Thoughts on Machiavelli

The centrality of Thoughts on Machiavelli within Strauss' work cannot be overemphasized. During his lifetime (by my count), Leo Strauss published some 14 or 15 books (depending on whether you count The History of Political Philosophy). Thoughts on Machiavelli was published in 1958. It had been preceeded by Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952) and Natural Right and History (1953) and was followed by What is Political Philosophy (1959) and The City and Man (1964). This five books form the central period of Strauss' work wherein he came to his mature philosophical outlook. The four books prior to PAW can be seen as the ground work for his mature work. The books that follow the central five can be seen as Strauss' return to classical political philosophy to try to reveal the grounding experiences that led to the development of classical political philosophy and what he saw as its version of natural right. Thoughts on Machiavelli (hereafter ToM) is central in another sense. Strauss saw the history of philosophy as the struggle between the Ancients and the Moderns. This was the historical theme that he used to frame his main theme which was the fundamental alternative of Reason versus Revelation. Strauss saw the conflict between reason and revelation as playing out differently in classical political philosophy and in modern political philosophy. Machiavelli (hereafter, M.) is THE turning point. ToM is divided into four chapters. The first delves into the relationship between Machiavelli's Prince and his Discourses. The second chapter explores what M.is trying to do in the Prince and the third chapter explores M.'s intention in The Discourses on Livy. The fourth (which is wonderful example of Strauss' frustrating, demanding and consice writing) is Struass' critique and explication of what M contributed to modern political thought. A good deal of what Strauss is trying to do in the book is to get us to experience anew the traditional insight that M. is a teacher of evil. Strauss feels that M. rejects both Christian and classical political philosophy because M. felt they were both based on unrealistic, indeed, unattainable ideals of morality. These overreaching ideals had had a terrible impact on the Italy of M.'s time turning it into a weak and corrupt group of city states that were incapable of defending themselves let alone of achieving greatness. M. wanted to replace these moral theories (and their subsequent political philosophies) with one that was based on man as he was, i.e., driven first by survival and then by the need to excel over other men. This was matched by M.s way of seeing the world- a universe ruled by nature and chance (no God, no teleology) that could be mastered by men who exercised prudence and strength of will. Preferably that would be in the form of an elite leading a republic but there were times (such as the founding of a city or after a republic had devolved into corrupt licentiousness) when the leadership demanded the rut

Leo Strauss does a masterful job of bringing the teachings of the world's first modern philosopher to light. Machiavelli is notorious for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting, "The Prince". Strauss writes the U.S. is the only country "founded in implicit opposition to Machiavellian principles". Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift." Yet, when you delve into Strauss' "Thoughts On Machiavelli" you come to realize all he teaches is not evil. Machiavelli in his treatise "Discourses On The First Ten Books Of Livy" believes the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. This book is not the easiest of reads and I recommend it not be the first book by Strauss you read. Start with his "Introduction To Political Philosophy" or "History Of Political Philosophy. As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to start one's journey into political philosophy.

Yes, Leo Strauss has the guts to say that Machiavelli is evil, and through a scintillating display of close reading, Strauss silently points, and nods, in the direction of the solution to why Machiavelli is evil. The other reviewers accurately convey the sense of mystery and sophistication about this text, but by reading Strauss's book "Persecution and the Art of Writing", the reader of "Thoughts on Machiavelli" may be able to arrive at the solution to the mystery.A brilliant book.

One of the best and most important books of the 20th Century. I know that sounds ridiculous (shouldn't it be famous then?) but it's true. Strauss traces the beginnings of modernity to a concious design of Machiavelli's to overthrow all previous authority in favor of "new modes and orders." In other words, according to Strauss, the world we live in is not only not the result of imperonsal, inevitable "progress," it was made possible by one man who knew exactly what he was doing.Through a detailed analysis of Machiavelli's books, Strauss shows how every important feature of modern thought is either directly traceable to Machiavelli, or else depends on a foundation he built. More importantly, Strauss outlines the differences between Machiavellism and what Machiavelli sought to replace--thereby making possible a (qualified) return to the superior understanding of pre-Machiavellian philosophy.Such a return becomes more necessary every day, as the contradictions and prodigious errors of modern thought continue to erode civilization. Strauss alone has shown that return is possible--and this book is an indespenible guide for how to get there.

This is an endlessly frustrating and illuminating book written by Leo Strauss. Even if you aren't able to fathom esoteric writing, you will be continuously surprised by Strauss's clarity of thought about Machiavelli in both the larger context of the entire book, and in the minutae of the details. It has a way of forcing one to puzzle over things in a new way, and is free of the rhetoric of ideologues and demagogues. It makes the reader feel like a young student in the presence of a great, beneficent teacher.