authors
data
Product: Book
ISBN-10: 0-226-77702-2
ISBN-13: 9780226777023
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Country:
Year: October 15, 1995
Size: 13.97 x 21.08 x 2.03cm
Number of pages: 348
Weight: 386gr
Binding: Paperback
ISBN-10: 0-226-77702-2
ISBN-13: 9780226777023
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Country:
Year: October 15, 1995
Size: 13.97 x 21.08 x 2.03cm
Number of pages: 348
Weight: 386gr
Binding: Paperback
editions
2.) Thoughts on Machiavelli (Washington Paperbacks)
Leo Strauss
University of Washington Press; 1969
Paperback
order
description
Product Description
Leo Strauss argued that the most visible fact about Machiavelli's doctrine is also the most useful one: Machiavelli seems to be a teacher of wickedness. Strauss sought to incorporate this idea in his interpretation without permitting it to overwhelm or exhaust his exegesis of The Prince and the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy. »We are in sympathy,« he writes, »with the simple opinion about Machiavelli [namely, the wickedness of his teaching], not only because it is wholesome, but above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli: the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.« This critique of the founder of modern political philosophy by this prominent twentieth-century scholar is an essential text for students of both authors.
Leo Strauss argued that the most visible fact about Machiavelli's doctrine is also the most useful one: Machiavelli seems to be a teacher of wickedness. Strauss sought to incorporate this idea in his interpretation without permitting it to overwhelm or exhaust his exegesis of The Prince and the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy. »We are in sympathy,« he writes, »with the simple opinion about Machiavelli [namely, the wickedness of his teaching], not only because it is wholesome, but above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in Machiavelli: the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.« This critique of the founder of modern political philosophy by this prominent twentieth-century scholar is an essential text for students of both authors.
reviews
A teacher of evil 
»Thoughts on Machiavelli« is vintage Leo Strauss. In other words, the book is difficult to read, convoluted, and constantly strays from the main subject. And yes, both Strauss' notorious preoccupation with numerology and the Houyuhnhnms make their usual guest appearances. For those unwilling to sift through the book, a shorter summary of Strauss' position on Machiavelli can be found in his »History of Political Philosophy«. At least these days, Strauss is often suspected of having an esoteric message at variance with the seeming contents of his books. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this criticism. Strauss considers Machiavelli to be a teacher of evil and wickedness. At the same time, he also writes that Machiavelli didn't really discover anything new about politics which wasn't known already to the ancients. And Strauss, of course, claims to be a follower of the ancients. Further, Strauss takes Machiavelli to task for being more interested in Xenophon than Plato or Aristotle. Of Xenophon's writings, Machiavelli emphasizes the less philosophical works. But in »History of Political Philosophy«, Strauss himself praises Xenophon, saying that he knew how to be ruthless, and how to govern both gentlemen and nongentlemen (the common people or the mob). Naturally, this has led some people to suspect that Strauss doesn't *really* oppose the evil and wickedness of Machiavelli. Rather, he commands it himself! Esoterically, of course. In one sense, however, Strauss do oppose Machiavelli, but for all the wrong reasons. To Strauss, the main problem with Machiavelli seems to be, that he was too democratic and plebeian! He doesn't say this directly, but it's strongly implied. According to Strauss, the ancients believed that all politics was by nature imperfect (Machiavellian?). The perfect city was a utopia in the strict sense of that term. The ideal cities of Plato's »Republic« or Aristotle's »Politics« were extremely unlikely to ever be constituted. Their constitution was wholly dependent on chance. The perfect city can exist in speech only. However, a small elite of philosophers can reach perfection even in an imperfect city. The majority of the people, on the other hand, will remain unphilosophical. The gulf between the elite and the plebs will always be a large one. Poets and orators are needed to manipulate the plebs into thinking that the imperfect (Machiavellian?) city is really the best possible. This, then, was the perspective of the ancients, at least in Strauss' interpretation. Please note one more time that Strauss *supported* the ancients! So what's the problem with Niccolo Machiavelli, then? Machiavelli created a utopia that *could* be reached, but only by lowering the standards. He wasn't interested in cultivating the moral virtues of a philosophical elite. Rather, he wanted to create an entirely new order of things by giving the common people a large share of political power. This is what Strauss really has against Machiavelli, behind his complaints about »lowering the standards«, »teacher of wickedness«, and so on. Strauss attacks on Machiavelli's real or perceived Realpolitik are disingenuous, since he has already told us that Realpolitik was conducted even by the ancients. It's the republicanism of Machiavelli he dislikes. Nor does Strauss like Machiavelli's insistence that Fortuna can be tamed by those of sufficient virtue (virtue in the new, Machiavellian sense). To Strauss, the idea of creating a really just or equal society must remain a utopia, a city in speech only. He explicitly says that man shouldn't try to conquer nature, and supports the idea that inventions and technological progress should be curtailed, if it threatens the elitist order. Strauss' conservative attack on modernity turns out to be pretty far-reaching! What Strauss has against the modern world, apparently, is the idea that humans can change and reform old, oppressive structures and hierarchies. Not because it's utopian, but because it might actually work … Strauss wants a society in the thrall of Fortuna, where the »Machiavellian« realities of Realpolitik are glossed over by smart orators, while the philosophers cultivate their contemplative virtues, aloof from the inevitable imperfections of civil society. This also explains why Strauss considered our Florentine friend to be a teacher of evil. He exposed the poets and orators, pointing out to the common man how things really work in politics. But, above all, he pointed to something better: a democratic republic of the people. In plain English, Machiavelli was a revolutionary who told the truth! Esoterically or otherwise, Leo Strauss turns out to be the real teacher of evil.
»Thoughts on Machiavelli« is vintage Leo Strauss. In other words, the book is difficult to read, convoluted, and constantly strays from the main subject. And yes, both Strauss' notorious preoccupation with numerology and the Houyuhnhnms make their usual guest appearances. For those unwilling to sift through the book, a shorter summary of Strauss' position on Machiavelli can be found in his »History of Political Philosophy«. At least these days, Strauss is often suspected of having an esoteric message at variance with the seeming contents of his books. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this criticism. Strauss considers Machiavelli to be a teacher of evil and wickedness. At the same time, he also writes that Machiavelli didn't really discover anything new about politics which wasn't known already to the ancients. And Strauss, of course, claims to be a follower of the ancients. Further, Strauss takes Machiavelli to task for being more interested in Xenophon than Plato or Aristotle. Of Xenophon's writings, Machiavelli emphasizes the less philosophical works. But in »History of Political Philosophy«, Strauss himself praises Xenophon, saying that he knew how to be ruthless, and how to govern both gentlemen and nongentlemen (the common people or the mob). Naturally, this has led some people to suspect that Strauss doesn't *really* oppose the evil and wickedness of Machiavelli. Rather, he commands it himself! Esoterically, of course. In one sense, however, Strauss do oppose Machiavelli, but for all the wrong reasons. To Strauss, the main problem with Machiavelli seems to be, that he was too democratic and plebeian! He doesn't say this directly, but it's strongly implied. According to Strauss, the ancients believed that all politics was by nature imperfect (Machiavellian?). The perfect city was a utopia in the strict sense of that term. The ideal cities of Plato's »Republic« or Aristotle's »Politics« were extremely unlikely to ever be constituted. Their constitution was wholly dependent on chance. The perfect city can exist in speech only. However, a small elite of philosophers can reach perfection even in an imperfect city. The majority of the people, on the other hand, will remain unphilosophical. The gulf between the elite and the plebs will always be a large one. Poets and orators are needed to manipulate the plebs into thinking that the imperfect (Machiavellian?) city is really the best possible. This, then, was the perspective of the ancients, at least in Strauss' interpretation. Please note one more time that Strauss *supported* the ancients! So what's the problem with Niccolo Machiavelli, then? Machiavelli created a utopia that *could* be reached, but only by lowering the standards. He wasn't interested in cultivating the moral virtues of a philosophical elite. Rather, he wanted to create an entirely new order of things by giving the common people a large share of political power. This is what Strauss really has against Machiavelli, behind his complaints about »lowering the standards«, »teacher of wickedness«, and so on. Strauss attacks on Machiavelli's real or perceived Realpolitik are disingenuous, since he has already told us that Realpolitik was conducted even by the ancients. It's the republicanism of Machiavelli he dislikes. Nor does Strauss like Machiavelli's insistence that Fortuna can be tamed by those of sufficient virtue (virtue in the new, Machiavellian sense). To Strauss, the idea of creating a really just or equal society must remain a utopia, a city in speech only. He explicitly says that man shouldn't try to conquer nature, and supports the idea that inventions and technological progress should be curtailed, if it threatens the elitist order. Strauss' conservative attack on modernity turns out to be pretty far-reaching! What Strauss has against the modern world, apparently, is the idea that humans can change and reform old, oppressive structures and hierarchies. Not because it's utopian, but because it might actually work … Strauss wants a society in the thrall of Fortuna, where the »Machiavellian« realities of Realpolitik are glossed over by smart orators, while the philosophers cultivate their contemplative virtues, aloof from the inevitable imperfections of civil society. This also explains why Strauss considered our Florentine friend to be a teacher of evil. He exposed the poets and orators, pointing out to the common man how things really work in politics. But, above all, he pointed to something better: a democratic republic of the people. In plain English, Machiavelli was a revolutionary who told the truth! Esoterically or otherwise, Leo Strauss turns out to be the real teacher of evil.
Persecution and the Art of Machiavelli 
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.
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.
Explaining The First modern Philosopher
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 graduate student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to continue one's journey into political philosophy.
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 graduate student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to continue one's journey into political philosophy.
The chewy center of the Straussian project
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 ruthless efficiency of a prince willing to do what had to be done. Thus Strauss sees M. as neither an advocate of a republic or of a prince but of whatever was called for by the circumstances of the time. One last thing-Strauss is hard to read largely for two reasons. The first is that he almost always chose to make his argument by commenting on the work of a great thinker such as M. This presents several difficulties. The reader has to keep in mind whose thought is being expressed at any one point in time. I have sometimes found myself thinking, »wha' the … Oh, that isn't Strauss talking, that is Strauss talking in the voice of M. so as to present M.'s ideas.«. The other difficulty inherent in commentaries is that it helps to know the writings of the thinker being commented on. And you will never know those writings as well as Strauss (I cannot exaggerate Strauss' learning). He not only makes use of M.'s Prince and Discourses but The Life of Castruccio Castracani, Mandragola, The History of Florence, An Exhortation to Penitence and the occassional letter. The latter complication is what makes for the second great problem when reading Strauss. Enter The Notorious Theory of Esoteric Writing!!! ToM is lastly central because it allows the reader to really see Strauss working with his theory of esoteric writing/reading in the second and third chapters as well as the assumptions on which that theory is based (for example, the idea of »perfect speech« on p.121). Strauss makes the assumption that very little, perhaps nothing, in M.'s writing is a mistake. One commentator said that »in Strauss, a blink is always a wink« (sorry, I don't remember where I read that). If there is a contradiction between what M. said in two places, than there is a reason that has to be teased out. I am going to make one comment on the whole esoteric business. I challenge any of you who think that it is an absurdity that some people wrote esoterically to do what Strauss and the better of his followers have done over and over again. Come up with a coherent interpretation of a thinker that is based on the whole of their work that has nothing to do with what that thinker thought. I don't think it can be done. I am not saying that Strauss is right. I am saying that he never spouts nonsense and that any commentator on M. has to deal with Strauss' presentation. In the meantime, you will find much more to profit from by wrestling with Strauss in ToM. As I say over and over in my reviews of his writings, I agree with little of his philosophy but I have learned much from him. Read him for yourself and see what YOU think. By the way, as a follow up reading, you might try Kim Sorensen's Discourses on Strauss. It is a close reading of ToM that focuses on how that particular book discloses Strauss' thought on his reason versus revelation theme.
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 ruthless efficiency of a prince willing to do what had to be done. Thus Strauss sees M. as neither an advocate of a republic or of a prince but of whatever was called for by the circumstances of the time. One last thing-Strauss is hard to read largely for two reasons. The first is that he almost always chose to make his argument by commenting on the work of a great thinker such as M. This presents several difficulties. The reader has to keep in mind whose thought is being expressed at any one point in time. I have sometimes found myself thinking, »wha' the … Oh, that isn't Strauss talking, that is Strauss talking in the voice of M. so as to present M.'s ideas.«. The other difficulty inherent in commentaries is that it helps to know the writings of the thinker being commented on. And you will never know those writings as well as Strauss (I cannot exaggerate Strauss' learning). He not only makes use of M.'s Prince and Discourses but The Life of Castruccio Castracani, Mandragola, The History of Florence, An Exhortation to Penitence and the occassional letter. The latter complication is what makes for the second great problem when reading Strauss. Enter The Notorious Theory of Esoteric Writing!!! ToM is lastly central because it allows the reader to really see Strauss working with his theory of esoteric writing/reading in the second and third chapters as well as the assumptions on which that theory is based (for example, the idea of »perfect speech« on p.121). Strauss makes the assumption that very little, perhaps nothing, in M.'s writing is a mistake. One commentator said that »in Strauss, a blink is always a wink« (sorry, I don't remember where I read that). If there is a contradiction between what M. said in two places, than there is a reason that has to be teased out. I am going to make one comment on the whole esoteric business. I challenge any of you who think that it is an absurdity that some people wrote esoterically to do what Strauss and the better of his followers have done over and over again. Come up with a coherent interpretation of a thinker that is based on the whole of their work that has nothing to do with what that thinker thought. I don't think it can be done. I am not saying that Strauss is right. I am saying that he never spouts nonsense and that any commentator on M. has to deal with Strauss' presentation. In the meantime, you will find much more to profit from by wrestling with Strauss in ToM. As I say over and over in my reviews of his writings, I agree with little of his philosophy but I have learned much from him. Read him for yourself and see what YOU think. By the way, as a follow up reading, you might try Kim Sorensen's Discourses on Strauss. It is a close reading of ToM that focuses on how that particular book discloses Strauss' thought on his reason versus revelation theme.
Explaining The First Modern Philosopher
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.
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.
keywords
- 1469-1527
- Contributions in political sci
- Contributions in political science
- Machiavelli, Niccoláo
- Machiavelli, Niccolo
- Philosophy
- Philosophy|General
- Political Philosophy
- Political Science
- Political Science & Theory
- Political Science|General
- Politics & government
- Politics/International Relations
- Western philosophy, c 500 to c 1600
- Western philosophy: Medieval & Renaissance, c 500 to c 1600
related products
Leo Strauss, Victor Gourevitch (Eds.), Michael S. Roth (Eds.)
University Of Chicago Press; 2000
Paperback
Leo Strauss
University Of Chicago Press; 1999
Paperback
© 1994–2010 Sascha Hendel
last update: 3/14/2010
URL: http://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-226-77702-2.htm
- search