StraussMachiavelli-McShea

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 [email protected].

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/


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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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.



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.



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.



6/17

786


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.



7/17

LEO


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.



8/17

788


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."



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.



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.



11/17

LEO


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.



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.



13/17

LEO


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."



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.



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.



16/17

796


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.



17/17

LEO


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

Documents

StraussMachiavelli-McShea