Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss BVO
Born	(1899-09-20)September 20, 1899 Kirchhain,Kingdom of Prussia,German Empire
Died	October 18, 1973(1973-10-18)(aged 74) Annapolis,Maryland,U.S.
Alma mater	University of Marburg University of Hamburg University of Freiburg Columbia University
Notable work	Persecution and the Art of Writing Thoughts on Machiavelli History of Political Philosophy
Spouse	Miriam Bernsohn Strauss
Awards	Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Era	20th-century philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
School	Continental philosophy Neo-Kantianism(early) Modern Platonism(later) Straussian hermeneutics Classical republicanism Modern republicanism
Institutions	Higher Institute for Jewish Studies Columbia University University of Cambridge The New School Hamilton College University of Chicago Claremont McKenna College St. John's College
Thesis	Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis (On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi)(1921)
Doctoral advisor	Ernst Cassirer
Main interests	Metaphysics Epistemology History of philosophy(especiallyGreek,Islamic,Jewishandcontinental philosophy) Philosophy of religion Political philosophy
Notable ideas	List Noetic heterogeneity The ends of politics and philosophy as irreducible to one another The unresolvable tension betweenreasonandrevelation Criticism ofpositivism,moral relativism,historicism,andnihilism The distinction between esoteric and exoteric writing Reopening thequarrel of the ancients and the moderns Reductio ad Hitlerum

Leo Strauss(/straʊs/STROWSS,German:[ˈleːoːˈʃtʁaʊs];September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a 20th century German-American scholar ofpolitical philosophy.Born inGermanytoJewishparents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at theUniversity of Chicago,where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.

Trained in theneo-Kantiantradition withErnst Cassirerand immersed in the work of thephenomenologistsEdmund HusserlandMartin Heidegger,Strauss authored books onSpinozaandHobbes,and articles onMaimonidesandAl-Farabi.In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts ofPlatoandAristotle,retracing their interpretation through medievalIslamicandJewish philosophy,and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.

Biography

Early life and education

Strauss was born on September 20, 1899, in the small town ofKirchhaininHesse-Nassau,a province of theKingdom of Prussia(part of theGerman Empire), to Hugo Strauss and Jennie Strauss, née David. According toAllan Bloom's 1974 obituary inPolitical Theory,Strauss "was raised as anOrthodox Jew",but the family does not appear to have completely embraced Orthodox practice.Strauss himself noted that he came from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home", but one which knew little about Judaism except strict adherence to ceremonial laws. His father and uncle operated a farm supply and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (1835–1919), a leading member of the local Jewish community.

After attending the Kirchhain Volksschule and the Protestant Rektoratsschule, Leo Strauss was enrolled at theGymnasium Philippinum(affiliated with theUniversity of Marburg) in nearbyMarburg(from whichJohannes AlthusiusandCarl Joachim Friedrichalso graduated) in 1912, graduating in 1917. He boarded with the MarburgcantorStrauss (no relation), whose residence served as a meeting place for followers of theneo-KantianphilosopherHermann Cohen.Strauss served in the German army fromWorld War Ifrom July 5, 1917, to December 1918.

Strauss subsequently enrolled in theUniversity of Hamburg,where he received hisdoctoratein 1921; his thesis,On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi(Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis), was supervised byErnst Cassirer.He also attended courses at the Universities ofFreiburgand Marburg, including some taught byEdmund HusserlandMartin Heidegger.Strauss joined a Jewish fraternity and worked for the German Zionist movement, which introduced him to various German Jewish intellectuals, such asNorbert Elias,Leo Löwenthal,Hannah ArendtandWalter Benjamin.Benjamin was and remained an admirer of Strauss and his work throughout his life.

Strauss's closest friend wasJacob Kleinbut he also was intellectually engaged with Gerhard Krüger—and alsoKarl Löwith,Julius Guttmann,Hans-Georg Gadamer,andFranz Rosenzweig(to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), as well asGershom Scholem,Alexander Altmann,and the ArabistPaul Kraus,who married Strauss's sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted Paul and Bettina Kraus's child when both parents died in theMiddle East). With several of these friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life, many of which are published in theGesammelte Schriften(Collected Writings), some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in a discourse withCarl Schmitt.However, after Strauss left Germany, he broke off the discourse when Schmitt failed to respond to his letters.

Career

After receiving aRockefeller Fellowshipin 1932, Strauss left his position at theHigher Institute for Jewish StudiesinBerlinforParis.He returned to Germany only once, for a few short days twenty years later. In Paris, he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child, whom he had known previously in Germany. He adopted his wife's son, Thomas, and later his sister's child,Jenny Strauss Clay(later a professor of classics at the University of Virginia); he and Miriam had no biological children of their own. At his death, he was survived by Thomas, Jenny Strauss Clay, and three grandchildren. Strauss became a lifelong friend ofAlexandre Kojèveand was on friendly terms withRaymond AronandÉtienne Gilson.Because of the Nazis' rise to power, he chose not to return to his native country. Strauss found shelter, after some vicissitudes, in England, where, in 1935 he gained temporary employment at theUniversity of Cambridgewith the help of his in-lawDavid Daube,who was affiliated withGonville and Caius College.While in England, he became a close friend ofR. H. Tawneyand was on less friendly terms withIsaiah Berlin.

TheUniversity of Chicago,the school with which Strauss is most closely associated

Unable to find permanent employment in England, Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage ofHarold Laski,who made introductions and helped him obtain a brief lectureship. After a short stint as aresearch fellowin the Department of History atColumbia University,Strauss secured a position atThe New School,where, between 1938 and 1948, he worked in the political science faculty and also took on adjunct jobs.In 1939, he served for a short term as a visiting professor atHamilton College.He became a U.S. citizen in 1944, and in 1949 became a professor of political science at theUniversity of Chicago,holding the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship until he left in 1969.

In 1953, Strauss coined the phrasereductio ad Hitlerum,a play onreductio ad absurdum,suggesting that comparing an argument to one ofHitler's, or "playing the Nazi card", is often a fallacy of irrelevance.

In 1954 he metKarl LöwithandHans-Georg GadamerinHeidelbergand delivered a public speech onSocrates.He had received a call for a temporary lectureship inHamburgin 1965 (which he declined for health reasons) and received and accepted an honorary doctorate from theUniversity of Hamburgand theBundesverdienstkreuz(German Order of Merit) via the German representative in Chicago. In 1969 Strauss moved toClaremont McKenna College(formerly Claremont Men's College) in California for a year, and then toSt. John's College, Annapolisin 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death from pneumonia in 1973.He was buried in Annapolis Hebrew Cemetery, with his wife Miriam Bernsohn Strauss, who died in 1985.Psalm 114was read in the funeral service at the request of family and friends.

Thought

Strauss's thought can be characterized by two main themes: the critique of modernity and the recovery of classical political philosophy. He argued that modernity, which began with theEnlightenment,was a radical break from the tradition ofWestern civilization,and that it led to a crisis ofnihilism,relativism,historicism,andscientism.He claimed that modern political and social sciences, which were based on empirical observation and rational analysis, failed to grasp the essential questions of human nature, morality, and justice, and that they reduced human beings to mere objects of manipulation and calculation. He also criticized modernliberalism,which he saw as a product of modernity, for its lack of moral and spiritual foundations, and for its tendency to undermine the authority of religion, tradition, andnatural law.

To overcome the crisis of modernity, Strauss proposed a return to the classical political philosophy of theancient Greeksand themedieval thinkers,who he believed had a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of human nature and society. He advocated a careful and respectful reading of the classical texts, arguing that their authors wrote in an esoteric manner, which he called "the art of writing"and which he practiced in his own works. He suggested that the classical authors hid their true teachings behind a surface layer of conventional opinions, in order to avoid persecution and to educate only the few who were capable of grasping them, and that they engaged in a dialogue with each other across the ages. Strauss called this dialogue"the great conversation",and invited his readers to join it.

Strauss's interpretation of the classical political philosophy was influenced by his own Jewish background and his encounter with Islamic and Jewish medieval philosophy, especially the works ofAl-FarabiandMaimonides.He argued that these philosophers, who lived under therule of Islam,faced similar challenges as the ancient Greeks. He also claimed that these philosophers, who were both faithful to their revealed religions and loyal to the rational pursuit of philosophy, offered a model of how to reconcilereasonandrevelation,philosophy and theology, Athens and Jerusalem.

Views

Philosophy

For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined. He regarded the trial and death ofSocratesas the moment when political philosophy came into existence. Strauss considered one of the most important moments in thehistory of philosophySocrates' argument that philosophers could not studynaturewithout considering their ownhuman nature,which, in the words ofAristotle,is that of "a political animal."However, he also held that the ends of politics and philosophy were inherently irreconcilable and irreducible to one another.

Strauss distinguished "scholars" from "great thinkers," identifying himself as a scholar. He wrote that most self-described philosophers are in actuality scholars, cautious and methodical. Great thinkers, in contrast, boldly and creatively address big problems. Scholars deal with these problems only indirectly by reasoning about the great thinkers' differences.

InNatural Right and HistoryStrauss begins with a critique ofMax Weber'sepistemology,briefly engages therelativismofMartin Heidegger(who goes unnamed) and continues with a discussion of the evolution ofnatural rightsvia an analysis of the thought ofThomas HobbesandJohn Locke.He concludes by critiquingJean-Jacques RousseauandEdmund Burke.At the heart of the book are excerpts fromPlato,Aristotle,andCicero.Much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works ofHeidegger.Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible, and this means that political thought has to engage with issues of ontology and the history of metaphysics.

Strauss wrote thatFriedrich Nietzschewas the first philosopher to properly understandhistoricism,an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelianphilosophy of history.Heidegger, in Strauss's view, sanitized and politicized Nietzsche, whereas Nietzsche believed "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as unconvincing and alien as all earlier principles (essences) had shown themselves to be" and "the only way out seems to be... that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth."Heidegger believed that the tragicnihilismof Nietzsche was itself a "myth" guided by a defective Western conception ofBeingthat Heidegger traced to Plato. In his published correspondence withAlexandre Kojève,Strauss wrote thatGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegelwas correct when he postulated that an end of history implies an end to philosophy as understood by classical political philosophy.

On reading

Strauss's study of philosophy and political discourses produced by theIslamic civilization—especially those ofAl-Farabi(shown here) andMaimonides—was instrumental in the development of his theory of reading.

In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching."In 1952 he publishedPersecution and the Art of Writing,arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.

Taking his bearings from his study ofMaimonidesandAl-Farabi,and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in thePhaedrus,Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art ofesotericwriting is the proper medium for philosophic learning: rather than displaying philosophers' thoughts superficially, classical and medieval philosophical texts guide their readers in thinking and learning independently of imparted knowledge. Thus, Strauss agrees with the Socrates of thePhaedrus,where the Greek indicates that, insofar as writing does not respond when questioned, good writing provokes questions in the reader—questions that orient the reader towards an understanding of problems the author thought about with utmost seriousness. Strauss thus, inPersecution and the Art of Writing,presents Maimonides "as a closet nonbeliever obfuscating his message for political reasons".

Strauss's hermeneuticalargument—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably inThe City and Man[1964])—is that, before the 19th century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their "art of writing" was the art of esoteric communication. This was especially apparent in medieval times when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of theInquisitionor comparably obtuse tribunals.

Strauss's argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric, hidden one for the few (hoi oligoi), but that, through rhetorical stratagems including self-contradiction and hyperboles, these writers succeeded in conveying their proper meaning at the tacit heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to "the letter" or historical dimension of texts.

Explicitly followingGotthold Ephraim Lessing's lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by "the many" (who did not read), but by those "few" whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality. It was precisely these righteous personalities who would be most inclined to persecute/ostracize anyone who was in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which the authority of the few over the many stands or falls.

On politics

According to Strauss, modernsocial scienceis flawed because it assumes thefact–value distinction,a concept which Strauss found dubious. He traced its roots inEnlightenmentphilosophy toMax Weber,a thinker whom Strauss described as a "serious and noble mind". Weber wanted to separate values from science but, according to Strauss, was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche'srelativism.Strauss treated politics as something that could not be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was self-deluded.Positivism,the heir to bothAuguste Comteand Max Weber in the quest to make purportedly value-free judgments, failed to justify its own existence, which would require a value judgment.

While modern-eraliberalismhad stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question:What is thegoodfor the city and man?

Encounters with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre Kojève

Two significant political-philosophical dialogues Strauss had with living thinkers were those he held withCarl SchmittandAlexandre Kojève.Schmitt, who would later become, for a short time, the chief jurist of Nazi Germany, was one of the first important German academics to review Strauss's early work positively. Schmitt's positive reference for, and approval of, Strauss's work onHobbeswas instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany.

Strauss's critique and clarifications ofThe Concept of the Politicalled Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Writing to Schmitt in 1932, Strauss summarised Schmitt'spolitical theologythat "because man is by nature evil, he, therefore, needsdominion.But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state. "

Strauss, however, directly opposed Schmitt's position. For Strauss, Schmitt and his return toThomas Hobbeshelpfully clarified the nature of our political existence and our modern self-understanding. Schmitt's position was therefore symptomatic of the modern-eraliberalself-understanding. Strauss believed that such an analysis, as in Hobbes's time, served as a useful "preparatory action," revealing our contemporary orientation towards the eternal problems of politics (social existence). However, Strauss believed that Schmitt's reification of our modern self-understanding of the problem of politics into a political theology was not an adequate solution. Strauss instead advocated a return to a broader classical understanding of human nature and a tentative return to political philosophy, in the tradition of the ancient philosophers.

With Kojève, Strauss had a close and lifelong philosophical friendship. They had first met as students in Berlin. The two thinkers shared boundless philosophical respect for each other. Kojève would later write that, without befriending Strauss, "I never would have known... what philosophy is".The political-philosophical dispute between Kojève and Strauss centered on the role that philosophy should and can be allowed to play in politics.

Kojève, a senior civil servant in the French government, was instrumental in the creation of theEuropean Economic Community.He argued that philosophers should have an active role in shaping political events. Strauss, on the contrary, believed that philosophers should play a role in politics only to the extent that they can ensure that philosophy, which he saw as mankind's highest activity, can be free from political intervention.

Liberalism and nihilism

Strauss argued thatliberalismin its modern form (which is oriented towarduniversal freedomas opposed to "ancient liberalism" which is oriented towardhuman excellence), contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extremerelativism,which in turn led to two types ofnihilism:

The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed inNaziandBolshevikregimes. InOn Tyranny,he wrote that theseideologies,both descendants ofEnlightenmentthought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Westernliberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and ahedonistic"permissiveegalitarianism,"which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.

In the belief that 20th-century relativism,scientism,historicism,and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration ofmodern societyand philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.

Strauss's interpretation of Plato'sRepublic

According to Strauss, theRepublicbyPlatois not "a blueprint for regime reform" (a play on words fromKarl Popper'sThe Open Society and Its Enemies,which attacksThe Republicfor being just that). Strauss quotesCicero:"The Republicdoes not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things—the nature of the city. "

Strauss argued that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction fromeros".Though skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return" —that is, going backward instead of forward.

In fact, he was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He spoke of the danger in trying finally to resolve the debate betweenrationalismandtraditionalismin politics. In particular, along with many in thepre-World War IIGerman Right, he feared people trying to force aworld stateto come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become atyranny.Hence he kept his distance from the two totalitarianisms that he denounced in his century, both fascists and communists.

Strauss and Karl Popper

Strauss actively rejectedKarl Popper's views as illogical. He agreed with a letter of response to his request ofEric Voegelinto look into the issue. In the response, Voegelin wrote that studying Popper's views was a waste of precious time, and "an annoyance". Specifically aboutThe Open Society and Its Enemiesand Popper's understanding of Plato'sThe Republic,after giving some examples, Voegelin wrote:

Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able to even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.

Strauss proceeded to show this letter toKurt Riezler,who used his influence in order to oppose Popper's appointment at theUniversity of Chicago.

Ancients and Moderns

Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy, namelyAthensandJerusalem(reasonandrevelation) and Ancient versus Modern. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs; the "Moderns" start withNiccolò Machiavelli.The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation. The Socratics, reacting to the firstGreekphilosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political.

The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation inmedievalsociety by promoting the possibilities of Reason. They objected to Aquinas's merger of natural right andnatural theology,for it made natural right vulnerable to sideshow theological disputes.Thomas Hobbes,under the influence ofFrancis Bacon,re-oriented political thought to what was most solid but also most low in man—his physical hopes and fears—setting a precedent forJohn Lockeand the later economic approach to political thought, as inDavid HumeandAdam Smith.

Strauss and Zionism

As a youth, Strauss belonged to the GermanZionistyouth group, along with his friendsGershom ScholemandWalter Benjamin.Both were admirers of Strauss and would continue to be throughout their lives.When he was 17, as he said, he was "converted" to political Zionism as a follower ofZe'ev Jabotinsky.He wrote several essays about its controversies but left these activities behind by his early twenties.

While Strauss maintained a sympathetic interest in Zionism, he later came to refer to Zionism as "problematic" and became disillusioned with some of its aims.

He taught at theHebrew University of Jerusalemduring the 1954–55academic year.In his letter to aNational Revieweditor, Strauss asked whyIsraelhad been called araciststate by one of their writers. He argued that the author did not provide enough proof for his argument. He ended his essay with this statement: "Political Zionism is problematic for obvious reasons. But I can never forget what it achieved as a moral force in an era of complete dissolution. It helped to stem the tide of 'progressive' leveling of venerable, ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function."

Religious belief

Although Strauss accepted the utility of religious belief, there is some question about his religious views. He was openly disdainful of atheismand disapproved of contemporarydogmaticdisbelief, which he considered intemperate and irrational.However, likeThomas Aquinas,he felt that revelation must be subject to examination by reason.At the end ofThe City and Man,Strauss invites us to "be open to... the questionquid sit deus[ "What is God?" ] "(p. 241).Edward Feserwrites that "Strauss was not himself an orthodox believer, neither was he a convincedatheist.Since whether or not to accept a purported divine revelation is itself one of the 'permanent' questions, orthodoxy must always remain an option equally as defensible as unbelief. "

InNatural Right and HistoryStrauss distinguishes a Socratic (Platonic, Ciceronian, Aristotelian) from a conventionalist (materialistic, Epicurean) reading of divinity, and argues that "the question of religion" (what is religion?) is inseparable from the question of the nature of civil society and civil authority. Throughout the volume he argues for the Socratic reading of civil authority and rejects the conventionalist reading (of which atheism is an essential component).This is incompatible with interpretations by Shadia Drury and other scholars who argue that Strauss viewed religion purely instrumentally.

Reception and legacy

Reception by contemporaries

Strauss's works were read and admired by thinkers as diverse as the philosophersGershom Scholem,Walter Benjamin,Hans-Georg Gadamer,andAlexandre Kojève,and the psychoanalystJacques Lacan.Benjamin had become acquainted with Strauss as a student in Berlin, and expressed admiration for Strauss throughout his life.Gadamer stated that he 'largely agreed' with Strauss's interpretations.

The Straussian school

Straussianism is the name given "to denote the research methods, common concepts, theoretical presuppositions, central questions, and pedagogic style (teaching style) characteristic of the large number of conservatives who have been influenced by the thought and teaching of Leo Strauss ".While it "is particularly influential among university professors of historical political theory... it also sometimes serves as a common intellectual framework more generally among conservative activists, think tank professionals, and public intellectuals".Harvey C. Mansfield,Steven B. Smithand Steven Berg, though never students of Strauss, are "Straussians" (as some followers of Strauss identify themselves). Mansfield has argued that there is no such thing as "Straussianism" yet there are Straussians and a school of Straussians. Mansfield describes the school as "open to the whole of philosophy" and without any definite doctrines that one has to believe in order to belong to it.

Within the discipline of political theory, the method calls for its practitioners to use "a 'close reading' of the 'Great Books' of political thought; they strive to understand a thinker 'as he understood himself'; they are unconcerned with questions about the historical context of, or historical influences on, a given author"and strive to be open to the idea that they may find something timelessly true in agreat book.The approach "resembles in important ways the oldNew Criticismin literary studies. "

There is some controversy in the approach over what distinguishes a great book from lesser works. Great books are held to be written by authors/philosophers "of such sovereign critical self-knowledge and intellectual power that they can in no way be reduced to the general thought of their time and place,"with other works "understood as epiphenomenal to the original insights of a thinker of the first rank."This approach is seen as a counter "to the historicist presuppositions of the mid-twentieth century, which read the history of political thought in a progressivist way, with past philosophies forever cut off from us in a superseded past."Straussianism puts forward the possibility that past thinkers may have "hold ofthe truth—and that more recent thinkers are therefore wrong. "

The Chinese Straussians

Almost the entirety of Strauss's writings has been translated into Chinese; and there even is a school of Straussians in China, the most prominent beingLiu Xiaofeng(Renmin University) andGan Yang."Chinese Straussians" (who often are also fascinated by Carl Schmitt) represent an example of the hybridization of Western political theory in a non-Western context. As the editors of a recent volume write, "the reception of Schmitt and Strauss in the Chinese-speaking world (and especially in the People's Republic of China) not only says much about how Schmitt and Strauss can be read today, but also provides important clues about the deeper contradictions of Western modernity and the dilemmas of non-liberal societies in our increasingly contentious world."

Criticism

Basis for esotericism

In the essay,Persecution and the Art of Writing,Strauss posits that information needs to be kept secret from the masses by "writing between the lines". However, this seems like a false premise, as most authors Strauss refers to in his work lived in times when only the social elites were literate enough to understand works of philosophy.

Conservatism

Some critics of Strauss have accused him of beingelitist,illiberaland anti-democratic. Journalists such asSeymour Hershhave opined that Strauss endorsednoble lies,"myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society".InThe City and Man,Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato'sRepublicthat are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it may have been acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than accidents of birth.

Shadia Drury,inLeo Strauss and the American Right(1999), claimed that Straussinculcatedan elitist strain in American political leaders linked toimperialistmilitarism,neoconservatismandChristian fundamentalism.Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led,and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them ". Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss was" an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a truereactionary".Xenos says:" Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeoisera of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of purefascism."

Anti-historicism

Strauss has also been criticized by someconservatives.According toClaes G. Ryn,Strauss's anti-historicist thinking creates an artificial contrast between moral universality and "the conventional", "the ancestral", and "the historical". Strauss, Ryn argues, wrongly and reductively assumes that respect for tradition must undermine reason and universality. Contrary to Strauss's criticism of Edmund Burke, the historical sense may be indispensable to an adequate apprehension of universality. Strauss's abstract, ahistorical conception of natural right distorts genuine universality, Ryn contends. Strauss does not consider the possibility that real universality becomes known to human beings in a concretized, particular form. Strauss and the Straussians have paradoxically taught philosophically unsuspecting American conservatives, not least Roman Catholic intellectuals, to reject tradition in favor of ahistorical theorizing, a bias that flies in the face of the central Christian notion of the Incarnation, which represents a synthesis of the universal and the historical. According to Ryn, the propagation of a purely abstract idea of universality has contributed to the neoconservative advocacy of allegedly universal American principles, which neoconservatives see as justification for American intervention around the world—bringing the blessings of the "West" to the benighted "rest". Strauss's anti-historical thinking connects him and his followers with the FrenchJacobins,who also regarded tradition as incompatible with virtue and rationality.

What Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the "neoconservative" philosophy is, writesPaul Gottfried,also the rhetoric ofSaint-JustandLeon Trotsky,which the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity;Republicanoperators andthink tanksapparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday'sleftistclichés.

Response to criticism

In his 2009 book,Straussophobia,Peter Minowitz provides a detailed critique of Drury, Xenos, and other critics of Strauss whom he accuses of "bigotry and buffoonery".

InReading Leo Strauss,Steven B. Smithrejects the link between Strauss andneoconservativethought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics. In particular, Strauss argued that Plato's myth of thephilosopher kingshould be read as areductio ad absurdum,and that philosophers should understand politics not in order to influence policy but to ensure philosophy's autonomy from politics.In his review ofReading Leo Strauss,Robert Alterwrites that Smith "persuasively sets the record straight on Strauss's political views and on what his writing is really about".

Strauss's daughter,Jenny Strauss Clay,defended Strauss against the charge that he was the "mastermind behind the neoconservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy." "He was a conservative", she says, "insofar as he did not think change is necessarily change for the better." Since contemporary academia "leaned to the left", with its "unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment", Strauss stood outside of the academic consensus. Had academia leaned to the right, he would have questioned it, too—and on certain occasionsdidquestion the tenets of the right.

Mark Lillahas argued that the attribution to Strauss of neoconservative views contradicts a careful reading of Strauss' actual texts, in particularOn Tyranny.Lilla summarizes Strauss as follows:

Philosophy must always be aware of the dangers of tyranny, as a threat to both political decency and the philosophical life. It must understand enough about politics to defend its own autonomy, without falling into the error of thinking that philosophy can shape the political world according to its own lights.

Responding to charges that Strauss's teachings fostered the neoconservative foreign policy of theGeorge W. Bushadministration, such as "unrealistic hopes for the spread of liberal democracy through military conquest", Nathan Tarcov, director of the Leo Strauss Center at the University of Chicago, asserts that Strauss as a political philosopher was essentially non-political. After an exegesis of the very limited practical political views to be gleaned from Strauss's writings, Tarcov concludes that "Strauss can remind us of the permanent problems, but we have only ourselves to blame for our faulty solutions to the problems of today."

Bibliography

Books and articles

• Gesammelte Schriften.Ed.Heinrich Meier.Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. Four vols. published to date: Vol. 1,Die Religionskritik Spinozas und zugehörige Schriften(rev. ed. 2001); vol. 2,Philosophie und Gesetz, Frühe Schriften(1997); Vol. 3,Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft und zugehörige Schrifte – Briefe(2001); Vol. 4,Politische Philosophie. Studien zum theologisch-politischen Problem(2010). The full series will also include Vol. 5,Über Tyrannis(2013) and Vol. 6,Gedanken über Machiavelli. Deutsche Erstübersetzung(2014).
• Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932).(Trans. from parts ofGesammelte Schriften). Trans. Michael Zank. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002.
• Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch-politischem Traktat.Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1930.
  • Spinoza's Critique of Religion.(English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair ofDie Religionskritik Spinozas,1930.) With a new English preface and a trans. of Strauss's 1932 German essay on Carl Schmitt. New York: Schocken, 1965. Reissued without that essay, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1997.
• "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt,Der Begriff des Politischen".Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik67, no. 6 (August–September 1932): 732–49.
  • "Comments on Carl Schmitt'sBegriff des Politischen".(English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of" Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt ", 1932.) 331–51 inSpinoza's Critique of Religion,1965. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt,The Concept of the Political,ed. and trans. George Schwab. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 1976.
  • "Notes on Carl Schmitt,The Concept of the Political".(English trans. by J. Harvey Lomax of" Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt ", 1932.) In Heinrich Meier,Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue,trans. J. Harvey Lomax. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt,The Concept of the Political,ed. and trans. George Schwab. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996, 2007.
• Philosophie und Gesetz: Beiträge zum Verständnis Maimunis und seiner Vorläufer.Berlin: Schocken, 1935.
  • Philosophy and Law: Essays Toward the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors.(English trans. byFred BaumannofPhilosophie und Gesetz,1935.) Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987.
  • Philosophy and Law: Contributions to the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors.(English trans. with introd. byEve AdlerofPhilosophie und Gesetz,1935.) Albany: SUNY Press, 1995.
• The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis.(English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair from German manuscript.) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Reissued with new preface, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
  • Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft in ihrer Genesis.(1935 German original ofThe Political Philosophy of Hobbes,1936.) Neuwied am Rhein: HermannLuchterhand,1965.
• "The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon ".Social Research6, no. 4 (Winter 1939): 502–36.
• "On German Nihilism "(1999, originally a 1941 lecture),Interpretation26, no. 3 edited by David Janssens and Daniel Tanguay.
• "Farabi's Plato "American Academy for Jewish Research,Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, 1945. 45 pp.
• "On a New Interpretation of Plato's Political Philosophy".Social Research13, no. 3 (Fall 1946): 326–67.
• "On the Intention of Rousseau ".Social Research14, no. 4 (Winter 1947): 455–87.
• On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero.Foreword by Alvin Johnson. New York: Political Science Classics, 1948. Reissued Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950.
  • De la tyrannie.(French trans. ofOn Tyranny,1948, with "Restatement on Xenophon'sHiero"and Alexandre Kojève's" Tyranny and Wisdom ".) Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1954.
  • On Tyranny.(English edition ofDe la tyrannie,1954.) Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1963.
  • On Tyranny.(Revised and expanded edition ofOn Tyranny,1963.) Includes Strauss–Kojève correspondence. Ed. Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth. New York: The Free Press, 1991.
• "On Collingwood’s Philosophy of History".Review of Metaphysics5, no. 4 (June 1952): 559–86.
• Persecution and the Art of Writing.Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952.Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.
• Natural Right and History.(Based on the 1949 Walgreen lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1953. Reprinted with new preface, 1971.ISBN978-0-226-77694-1.
• "Existentialism"(1956), a public lecture on Martin Heidegger's thought, published inInterpretation,Spring 1995, Vol.22 No. 3: 303–18.
• Seminar on Plato's Republic,(1957 Lecture), (1961 Lecture). University of Chicago.
• Thoughts on Machiavelli.Glencoe, Ill.:The Free Press, 1958.Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
• What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies.Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988.
• On Plato's Symposium[1959]. Ed. Seth Benardete. (Edited transcript of 1959 lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2001.
• "'Relativism' ".135–57 in Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins, eds.,Relativism and the Study of Man.Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1961. Partial reprint, 13–26 inThe Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism,1989.
• History of Political Philosophy.Co-editor withJoseph Cropsey.Chicago: U of Chicago P,1963 (1st ed.),1972 (2nd ed.), 1987 (3rd ed.).
• "The Crisis of Our Time ",41–54, and "The Crisis of Political Philosophy",91–103, in Howard Spaeth, ed.,The Predicament of Modern Politics.Detroit: U of Detroit P, 1964.
  • "Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time". (Adaptation of the two essays in Howard Spaeth, ed.,The Predicament of Modern Politics,1964.) 217–42 in George J. Graham, Jr., and George W. Carey, eds.,The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science.New York: David McKay, 1972.
• The City and Man.(Based on the 1962 Page-Barbour lectures.) Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.
• Socrates and Aristophanes.New York: Basic Books, 1966. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
• Liberalism Ancient and Modern.New York: Basic Books, 1968. Reissued with foreword by Allan Bloom, 1989. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
• Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus.Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1970.
• Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good & Evil".St. John's College, 1971.
• Xenophon's Socrates.Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1972.
• The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975.
• Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss.Ed. Hilail Gilden. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.
  • An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss.(Expanded version ofPolitical Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss,1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
• Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy.Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.
• The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss – Essays and Lectures by Leo Strauss.Ed. Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.
• Faith and Political Philosophy: the Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964.Ed. Peter Emberley and Barry Cooper. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1993.
• Hobbes's Critique of Religion and Related Writings.Ed. and trans. Gabriel Bartlett and Svetozar Minkov. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2011. (Trans. of materials first published in theGesammelte Schriften,Vol. 3, including an unfinished manuscript by Leo Strauss of a book on Hobbes, written in 1933–1934, and some shorter related writings.)
• Leo Strauss on Moses Mendelssohn.Edited and translated by Martin D. Yaffe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. (Annotated translation of ten introductions written by Strauss to a multi-volume critical edition of Mendelssohn's work.)
• "Exoteric Teaching"(Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). InReorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s.Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 275–86.
• "Lecture Notes for 'Persecution and the Art of Writing'" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). InReorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s.Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 293–304.
• Leo Strauss on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”.Edited by Richard L. Velkley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
• Leo Strauss on Political Philosophy: Responding to the Challenge of Positivism and Historicism.Edited by Catherine H. Zuckert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
• Leo Strauss on Hegel.Edited by Paul Franco. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019.

Writings about Maimonides and Jewish philosophy

• Spinoza's Critique of Religion(see above, 1930).
• Philosophy and Law(see above, 1935).
• "Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maïmonide et de Farabi".Revue des études juives100 (1936): 1–37.
• "Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansicht Maimunis".Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums81 (1936): 448–56.
• "The Literary Character of The Guide for the Perplexed" [1941]. 38–94 inPersecution and the Art of Writing.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
• [1944] "How to Study Medieval Philosophy" [.Interpretation23, no. 3 (Spring 1996): 319–338. Previously published, less annotations and fifth paragraph, as "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in Pangle (ed.),The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism,1989 (see above).
• [1952].Modern Judaism1, no. 1 (May 1981): 17–45. Reprinted Chap. 1 (I–II) inJewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity,1997 (see below).
• [1952].Independent Journal of Philosophy3 (1979), 111–18. Reprinted Chap. 1 (III) inJewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity,1997 (see below).
• "Maimonides' Statement on Political Science".Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research22 (1953): 115–30.
• [1957].L'Homme21, n° 1 (janvier–mars 1981): 5–20. Reprinted Chap. 8 inJewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity,1997 (see below).
• "How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed". InThe Guide of the Perplexed, Volume One.Trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963.
• [1965] "On the Plan of the Guide of the Perplexed".Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee.Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research), pp. 775–91.
• "Notes on Maimonides' Book of Knowledge". 269–83 inStudies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to G. G. Scholem.Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.
• Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought.Ed. Kenneth Hart Green. Albany: SUNY P, 1997.
• Leo Strauss on Maimonides: The Complete Writings.Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

See also

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers
• Neoconservatism,often referred as inspired by the work of Strauss
• Lev Shestov
• Allan Bloom
• Seth Benardete
• Jacob Klein

Further reading

• Altman, William H. F.,The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism.Le xing ton Books, 2011
• Andreacchio, Marco. "Philosophy and Religion in Leo Strauss: Critical Review of Menon's Interpretation".Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy46, no. 2 (Spring 2020): 383–98.
• Behnegar, Nasser,Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics.University of Chicago Press, 2005.
• Benardete, Seth.Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002.
• Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". 235–55 inGiants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990.New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
• Bluhm, Harald.Die Ordnung der Ordnung: das politische Philosophieren von Leo Strauss.Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.
• Brague, Rémi. "Leo Strauss and Maimonides". 93–114 inLeo Strauss's Thought.Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
• Brittain, Christopher Craig. "Leo Strauss and Resourceful Odysseus: Rhetorical Violence and the Holy Middle".Canadian Review of American Studies38, no. 1 (2008): 147–63.
• Bruell, Christopher. "A Return to Classical Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding".Review of Politics53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 173–86.
• Chivilò, Giampiero and Menon, Marco (eds). Tirannide e filosofia: Con un saggio di Leo Strauss ed un inedito di Gaston Fessard sj. Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari, 2015.ISBN978-88-6969-032-7.
• Colen, Jose. Facts and values. London: Plusprint, 2012.
• Deutsch, Kenneth L. and John A. Murley, eds.Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime.New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.ISBN978-0-8476-8692-6.
• Drury, Shadia B.Leo Strauss and the American Right.London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
• Drury, Shadia B.The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss.New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
• Gottfried, Paul.Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal(Cambridge University Press; 2011)
• Gourevitch, Victor. "Philosophy and Politics I–II".Review of Metaphysics22, nos. 1–2 (September–December 1968): 58–84, 281–328.
• Green, Kenneth.Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss.Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.
• "A Giving of Accounts: Jacob Kelin and Leo Strauss". InJewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought.Ed. Kenneth H. Green. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.
• Havers, Grant N.Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique.DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2013.
• Holmes, Stephen.The Anatomy of Antiliberalism.Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996.ISBN978-0-674-03185-2.
• Howse, Robert.Leo Strauss, Man of Peace,Cambridge University Press, 2014]
• Ivry, Alfred L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides". 75–91 inLeo Strauss's Thought.Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
• Janssens, David.Between Athens and Jerusalem. Philosophy, Prophecy, and Politics in Leo Strauss's Early Thought.Albany: SUNY Press, 2008.
• Kartheininger, Markus. "Heterogenität. Politische Philosophie im Frühwerk von Leo Strauss". München: Fink, 2006.ISBN978-3-7705-4378-6.
• Kartheininger, Markus. "Aristokratisierung des Geistes". In: Kartheininger, Markus/ Hutter, Axel (ed.). "Bildung als Mittel und Selbstzweck". Freiburg: Alber, 2009, pp. 157–208.ISBN978-3-495-48393-0.
• Kerber, Hannes. "Strauss and Schleiermacher. An Introduction to 'Exoteric Teaching". InReorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s.Ed. Yaffe/Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 203–14.
• Kerber, Hannes."Leo Strauss on Exoteric Writing".Interpretation.46, no. 1 (2019): 3–25.
• Kinzel, Till.Platonische Kulturkritik in Amerika. Studien zu Allan Blooms The Closing of the American Mind.Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002.
• Kochin, Michael S. "Morality, Nature, and Esotericism in Leo Strauss'sPersecution and the Art of Writing".Review of Politics64, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 261–83.
• Lampert, Laurence.Leo Strauss and Nietzsche.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
• Lutz, Mark J. “Living the Theologico-Political Problem: Leo Strauss on the Common Ground of Philosophy and Theology.”The European Legacy.2018. Vol. 23. No. 8. pp. 1–25.
• Macpherson, C. B. "Hobbes's Bourgeois Man". InDemocratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
• Major, Rafael (ed.).Leo Strauss's Defense of the Philosophic Life: Reading "What is Political Philosophy?".University of Chicago Press, 2013.ISBN978-0-226-92420-5(cloth)
• Marchal, Kai, Shaw, Carl K.Y.Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political.Lanham, Maryland: Le xing ton Books, 2017.
• McAllister, Ted V.Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin & the Search for Postliberal Order.Lawrence, KS: UP of Kansas. 1996.
• McWilliams, Wilson Carey. "Leo Strauss and the Dignity of American Political Thought".Review of Politics60, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 231–46.
• Meier, Heinrich.Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue,Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
• Meier, Heinrich. "Editor's Introduction[s]".Gesammelte Schriften.Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. 3 vols.
• Meier, Heinrich.Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
• Meier, Heinrich. How Strauss Became Strauss ". 363–82 inEnlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor ofRalph Lerner.Ed. Svetozar Minkov. Lanham, MD: Le xing ton Books, 2006.
• Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism".American Political Science Review100 (2006): 279–95.
• Minowitz, Peter. "Machiavellianism Come of Age? Leo Strauss on Modernity and Economics".The Political Science Reviewer22 (1993): 157–97.
• Minowitz, Peter.Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers.Lanham, MD: Le xing ton Books, 2009.
• Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Hermeneutics and Classical Political Thought in Leo Strauss", 178–89 inEssays on Ancient and Modern Judaism.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.
• Moyn, Samuel. "From experience to law: Leo Strauss and the Weimar crisis of the philosophy of religion."History of European Ideas33, (2007): 174–94.
• Neumann, Harry.Liberalism.Durham, NC: Carolina Academic P, 1991.
• Norton, Anne.Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire.New Haven & London: Yale UP, 2004.
• Pangle, Thomas L. "The Epistolary Dialogue Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin".Review of Politics53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 100–25.
• Minowitz, Peter. "Leo Strauss's Perspective on Modern Politics".Perspectives on Political Science33, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 197–203.
• Minowitz, Peter.Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.
• Pelluchon, Corine.Leo Strauss and the Crisis of Rationalism: Another Reason, Another Enlightenment, Robert Howse (tr.), SUNY Press, 2014.
• Piccinini, Irene Abigail.Una guida fedele. L'influenza di Hermann Cohen sul pensiero di Leo Strauss.Torino: Trauben, 2007.ISBN978-88-89909-31-7.
• Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". 87–140 inHermeneutics as Politics,New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
• Sheppard, Eugene R.Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher.Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2006.ISBN978-1-58465-600-5.
• Shorris, Earl. "Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the Philosophy of Mass Deception".Harper's Magazine308, issue 1849 (June 2004): 65–71.
• Smith, Steven B.Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.ISBN978-0-226-76402-3.(Introd:"Why Strauss, Why Now?",online posting,press.uchicago.edu.)
• Smith, Steven B. (editor).The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss.Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.ISBN978-0-521-70399-4.
• Steiner, Stephan:Weimar in Amerika. Leo Strauss' Politische Philosophie,Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013.
• Strong, Tracy B. "Leo Strauss and the Demos," The European Legacy (October, 2012)
• Tanguay, Daniel.Leo Strauss: une biographie intellectuelle.Paris, 2005.ISBN978-2-253-13067-3.
• Tarcov, Nathan. "On a Certain Critique of 'Straussianism'".Review of Politics53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 3–18.
• Tarcov, Nathan. "Philosophy and History: Tradition and Interpretation in the Work of Leo Strauss".Polity16, no. 1 (Autumn 1983): 5–29.
• Tarcov, Nathan and Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy". 907–38 inHistory of Political Philosophy.Ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. 1963; Chicago and London, U of Chicago P, 1987.
• Tepper, Aryeh. "Progressive Minds, Conservative Politics: Leo Strauss' Later Writings on Maimonides." SUNY: 2013.
• Thompson, Bradley C. (with Yaron Brook).Neoconservatism. An Obituary for an Idea.Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers, 2010. pp. 55–131.ISBN978-1-59451-831-7.
• Velkley, Richard.Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of Philosophy: On Original Forgetting.University of Chicago Press, 2011.
• West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a" Declaration of Independence "Soul?"Perspectives on Political Science31, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 35–46.
• Xenos, Nicholas.Cloaked in virtue: Unveiling Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy.New York, Routledge Press, 2008.
• Zuckert, Catherine H.Postmodern Platos.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
• Zuckert, Catherine H., and Michael Zuckert.The Truth about Leo Strauss.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Strauss family

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

External links

• The Leo Strauss Center
• The Leo Strauss Foundation
• Guide to the Leo Strauss Papers circa 1930–1997at the University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center
• Works by or about Leo StraussatInternet Archive
• Leora Batnitzky."Leo Strauss".InZalta, Edward N.(ed.).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.