy. See J. S. Mill's Essay on Libertyforappropriatereflec-
tions
on thismatter.
8
A
command
of God is absolute
and
unconditional. The fact
that
historical
religious
morali-
ties do not make absolute demands is irrelevant
here,
where the
interest s
not
sociological
but theoretical.
Actual
religious
moralities
are,
in
fact,
anomalous
hybrids
of
all
the
other
moralities.
8
Natural
Right
and
History, .
8.
This content downloaded from 130.208.130.15 on Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:49:46 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/24/2019 StraussMachiavelli-McShea
17/17
LEO
STRAUSS ON MACHIAVELLI
797
natural
ight
s to nvite
narchy
nd
disaster,s4
nd
evenherewe are offered
either
evidence or
rgument
utmere ssertion.
Strauss dvocates return o thebiblical-classicalradition ndthen oncedes
that
he
classical
art
of
the
traditionontains
esitations
nd
ambiguities
n
regard
to
natural
ights,
s
opposed
o the
biblical
morality
nd
theology85
nd
is
imited o
but
three
f
all the
host
f
classicalwriters. he biblical
radition,
or ts
part,
nows
nothing
f
natural
aw
or
political
cience,
or
s
any
ttempt
made
to
specify
hich
biblical raditions
favored r
how
t
can be made to
tally
with,
r
complement,
he
classical
radition.
The
theory
f
concealed
eaching
nd therulesfor
eading
s used
by
Strauss
in
the
xplication
f
Machiavelli's
ext eem
ess means f
finding
hat hat hinker
purports
o
say
han
for
eading reconceived
otions
nto
his
writings.
The genuine orce ndprofundityfStrauss' houghtre notquestioned.The
acknowledgment
f
these
trikingowers,
owever,
indsus
neither
o
accept
the
results
f
their
xercise or to
ignore
he fact hat
these
results
re all too
readily
adaptable
to
the
requirements
f
philosophical
bscurantismnd
political
eaction.
Let
us
admit,
ament,
nd laborto
correct hehubris
nd shallow
ptimism
f
much
contemporary
hought
it
is
the
price
we
pay
for here
eing
o muchof
t),
yet
t
the
same
time
not
embrace he
more
rresponsible
ubris f
thosewho
pre-
tend
to
a
monopoly
f
the
tragic
ision
nd
who center heir
ttack
n
that
arger
Enlightenment
hichhas
been
the
peculiar
glory
f
our
civilization
ince before
Machiavelli. As heirs
f that
Enlightenment,
e are boundto
regard
ttacks
n
it,when
responsibly
nd
coherently
ade,
as
not
only
egitimate
ut
desirable.
The
Straussian
utlook,
onsisting
s
it does of
an
unsystematic
ollection
f ntuitions
and
ipse
dixits,
rypticallyxpressed,
s
not
coherent. he
tendency
f
that
utlook,
however,
s
rather
lear;
we
woulddo
well
to
prefer
he
degree
Recommended