لئو اشتراوس

از ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد
پرش به ناوبری پرش به جستجو
فارسیEnglish
لئو اشتراوس
LeoStrauss.jpg
لئو اشتراوس
زادهسپتامبر ۲۰, ۱۸۹۹
کیرشهاین، هس، پادشاهی پروس، امپراتوری آلمان
درگذشته۱۸ اکتبر ۱۹۷۳ (۷۴ سال)
آناپولیس، مریلند، آمریکا
منطقهفلسفه غرب
مکتب
مهمترین علایق
ایده‌های اصلیپایان هم‌ارزی سیاست و فلسفه، تنش غیرقابل حل بین عقل و وحی، نقد نسبی‌گرایی اخلاقی، , تفاوت بین محقق و اندیشمند بزرگ
دانشگاهدانشگاه ماربورگ
دانشگاه هامبورگ
دانشگاه فرایبورگ
دانشگاه کلمبیا

لئو اشتراوس (Leo Strauss)‏ (۲۰ سپتامبر ۱۸۹۹ در کیرشن آلمان – ۱۸ اکتبر ۱۹۷۳ در آناپولیس آمریکا) نظریه‌پرداز و مورخِ فلسفه سیاسی آلمانی - آمریکایی بود. تلفظ آلمانی نام او اشتراوس و تلفظ انگلیسی آن استراوس است.

اشتراوس در خانواده‌ای یهودی در آلمان به دنیا آمد. وی از تأثیرگذارترین نظریه‌پردازان فلسفه سیاسی قرن بیستم محسوب می‌شود. وی شاگردان زیادی را در دانشگاه شیکاگو تربیت کرد و محققان برجسته‌ای که به اشتراوسی‌ها معروف هستند، از مکتب فکری او پیروی می‌کنند. روش منحصربفرد و پیچیده اشتراوس در تفسیر آثار و اعتقادات نویسندگان بزرگ و انتقادات وی از مدرنیته باعث شده تا اشتراوس و مکتب فکری او مخالفان زیادی نیز داشته باشند.

بیشتر آثار اشتراوس به تفسیر متون قدیمی تاریخ فلسفه به ویژه آثار افلاطون و ارسطو اختصاص دارد که برای تفسیر آن‌ها از آثار فلاسفه مسلمان و یهودی قرون وسطی همچون ابن میمون و فارابی بهره می‌گیرد. وی از منتقدان فلسفه مدرن است و معتقد است که دیدگاه‌های فلاسفه قدیمی و ادیان وحیانی به مراتب محکم‌تر از نظرات پایه‌گذاران فکری مدرنیته همچون ماکیاولی، هابز، لاک و ژان-ژاک روسو بوده‌است و تلاش دارد تا نشان دهد که فلاسفه مدرن تنها با نادیده گرفتن استدلال‌های فلاسفه قدیمی توانسته‌اند بر آن‌ها پیروز شوند.

زندگی[ویرایش]

لئو اشتراوس در ۲۰ سپتامبر ۱۸۹۹ در شهرک کوچک کیرشن در منطقه پروس در امپراتوری آلمان به دنیا آمد. خانواده‌اش از یهودیان محافظه‌کار و ارتدوکس بودند و پدر و عمویش به کار کشاورزی و دامپروری اشتغال داشتند.

لئو یک و نیم سال پایانی جنگ جهانی اول را در ارتش آلمان خدمت کرد. وی در دانشگاه هامبورگ ثبت نام کرده و مدرک دکترای خود را در سال ۱۹۲۱ گرفت. تز دکترای او «مشکلات دانش در نظریه فلسفی اف‌اچ یاکوبی» نام داشت و ارنست کاسیرر استاد راهنمای او بود. وی دوره‌هایی را هم در دانشگاه‌های فرایبورگ و ماربورگ گذرانده و در کلاس‌های ادموند هوسرل و مارتین هایدگر حضور یافت. وی در این دوران به یک گروه یهودی پیوسته و از هواداران جنبش صهیونیسم شد و از این طریق با گروهی از اندیشمندان یهودی آلمان همچون نوربرت الیاس، لئو لوونتال، هانا آرنت و والتر بنیامین آشنا شد. در این دوران نزدیکترین دوست او یاکوب کلین بود و با اندیشمندانی چون هانس گئورگ گادامر، فرانتس رزنتسوایگ، کارل لویت، گرشام شوئلم، پل کراوس (که با خواهر اشتراوس ازدواج کرد) و کارل اشمیت نیز مباحثاتی داشت.

اشتراوس در سال ۱۹۳۲ با پشتیبانی بنیاد راکفلر به پاریس رفت و چند سال را در فرانسه گذراند و تحت نظر لوئی ماسینیون و آندره زیگفرید به مطالعهٔ فلسفهٔ اسلامی و فلسفه یهودی دورهٔ میانه پرداخت. حاصل این دو سال کتاب فلسفه و شریعت (۱۹۳۵) (به آلمانی: Philosophie und Gesetz) بود. این کتاب حاوی مطالبی دربارهٔ فلسفهٔ سیاسی ابن میمون، فارابی، ابن سینا و ابن رشد است. اشتراوس در این کتاب تلاش می‌کند که با استفاده از آثار اصلی فیلسوفان سیاسی اسلامی و یهودی میانه، اندیشه‌های آنان را در بارهٔ نزاع عقل و وحی بیان کند.[۱]

وی در فرانسه با میریام (ماری) برانسون ازدواج کرد. برانسون بیوه‌ای با یک فرزند بود که اشتراوس در آلمان با او آشنا شده بود. اشتراوس پسر همسرش و فرزند خواهرش (خواهر اشتراوس با پل کراس ازدواج کرده بود و هر دوی آن‌ها در خاورمیانه کشته شدند) را بزرگ کرد اما خودش صاحب فرزندی نشد. دوستی نزدیک اشتراوس با الکساندر کوژو که تا پایان عمرش ادامه داشت در این دوران شروع شد. وی در پاریس روابط دوستانه‌ای نیز با اتین ژیلسون و ریمون آرون داشت. در این دوران نازی‌ها در آلمان به قدرت رسیدند و اشتراوس یهودی امکان بازگشت به کشورش را از دست داد.

اشتراوس در سال ۱۹۳۵ کار موقتی در دانشگاه کمبریج پیدا کرد و به انگلستان سفر کرد اما نتوانست کار دائمی در انگلستان بیابد و در سال ۱۹۳۷ با حمایت هارولد لاسکی فرصت تدریس در دانشکده تاریخ دانشگاه کلمبیا را پیدا کرده و به آمریکا مهاجرت کرد. وی در آن هنگام یک محقق عادی محسوب می‌شد که تحقیقات او گرایش‌های نسبتاً عجیبی داشت. او مثل دیگر مهاجرین آلمانی هم‌دورهٔ خود همچون هانا آرنت، مارکوزه، هورکهایمر و اریک فوگلین به تدریج در جامعه دانشگاهی آمریکا مطرح شد. اما تفاوت او با دیگران این است که از میان محققان اروپایی که پس از ظهور نازیسم به آمریکا مهاجرت کردند تنها اشتراوس بنیان‌گذار نوعی مکتب خاص فکری شد. اگرچه بسیاری از محققین آمریکایی نیز از این مهاجران تأثیر پذیرفتند اما به ندرت می‌توان کسی را یافت که به آرنتی یا مارکوزه‌ای مشهور باشد. در حالیکه شمار قابل توجهی از محققین برجسته به عنوان اشتراوسی شناخته می‌شوند.[۲]

اشتراوس در ۱۹۴۴ شهروند آمریکا شد. از ۱۹۳۸ تا ۱۹۴۹ در مدرسه جدید پژوهش اجتماعی تدریس کرد. در سال ۱۹۴۹ استاد علوم سیاسی در دانشگاه شیکاگو شد و برای اولین بار در عمرش دستمزد خوبی دریافت کرد. او تا سال ۱۹۶۸ در این دانشگاه تدریس می‌کرد. اشتراوس از ۱۹۶۸ تا ۱۹۶۹ در کالج کلرمون و از ۱۹۶۹ تا زمان مرگش در ۱۹۷۳ در کالج سن جان تدریس کرد.[۳]

اشتراوس ۱۵ کتاب نوشته‌است که سه کتاب اول به آلمانی و بقیه به انگلیسی هستند. در میان آثار او سه کتاب «حق طبیعی و تاریخ»، «شهر و انسان» و «اندیشه‌هایی در باب ماکیاولی» را می‌توان کتاب‌های آموزه‌محور او معرفی کرد. یعنی با فهم آن‌ها می‌توان کلیت نظریات اشتراوس را دریافت.[۴]

اندیشه[ویرایش]

سخن گفتن از اعتقادات و نظریات اشتراوس بسیار دشوار است چراکه بیشتر آثار او به شرح آثار فلاسفه قدیمی و بررسی تاریخ فلسفه اختصاص دارد و به ندرت می‌توان اظهار نظری شخصی از در مورد مسائل روز سیاسی مثل دمکراسی یا جنگ پیدا کرد. اشتراوس حتی نظری منفی نسبت به سیاست به معنای روزمره آن دارد. در نگرش او چیزی به نام مسئولیت روشنفکری یا کاربرد فلسفه به عنوان ابزار اصلاح اجتماعی وجود ندارد. او نگرش افلاطونی را دنبال می‌کند که به «شهر» (محل زندگی سیاسی و فضای عمومی) به مثابهٔ غار-زندان می‌نگرد. از دیدگاه او مجادلات سیاسی روزمره چیزی جز بحث در مورد سایه‌های روی دیوار نیست و غایت فلسفهٔ سیاسی بیرون رفتن از شهر و تأمل در باب مسائل بنیادی است.

از طرف دیگر آثار اشتراوس سرشار از نکات ریز و دقیق و مشحون از نقل قول‌های مستقیم و ارجاعات مکرر به آثار مختلف هستند. از نظر اشتراوس هیچ کلمه‌ای در اثر یک نویسنده درجه اول اتفاقی نیست و حتی استفاده از یک کلمه به جای کلمه دیگر ممکن است در فهم معنای متن به خواننده کمک کند. به همین دلیل خواندن آثار اشتراوس نیازمند رفت و برگشت مکرر به متن اصلی و بازخوانی متون قدیمی است. علاوه بر این اشتراوس معمولاً از نتیجه‌گیری خودداری می‌کند و از خواننده می‌خواهد که خود با مراجعه به متن به قلب اثر هدایت شود. به همین دلیل مطالعه آثار اشتراوس نیازمند حوصله زیاد و ترجمه‌های بسیار دقیق (هم از اثر اشتراوس و هم از متن اصلی) و حتی آشنایی به چند زبان مختلف است.[۵]

از نظر اشتراوس فلسفه و سیاست قابل تفکیک نیستند. در باور او فلسفه سیاسی با محاکمه و اعدام سقراط پا به عرصه وجود گذاشت. این بحث سقراط که فلاسفه برای مطالعه «طبیعت» بایستی به سراغ مطالعه «طبیعت انسان» بروند و در زبان افلاطون به صورت «انسان یک حیوان سیاسی است» ترجمه شده، از نظر اشتراوس یکی از مهم‌ترین مباحث تاریخ فلسفه است.

اشتراوس بین «متفکران بزرگ» و «محققان» تمایز می‌گذارد. او خودش را در گروه محققان می‌داند و معتقد است بیشتر افرادی که خود را فیلسوف می‌دانسته‌اند در واقع محقق بوده‌اند. از نظر او خصوصیت یک محقق احتیاط فکری و تعهد به موازین روش‌شناسی است. متفکران بزرگ بی‌باکانه و خلاقانه به سراغ مسائل نظری بزرگ می‌روند اما محققان به صورت غیرمستقیم با این مسایل نظری درگیر می‌شوند و کارشان بررسی تفاوت دیدگاه‌های متفکران در مورد این مسائل است.

بخش مهمی از فلسفه اشتراوس در واقع پاسخ به آثار هایدگر است. اشتراوس معتقد است که صورت‌بندی کامل فلسفه سیاسی مدرن بدون فهم تفکرات هایدگر ممکن نیست و در تفکرات سیاسی بایستی مسائل هستی‌شناسی و تاریخ متافیزیک در نظر گرفته شود.

اشتراوس نوشته‌است که نیچه نخستین فیلسوفی بود که به خوبی نسبی‌گرایی را درک کرد و ایدهٔ نسبی‌گرایی ریشه در موافقت کلی با تاریخی‌گرایی هگلی دارد. هایدگر اما تفکر نیچه را بهسازی کرده و به آن جنبهٔ سیاسی بخشید. نیچه معتقد بود که اصول فکری ما همچون اعتقاد به پیشرفت به همان اندازه سایر اصول قدیمی نسبی هستندو تنها راهی که برای خروج از این نسبی‌گرایی انتخاب یک دروغ زندگی‌بخش به جای یک حقیقت مرگبار و ساختن یک «افسانه است. هایدگر اعتقاد داشت که نیهیلیسم تراژیک نیچه ناشی از یک مفهوم ناقص غربی از وجود است که ریشه آن به تفکرات افلاطون می‌رسد.

انتقاد از تاریخی‌گرایی[ویرایش]

نکتهٔ محوری در اندیشه اشتراوس این است که حقایق فلسفی زمانمند نیستند. یعنی سوالات بنیادین فلسفه در تمام زمان‌ها مشترک است. از همین منظر است که اشتراوس با تاریخی‌گرایی مخالفت می‌کند. دیدگاه تاریخی‌گرایی معتقد است بستر تاریخی که هر شخص در آن زندگی می‌کند شیوهٔ اندیشیدن او را تعیین می‌کند و از آنجا که گذشتگان در فضای تاریخی بسیار متفاوتی زندگی کرده‌اند امکان دستیابی به نظرات واقعی آن‌ها غیرممکن است.

از نظر اشتراوس آنچه مانع فهم درست قدما می‌شود تغییر دوران تاریخی نیست، بلکه سلطهٔ نگرش مدرنی است که یا نظریات قدما را از اشتباه می‌کند و از بررسی آن‌ها به استناد برداشتی دگماتیک و متعصبانه از مفاهیم مدرن (همچون پیشرفت و دمکراسی) طفره می‌رود یا همین عقیده تاریخی‌گرایی رایج که امکان دستیابی به نظرات حقیقی قدما را به دلایل هرمنوتیکی و تاریخی ناممکن می‌داند. در نتیجه تلاش اشتراوس بر دو محور استوار است؛ اول اینکه نشان دهد نظرات قدما رد نشده‌اند بلکه نادیده گرفته شده‌اند و دوم اینکه تاریخی‌گرایی هایدگری نامعقول و بی‌پایه است. به همین دلیل شعار همیشگی او اینست: «فهمیدن آثار فلاسفه قدیمی به همان صورتی که خودشان آن‌ها را می‌فهمیده‌اند».[۶]

اشتراوس در معروفترین کتاب خود که «حق طبیعی و تاریخ» نام دارد به تاریخ‌گرایی حمله می‌کند. از نظر او این جریان با نفی تمایز میان «گمان» و «دانش» (دوکسا و اپیستمه)، «عرف» و «طبیعت» (نوموس و فوسیس) به نفی تمام و کمال ایدهٔ «حق طبیعی» (استانداردهای عینی که می‌تواند مبنای طرح قوانین سیاسی و اخلاقی باشد) و حتی امتناع فلسفه در معنای جستجوی دانش و حقیقت منجر می‌شود. اگر تمایز میان دانش و گمان فرو بریزد، فلسفه هم به عنوان شرط ضروری حق طبیعی فرو خواهد ریخت.[۷]

اشتراوس همیشه اصل را بر این می‌گیرد که فلاسفهٔ بزرگ بهتر از ما مسائل را می‌فهمیده‌اند و ما نباید خود را داناتر از آن‌ها فرض کرده و نظرات آن‌ها را با توجه به عقاید خود تفسیر کنیم. حرف یک فیلسوف خارق‌العاده همچون ارسطو هرچقدر هم برای ما نامعقول باشد بایستی جدی گرفته شده و دلیل موافقت ارسطو با آن بررسی شود. برای مثال این دیدگاه ارسطو که دمکراسی رژیم نامطلوبی است را نباید به حساب تفکرات منسوخ یونانیان و تأثیرپذیری ارسطو از عقاید اشتباه رایج در جامعه آن دوران بگذاریم، بلکه باید آن را بررسی کرده و دلایل او را به دقت بسنجیم. به همین دلیل است که خوانش اشتراوس از متن آثار فلاسفه بی‌شباهت به خوانش متون مقدس مذهبی در مدارس مذهبی نیست.[۶]

شیوهٔ تفسیر[ویرایش]

یکی از جدلی‌ترین وجوه اندیشه اشتراوس اعتقاد او به وجود مطالب پنهان در آثار نویسندگان قدیمی است. اشتراوس معتقد است که بسیاری از نویسندگان بزرگ قدیمی به دلایل مختلف نظریات خود را در باطن آثار خود مخفی ساخته‌اند و برای دستیابی به اعتقادات اصلی آن‌ها باید وجوه پنهانی آثار آن‌ها را کشف کرد. یکی از روش‌های کشف وجوه پنهانی «عددشناسی» است. برای مثال او در کتاب «اندیشه‌هایی در باب ماکیاولی» بخش‌های مفصلی را به بررسی تعداد فصل‌های کتاب شهریار ماکیاولی و تعداد کلمات و ارتباط این اعداد با یکدیگر اختصاص می‌دهد. وی نتیجه می‌گیرد که برای فهم بسیاری از فصول کتاب‌های ماکیاولی بایستی همان فصل را در کتاب‌های دیگر او مطالعه کرد. مثلاً فصل ۱۱ شهریار که به «شهریاری‌های کلیسایی» می‌پردازد باید در پرتو فصل ۱۱ کتاب گفتارها که مربوط به «دین رومی‌ها» است درک شود. وی با همین روش به این نتیجه می‌رسد که ماکیاولی اندیشمندی به شدت «ضدمسیحی» بوده و منشأ تمام بدی‌ها و نابسامانی‌های زمان خود را در آموزه‌های مسیحی می‌دیده‌است. برای مثال ماکیاولی در فصل ۱۳۴ شهریار داستان جالوت و داوود را نقل می‌کند اما به شیوه‌ای اشتباه و چاقویی را هم در دست داوود می‌گذارد که در داستان کتاب مقدس وجود ندارد.[۸]

روش دیگر اشتراوس برای درک مطالب پنهانی در آثار فلاسفه توجه به اشتباهات آشکار نویسندگان بزرگ است. گاهی دیده می‌شود که نویسنده‌ای نقل قولی از یک اثر مشهور می‌آورد که در آن اثر وجود ندارد یا نقل قولی را به شخص دیگری نسبت می‌دهد یا داستانی را به شیوه اشتباه روایت می‌کند. اشتراوس معتقد است نویسندگان بزرگ از این اشتباهات عمدی برای رساندن پیام‌های خود سود می‌برده‌اند.[۸]

نباید پنداشت که وجود جنبه‌های باطنی در متون قدیمی کشف اشتراوس است. این امر در روزگاران پیش کاملاً شناخته شده بود و اشتراوس دوباره به آن توجه کرده و بر اهمیت آن واقف گشته‌است. برای مثال فارابی می‌گوید: «افلاطون حکیم از گشودن اسرار علم در نزد خاص و عام اکراه داشته‌است از همین رو با توسل به کنایه و رمز و تمثیل و مغلق‌گویی کوشیده‌است فلسفه را از اغیار و نااهل حفظ کند و نگذارد فلسه توسط این افراد به کژراهه کشانده شود یا به دست کسانی بیفتد که ارزش آن را نمی‌دانند یا به شیوه‌ای نادرست از آن استفاده می‌کنند». ابن میمون نیز در پیشگفتار کتاب دلالة المتحیرین می‌نویسد که کتابش به عمد حاوی تناقض‌های مخفی است زیرا به هنگام صحبت از مسائل مبهم، مخفی کردن برخی مسائل و آشکار ساختن بعضی دیگر ضرورت دارد.[۹]

اما چرا بسیاری از نویسندگان باستان از چنین شیوه عجیبی برای نگارش استفاده می‌کرده‌اند؟ به نظر اشتراوس مهم‌ترین و بارزترین دلیل ترس از پیگرد و خطری بود که از ناحیه جامعه و حکومت متوجه فلسفه می‌شد. فیلسوفان باید خود را در جوامع بسته و رژیم‌های جبار زمانه خود حفظ می‌کردند. اما یک خطر دیگر که چندان آشکار نیست خطری است که از ناحیه فلسفه متوجه جامعه می‌شد. فلسفه باورهای جامعه را زیر سؤال می‌برد و فلاسفه به خاطر مسئولیتی که در مقابل جامعه خود دارند بایستی به عقاید و باورهای عمومی احترام بگذارند.[۱۰]

بحران مدرنیته[ویرایش]

اشتراوس بیش از هرچیز مورخ فلسفهٔ سیاسی است و انگیزه او در بررسی فلسفه کلاسیک بیشتر ناشی از درک ویژه‌اش از بحران مدرنیته و بحران جاری غرب است. او ریشه این بحران را در بی‌اعتقادی غرب به اهداف و ارزش‌های خود می‌داند. این بی‌اعتقادی پیامد چالش‌های نظری فلسفهٔ سیاسی در مورد برنامه‌های مدرنیته مانند ارزش جهان‌گرایی، پیوند رفاه با عدالت و سعادت، و به‌کارگیری علم در راه قدرت انسان است.[۱۱]

تردید نسبت به برتری هدف تا حدی از تجربه‌های ناموفق قرن بیستم نشأت گرفته و به رشد دیدگاه‌های تاریخ‌گرایانه و نسبی‌گرایانه انجامیده که امکان شناخت ارزش‌ها و اهداف جهانشمول را نفی می‌کنند. بحران مدرنیته بحرانی را در دمکراسی لیبرالی پدیدآورده است. لیبرال دمکراسی دیگر به عقلانی بودن هدف‌ها و معیارها و ارزش‌هایش ایمان ندارد و به نوعی بی‌بندوباری و تحجر فکری گرایش یافته‌است.

اشتراوس معتقد است برای یافتن منشأ بحران مدرنیته باید به مطالعه مقدمات مدرنیته و مقایسه فلسفه سیاسی مدرن با فلسفه کلاسیک پرداخت. مطالعه‌ای که بنا را بر درستی تفکر جاری و نادرستی تفکر باستانی نمی‌گذارد. این مطالعه با مقایسه تاریخ‌گرایی با فلسفه غیر تاریخ‌گرایانه گذشته ممکن است و فلسفهٔ غیر تاریخ‌گرایانه گذشته را تنها با مطالعهٔ تاریخی غیر تاریخ‌گرایانه می‌توان دریافت.[۱۲]

در مورد جمهوری افلاطون[ویرایش]

اشتراوس به انتقادات کارل پوپر در کتاب «جامعه باز و دشمنان آن» از جمهوری افلاطون این‌گونه پاسخ می‌دهد که جمهوری افلاطون راهنمایی برای اصلاح نظام سیاسی نیست و از سیسرو نقل قول می‌کند: «جمهوری بهترین رژیم را به ما نشان نمی‌دهد بلکه ماهیت چیزهای سیاسی و ماهیت شهر را به نمایش می‌گذارد».

از نظر اشتراوس شهری که در جمهوری افلاطون از آن سخن می‌رود غیرطبیعی است به این دلیل که «برای تحقق آن بایستی اروس حذف شود» و منظور او از اروس نیازهای جسمی آدمیان است. اشتراوس معتقد است که افلاطون جمهوری را نوشته تا ثابت کند که چنین نظامی غیرممکن است. از نظر او جمهوری و فیلسوف‌شاه افلاطون هر دو تعلیق به امر محال (reductio ad absurdum) هستند.

منتقدان[ویرایش]

بحث‌انگیزترین دیدگاه اشتراوس دعوت او به بازگشت به قدما و انتقادات سختی است که بر مبانی فکری فیلسوفان دوران مدرن و عصر روشنگری همچون ماکیاولی، هابز، لاک و روسو، اسپینوزا، منتسکیو وارد می‌کند و نقد خویش را تا فلاسفه جدیدتری چون مارکس و هایدگر ادامه می‌دهد. او تلاش دارد تا نشان دهد که فلاسفهٔ مدرن تنها با نادیده گرفتن استدلال‌های فلاسفه قدیمی توانسته‌اند بر آن‌ها پیروز شوند. برای مثال او در کتاب «اندیشه‌های در باب ماکیاولی» این اندیشمند ایتالیایی را «آموزگار شر» می‌نامد و می‌نویسد «ماکیاولی از سنت بزرگ می‌گسلد و عصر روشنگری را آغاز می‌کند. ما باید این مسئله را بررسی کنیم که آیا عصر روشنگری شایسته نامش است یا اینکه نام اصلی آن عصر تاریکی است».[۵]

بدیهی است که بازگشت به قدمایی که اشتراوس توصیه می‌کند با اعتراض‌های زیادی روبرو خواهد شد. افلاطون و ارسطویی که اشتراوس از آن‌ها دفاع می‌کند نه به برابری انسان‌ها معتقد بوده‌اند، نه دمکرات بوده‌اند و نه پیرو ایده‌آل‌های مدرنی چون حقوق بشر و سکولاریسم. پس تأکید اشتراوس بر حقانیت قدما به معنای به چالش کشیدن مقدس‌ترین آموزه‌های فکری انسان مدرن خواهد بود.[۵]

همین باعث شده تا اشتراوس منتقدان زیادی نیز در جامعه دانشگاهی، محافل روشنفکری و چپ‌گرا داشته باشد به‌طوری‌که حتی تعلق خاطر به اشتراوس یا شاگردان او می‌تواند مانع مهمی برای پیشرفت آکادمیک باشد. یک نمونه معروف در ماجرای عدم اعطای استاد تمامی دانشگاه ییل به تامس پنگل اتفاق افتاد. نقل است که یکی از اعضای دانشگاه گفته بود: «دو گروه نمی‌توانند در ییل کرسی استادی دائم داشته باشند یکی لنینیست‌ها و دیگری اشتراوسی‌ها».[۲]

اشتراوس گاهی در رسانه‌های عمومی و محافل چپ‌گرا به عنوان پدر معنوی جریان نومحافظه‌کاری آمریکا قلمداد می‌شود. نومحافظه‌کاران جریانی در داخل حزب جمهوری‌خواه آمریکا هستند که در دولت جرج بوش پسر قدرت زیادی یافتند. ادعای تأثیرپذیری نومحافظه‌کاران از اندیشه‌های اشتراوس با انتقاد گروهی دیگر از اندیشمندان مواجه شده‌است چراکه قریب به اتفاق نوشته‌های اشتراوس در مورد مسائل کاملاً نظری فلسفه سیاسی است و او به ندرت اظهار نظری در مورد مسائل روز سیاسی کرده‌است. این گروه معتقدند ایدهٔ صدور دمکراسی نومحافظه‌کاران نیز با اندیشه قدمایی اشتراوس قابل جمع نیست. نومحافظه‌کاران کلید مشکلات جهان را در دمکراتیک شدن تمام کشورها می‌بینند. ایدهٔ صدور دمکراسی ایده‌ای مدرن است که با نظریات اندیشمندان مدرنی چون لاک، روسو و منتسکیو قابل جمع است نه اندیشه قدمایی که اشتراوس از آن دفاع می‌کند.[۱۳]

ترجمهٔ آثار اشتراوس به فارسی[ویرایش]

  • حقوق طبیعی و تاریخ. ترجمهٔ باقر پرهام. نشر آگه
  • فلسفهٔ سیاسی: مقالاتی منتخب. ترجمهٔ فرهنگ رجایی. انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی
  • شهر و انسان، ترجمهٔ رسول نمازی. نشر آگه
  • ضیافتِ افلاطون به‌نزدِ لئو اشتراوس. ترجمهٔ ایرج آذرفزا. انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی
  • سقراطِ کسنوفون، ترجمۀ یاشار جیرانی، نشر پگاه روزگار نو
  • گفتارِ سقراطی کسنوفون. ترجمهٔ یاشار جیرانی. نشر آگه
  • مقدمه‌ای سیاسی بر فلسفه. ترجمهٔ یاشار جیرانی. نشر آگه
  • جامعه‌شناسی فلسفهٔ سیاسی. ترجمهٔ محسن رضوانی. نشر پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی

پانوشت‌ها[ویرایش]

  1. رضوانی: ۱۳۸۵، صص ۶۴–۵
  2. ۲٫۰ ۲٫۱ نمازی، سیاست‌نامه، ص ۸
  3. تارکوف و پنگل، ص ۱
  4. جیرانی، مهرنامه، ص ۲۶۶
  5. ۵٫۰ ۵٫۱ ۵٫۲ نمازی، سیاست‌نامه، ص ۱۰
  6. ۶٫۰ ۶٫۱ نمازی، مهرنامه، ص ۲۶۸
  7. جیرانی، ص ۲۶۷
  8. ۸٫۰ ۸٫۱ نمازی، سیاست‌نامه، ص ۹
  9. تارکوف و پنگل، ص ۱۵–۱۶
  10. تارکوف و پنگل، ص ۱۷
  11. تارکوف و پنگل، ص ۲–۳
  12. تارکوف و پنگل، ص ۱۰
  13. نمازی، مهرنامه، ص ۲۶۹

منابع[ویرایش]

  • ناتان تارکوف، تامس ال پنگل (۱۳۷۳)، «لئو اشتراوس و تاریخ نقد نظریهٔ دولت جدید»، نقد نظریهٔ دولت جدید، ترجمهٔ احمد تدین، به کوشش ویراستهٔ لئو اشتراوس و جوزف کراپسی.، تهران: انتشارات کویر، ص. صص ۱–۶۲
  • محسن رضوانی (۱۳۸۵لئو اشتراوس و فلسفهٔ سیاسی اسلامی، قم: مرکز انتشارات مؤسسهٔ آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی
  • نمازی، رسول. پایه‌گذار جدال با قدما؛ دربارهٔ لئو اشتراوس و ماکیاولی. سیاست‌نامه، شماره ۱، زمستان ۹۲، ص ۸–۱۰
  • نمازی، رسول. بازکردن راه بازگشت به قدما از مسیر نقد بنیانگذاران مدرنیته، مهرنامه، شماره ۳۳، دی ۹۲، ص ۲۶۹–۲۷۰
  • جیرانی، یاشار. در جستجوی آموزهٔ لئو اشتراوس، مهرنامه، شماره ۳۳، دی ۹۲، ص ۲۶۶–۲۶۷

پیوند به بیرون[ویرایش]

Leo Strauss
LeoStrauss.jpg
BornSeptember 20, 1899
DiedOctober 18, 1973(1973-10-18) (aged 74)
Alma materUniversity of Marburg
University of Hamburg
University of Freiburg
Columbia University
Era20th-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
School
Main interests
Notable ideas
The ends of politics and philosophy as irreducible to one another
The unresolvable tension between reason and revelation
Criticism of moral relativism, historicism, and nihilism[2][6]
The distinction between esoteric and exoteric writing

Leo Strauss (/strs/;[7] German: [ˈleːo ˈʃtʁaʊs];[8][9] September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a German-American political philosopher and classicist who specialized in classical political philosophy. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.[10]

Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss later focused his research on the Greek texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.[11]

Early life

Strauss was born on September 20, 1899 in the small town of Kirchhain in Hesse-Nassau, a province of the Kingdom of Prussia (part of the German Empire), to Hugo Strauss and Jennie Strauss, née David. According to Allan Bloom's 1974 obituary in Political Theory, Strauss "was raised as an Orthodox Jew", but the family does not appear to have completely embraced Orthodox practice.[12] 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.[13]

Education

After attending the Kirchhain Volksschule and the Protestant Rektoratsschule, Leo Strauss was enrolled at the Gymnasium Philippinum (affiliated with the University of Marburg) in nearby Marburg (from which Johannes Althusius and Carl J. Friedrich also graduated) in 1912, graduating in 1917. He boarded with the Marburg cantor Strauss (no relation); the Cantor's residence served as a meeting place for followers of the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen. Strauss served in the German army during World War I from July 5, 1917 to December 1918.

Strauss subsequently enrolled in the University of Hamburg, where he received his doctorate in 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 by Ernst Cassirer. He also attended courses at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg, including some taught by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Strauss joined a Jewish fraternity and worked for the German Zionist movement, which introduced him to various German Jewish intellectuals, such as Norbert Elias, Leo Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin. Walter Benjamin was and remained an admirer of Strauss and of his work throughout his life.[14][15][16]

Strauss' closest friend was Jacob Klein but he also was intellectually engaged with Karl Löwith, Julius Guttman, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Franz Rosenzweig (to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), Gershom Scholem, Alexander Altmann, and the Arabist Paul Kraus, who married Strauss' sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted their child when both parents died in the Middle East). With several of these friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life, many of which are published in the Gesammelte Schriften (Collected Writings), some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in a discourse with Carl Schmitt. However, after Strauss left Germany, he broke off the discourse when Schmitt failed to respond to his letters.

In 1931, Strauss sought his post-doctoral habilitation with the theologian Paul Tillich, but was turned down. After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies in Berlin for Paris. 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; he and Miriam had no biological children of their own. At his death he was survived by Thomas, daughter Jenny Strauss Clay, and three grandchildren. Strauss became a lifelong friend of Alexandre Kojève and was on friendly terms with Raymond Aron, Alexandre Koyré, and Étienne 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 University of Cambridge, with the help of his in-law, David Daube, who was affiliated with Gonville and Caius College. While in England, he became a close friend of R. H. Tawney, and was on less friendly terms with Isaiah Berlin.[17]

American years

The University 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 of Harold Laski, who made introductions and helped him obtain a brief lectureship. After a short stint as Research Fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University, Strauss secured a position at The New School, where, between 1938 and 1948, he worked the political science faculty and also took on adjunct jobs.[18] In 1939, he served for a short term as a visiting professor at Hamilton College. He became a U.S. citizen in 1944, and in 1949 he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, holding the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship until he left in 1969.

In 1953, Strauss coined the phrase "reductio ad Hitlerum".[19]

In 1954 he met Löwith and Gadamer in Heidelberg and delivered a public speech on Socrates. He had received a call for a temporary lectureship in Hamburg in 1965 (which he declined for health reasons) and received and accepted an honorary doctorate from Hamburg University and the Bundesverdienstkreuz (German Order of Merit) via the German representative in Chicago. In 1969 Strauss moved to Claremont McKenna College (formerly Claremont Men's College) in California for a year, and then to St. John's College, Annapolis in 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death from pneumonia in 1973.[20]

Philosophy

For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined. He regarded the trial and death of Socrates as the moment when political philosophy came into existence. Strauss considered one of the most important moments in the history of philosophy Socrates' argument that philosophers could not study nature without considering their own human nature,[21] which, in the words of Aristotle, is that of "a political animal."[22] However, he also held that the ends of politics and philosophy were inherently irreconcilable and irreducible to one another.[23][24]

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.[25]

In Natural Right and History Strauss begins with a critique of Max Weber's epistemology, briefly engages the relativism of Martin Heidegger (who goes unnamed), and continues with a discussion of the evolution of natural rights via an analysis of the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. He concludes by critiquing Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke. At the heart of the book are excerpts from Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. Much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of Heidegger. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible, and this entails that political thought has to engage with issues of ontology and the history of metaphysics.

Strauss wrote that Friedrich Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand historicism, an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian philosophy of history. Heidegger, in Strauss' 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".[26] Heidegger believed that the tragic nihilism of Nietzsche was a "myth" guided by a defective Western conception of Being that Heidegger traced to Plato. In his published correspondence with Alexandre Kojève, Strauss wrote that Hegel was correct when he postulated that an end of history implies an end to philosophy as understood by classical political philosophy.[27]

On reading

Strauss's study of philosophy and political discourses produced by the Islamic civilization, above all those of Al-Farabi and Maimonides, 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".[28] In 1952 he published Persecution 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.[29][30][31] Taking his bearings from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in the Phaedrus, Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art of esoteric writing 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 the Phaedrus, 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's hermeneutical argument[3]—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably in The City and Man [1964])—is that, prior to 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 the Inquisition or 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 aristoi), 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 following Gotthold 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.[32]

According to his critics, especially Shadia Drury, Strauss wrongly assumes a distinction between an "exoteric" or salutary and an "esoteric" or "true" aspect of the philosophy of pre-modern political philosophers. Furthermore, Strauss is often accused of having himself written esoterically. The accusation would seem to rest upon the belief that in modern-era liberal societies and, especially in the United States, philosophers are not free to voice their philosophical views in public without being accused of impropriety.[33]

On politics

According to Strauss, modern social science is flawed because it assumes the fact–value distinction, a concept which Strauss found dubious. He traced its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max 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's relativism.[34] 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 both Auguste Comte and Max Weber in the quest to make purportedly value-free judgments, failed to justify its own existence, which would require a value judgment.[35]

While modern-era liberalism had 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 the good for the city and man?[36]

Encounters with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre Kojève

Two significant political-philosophical dialogues Strauss had with living thinkers were those he held with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre 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 on Hobbes was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany.[37]

Strauss's critique and clarifications of The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Writing to Schmitt in 1932, Strauss summarised Schmitt's political theology that "because man is by nature evil, he therefore needs dominion. 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."[38]

Strauss, however, directly opposed Schmitt's position. For Strauss, Schmitt and his return to Thomas Hobbes helpfully clarified the nature of our political existence and our modern self-understanding. Schmitt's position was therefore symptomatic of the modern-era liberal self-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.[39]

With Kojève, Strauss had a close and lifelong philosophical friendship. They had first met as students in Berlin. The two thinkers shared a boundless philosophical respect for each other. Kojève would later write that, without befriending Strauss, "I never would have known ... what philosophy is".[40] The political-philosophical dispute between Kojève and Strauss centred 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 the European 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.[41]

Liberalism and nihilism

Strauss taught that liberalism in its modern form (which is oriented toward universal freedom as opposed to "ancient liberalism" which is oriented toward human excellence), contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism:[42]

The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Bolshevik regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.[43] The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism", which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.[44][45]

In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and 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.[46]

Strauss's interpretation of Plato's Republic

According to Strauss, The Republic by Plato is not "a blueprint for regime reform" (a play on words from Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies, which attacks The Republic for being just that). Strauss quotes Cicero: "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things—the nature of the city."[47]

Strauss argued that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from eros".[48] 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 between rationalism and traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre-World War II German Right, he feared people trying to force a world state to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a tyranny.[49] Hence he kept his distance from the totalitarianisms of his century, the right-wing fascists and the left-wing communists.

Strauss and Karl Popper

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

Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able 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.[50]

Strauss proceeded to show this letter to Kurt Riezler, who used his influence in order to oppose Popper's appointment at the University of Chicago.[51]

Ancients and Moderns

Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy, namely Athens and Jerusalem (reason and revelation) and Ancient versus Modern. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs; the "Moderns" start with Niccolò 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 first Greek philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political.[52]

The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in medieval society by promoting the possibilities of Reason. They objected to Aquinas's merger of natural right and natural theology, for it made natural right vulnerable to sideshow theological disputes.[53] Thomas Hobbes, under the influence of Francis Bacon, re-oriented political thought to what was most solid but also most low in man—his physical hopes and fears—setting a precedent for John Locke and the later economic approach to political thought, as in David Hume and Adam Smith.[54]

Strauss and Zionism

As a youth, Strauss belonged to the German Zionist youth group, along with his friends Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin. Both were admirers of Strauss and would continue to be throughout their lives.[55] When he was 17, as he said, he was "converted" to political Zionism as a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky. He wrote several essays pertaining to its controversies but left these activities behind by his early twenties.[56]

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 the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during the 1954–55 academic year. In his letter to a National Review editor, Strauss asked why Israel had been called a racist state by one of their writers. He argued that the author did not provide enough proof for his argument. He ended his essay with the following statement:[57]

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 espoused the utility of religious belief, there is some question about his views on its truth.[58] In some quarters the opinion has been that, whatever his views on the utility of religion, he was personally an atheist.[58] Strauss, however, was openly disdainful of atheism, as he made apparent in his writings on Max Weber. He especially disapproved of contemporary dogmatic disbelief, which he considered intemperate and irrational and felt that one should either be "the philosopher open to the challenge of theology or the theologian open to the challenge of philosophy."[59] One interpretation is that Strauss, in the interplay of Jerusalem and Athens, or revelation and reason, sought, as did Thomas Aquinas, to hold revelation to the rigours of reason, but where Aquinas saw an amicable interplay, Strauss saw two impregnable fortresses.[60] Werner Dannhauser, in analyzing Strauss' letters, writes, "It will not do to simply think of Strauss as a godless, a secular, a lukewarm Jew."[58] As one commenter, Edward Feser, put it:

Strauss was not himself an orthodox believer, neither was he a convinced atheist. 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.[61]

Feser's statement invites the suspicion that Strauss may have been an unconvinced atheist, or that he welcomed religion as merely (practically) useful, rather than as true. The supposition that Strauss was an unconvinced atheist is not necessarily incompatible with Dannhauser's tentative claim that Strauss was an atheist behind closed doors. Hilail Gildin responded to Dannhauser's reading in "Déjà Jew All Over Again: Dannhauser on Leo Strauss and Atheism," an article published in Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy. Gildin exposed inconsistencies between Strauss's writings and Dannhauser's claims; he also questioned the inherent consistency of Dannhauser's admittedly tentative evaluation of Strauss's understanding of divinity and religion.[62]

At the end of his The City and Man, Strauss invites his reader to "be open to the full impact of the all-important question which is coeval with philosophy although the philosophers do not frequently pronounce it—the question quid sit deus ["What is God?"]" (p. 241). As a philosopher, Strauss would be interested in knowing the nature of divinity, instead of trying to dispute the very being of divinity. But Strauss did not remain "neutral" to the question about the "quid" of divinity. Already in his Natural Right and History, he defended a Socratic (Platonic, Ciceronian, Aristotelian) reading of divinity, distinguishing it from a materialistic, conventionalist, Epicurean reading.[63] Here, the question of "religion" (what is religion?) is inseparable from the question of the nature of civil society, and thus of civil right, or right having authoritative representation, or right capable of defending itself (Latin: Jus). Atheism, whether convinced (overt) or unconvinced (tacit), is integral to the conventionalist reading of civil authority, and thereby of religion in its originally civil valence, a reading against which Strauss argues throughout his volume.[64] Thus Strauss's own arguments contradict the thesis imputed to him posthumously by scholars such as S. Drury who profess that Strauss approached religion as an instrument devoid of inherent purpose or meaning.

Responses to his work

Reception by contemporaries

Strauss's works were read and admired by thinkers as diverse as Gershom Scholem, Walter Benjamin,[55] Jacques Lacan,[65] Hans-Georg Gadamer[65] and Alexandre Kojève.[65] Benjamin had become acquainted with Strauss as a student in Berlin, and expressed admiration for Strauss throughout his life.[14][15][16] Gadamer stated that he 'largely agreed' with Strauss's interpretations.[65]

Critical views of Strauss

Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being elitist, illiberalist and anti-democratic. Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), claimed that Strauss inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders linked to imperialist militarism, neoconservatism and Christian 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 true reactionary." As Xenos says, "Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."[66]

Strauss has also been criticized by some conservatives. According to Claes 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 in fact be indispensable to an adequate apprehension of universality. Strauss's abstract, ahistorical conception of natural right actually distorts genuine universality, Ryn contends. Strauss does not consider the possibility that real universality becomes known to human beings in 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 French Jacobins, who also regarded tradition as incompatible with virtue and rationality.[67] What Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the "neoconservative" philosophy is, writes Paul Edward Gottfried, also the rhetoric of Saint-Just and Trotsky, which the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity. Republican operators and think tanks apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday's leftist clichés.[68][69]

Journalists such as Seymour Hersh have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society."[70][71] In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that 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 the accidents of birth.[72]

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."[73] In his 2006 book review of Reading Leo Strauss, by Steven B. Smith, Robert Alter writes that Smith "persuasively sets the record straight on Strauss's political views and on what his writing is really about."[74] Smith rejects the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, 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 the philosopher king should be read as a reductio ad absurdum, and that philosophers should understand politics, not in order to influence policy but to ensure philosophy's autonomy from politics.[75] Additionally, Mark Lilla has argued that the attribution to Strauss of neoconservative views contradicts a careful reading of Strauss' actual texts, in particular On 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.[76]

Finally, responding to charges that Strauss's teachings fostered the neoconservative foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, such as "unrealistic hopes for the spread of liberal democracy through military conquest," Professor Nathan Tarcov, director of the Leo Strauss Center at the University of Chicago, in an article published in The American Interest, 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."[77] Likewise Strauss's daughter, Jenny Strauss Clay, in a New York Times article 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 occasions did question the tenets of the right.[78]

Straussianism

Straussianism is the name given "to denote the research methods, common concepts, theoretical presuppositions, central questions, and pedagogic style characteristic of the large number of conservatives who have been influenced by the thought and teaching of Leo Strauss."[79] 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."[79] 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"[79] and strive to be open to the idea that they may find something timelessly true in a great book. The approach "resembles in important ways the old New Criticism in literary studies."[79]

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,"[79] with other works "understood as epiphenomenal to the original insights of a thinker of the first rank."[79] 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."[79] Straussianism puts forward the possibility that past thinkers may have "hold of the truth—and that more recent thinkers are therefore wrong."[79]

Harvey 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 to belong to it.[80]

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 being Liu Xiaofeng (Renmin University). "Chinese Straussians" (who often are also fascinated by Carl Schmitt) represent a remarkable 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." [81]

Students

Students who studied under Strauss, or attended his lecture courses at the University of Chicago, include George Anastaplo, Hadley Arkes, Seth Benardete, Allan Bloom, Werner Dannhauser, Murray Dry, Charles Butterworth, William Galston, Victor Gourevitch, Harry V. Jaffa,[82] Roger Masters,[83] Clifford Orwin, Thomas Pangle, Stanley Rosen, Abram Shulsky (Director of the Office of Special Plans),[70] Susan Sontag,[84] Warren Winiarski, and Paul Wolfowitz (who attended two lecture courses by Strauss on Plato and Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws at the University of Chicago). Harvey C. Mansfield, Steven B. Smith and Steven Berg, though never students of Strauss, are "Straussians" (as some followers of Strauss identify themselves). Richard Rorty described Strauss as a particular influence in his early studies at the University of Chicago, where Rorty studied a "classical curriculum" under Strauss.[85][86]

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 of Gesammelte 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 of Die 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 Sozialpolitik 67, no. 6 (August–September 1932): 732–49.
    • "Comments on Carl Schmitt's Begriff des Politischen". (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt", 1932.) 331–51 in Spinoza'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. by Fred Baumann of Philosophie und Gesetz, 1935.) Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987.
    • Philosophy and Law: Contributions to the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors. (English trans. with introd. by Eve Adler of Philosophie 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 of The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, 1936.) Neuwied am Rhein: Hermann Luchterhand, 1965.
  • "The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon". Social Research 6, no. 4 (Winter 1939): 502–36.
  • "On German Nihilism" (1999, originally a 1941 lecture), Interpretation 26, 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 Research 13, no. 3 (Fall 1946): 326–67.
  • "On the Intention of Rousseau". Social Research 14, 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. of On Tyranny, 1948, with "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero" and Alexandre Kojève's "Tyranny and Wisdom".) Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1954.
    • On Tyranny. (English edition of De la tyrannie, 1954.) Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1963.
    • On Tyranny. (Revised and expanded edition of On 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 Metaphysics 5, 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 Walgrene lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1953. Reprinted with new preface, 1971. ISBN 978-0-226-77694-1.
  • "Existentialism" (1956), a public lecture on Martin Heidegger's thought, published in Interpretation, Spring 1995, Vol.22 No. 3: 303–18.
  • 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 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, 1989.
  • History of Political Philosophy. Co-editor with Joseph 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.
  • 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 of Political 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 the Gesammelte 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). In Reorientation: 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). In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 293–304.
  • Leo Strauss on Political Philosophy: Responding to the Challenge of Positivism and Historicism. Edited by Catherine H. Zuckert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
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 Etudes juives 100 (1936): 1–37.
  • "Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansicht Maimunis". Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 81 (1936): 448–56.
  • "The Literary Character of The Guide for the Perplexed" [1941]. 38–94 in Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
  • [1944] "How to Study Medieval Philosophy" [. Interpretation 23, 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 Judaism 1, no. 1 (May 1981): 17–45. Reprinted Chap. 1 (I–II) in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • [1952]. Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1979), 111–18. Reprinted Chap. 1 (III) in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • "Maimonides' Statement on Political Science". Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 22 (1953): 115–30.
  • [1957]. L'Homme 21, n° 1 (janvier–mars 1981): 5–20. Reprinted Chap. 8 in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • "How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed". In The 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 in Studies 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

Notes

  1. ^ Peter Graf Kielmansegg, Horst Mewes, Elisabeth Glaser-Schmidt (eds.), Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss: German Émigrés and American Political Thought After World War II, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 97: "Many commentators think that [Strauss's] exposition of the true Platonist was meant as a self-description of Strauss."
  2. ^ a b Batnitzky, Leora. Leo Strauss, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
  3. ^ a b Winfried Schröder (ed.), Reading between the lines – Leo Strauss and the history of early modern philosophy, Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 39, "According to Robert Hunt, '[t]he Straussian hermeneutic ... sees the course of intellectual history as an ongoing conversation about important philosophical questions'."
  4. ^ Pangle, Thomas L., Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006, p. 43: "In the massive foreground of Strauss's lifework stands his resuscitation of classical republican political theory, understood as emanating from the intellectual revolution effected in and by Socratic political philosophy."
  5. ^ Peter Graf Kielmansegg, Horst Mewes, Elisabeth Glaser-Schmidt (eds.), Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss: German Émigrés and American Political Thought After World War II, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 189: "Horst Mewes: Strauss represented a type [of democracy], and that is the Federalist's democratic republic. The type of democracy that is essentially based on a representative republic governed by an elected, natural aristocracy of merit. ... I regard that to be a genuine type of democracy in the self-undestanding of the founders. ... [Strauss] is providing the most profound theory at the moment that is available for that type of democracy."
  6. ^ William H. F. Altman, "Leo Strauss on "German Nihilism": Learning the Art of Writing", Journal of the History of Ideas 68(4), Oct. 2007, pp. 587–612.
  7. ^ "Strauss". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
  8. ^ "Leo - Französisch-Übersetzung - Langenscheidt Deutsch-Französisch Wörterbuch" (in German and French). Langenscheidt. Retrieved 20 October 2018.
  9. ^ Wells, John C. (2008), Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.), Longman, ISBN 9781405881180
  10. ^ The Leo Strauss Center website 'biography' section
  11. ^ "About the Leo Strauss Center". The Leo Strauss Center. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  12. ^ Joachim Lüders and Ariane Wehner, Mittelhessen – eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain (Central Hesse – a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain) 1989.
  13. ^ In "A Giving of Accounts", published in The College 22 (1) and later reprinted in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity.
  14. ^ a b Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity (SUNY 1997), Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker, Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, page 55
  15. ^ a b Scholem, Gershom. 1981. Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship. Trans. Harry Zohn, p. 201
  16. ^ a b The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem, 1932–40, New York 1989, pp. 155–58
  17. ^ Leo Strauss And the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher p. 87
  18. ^ Eugene Sheppard (2014). Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher. Brandeis UP. pp. 102–03. ISBN 9781611687699.
  19. ^ Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965 [1953], p. 42.
  20. ^ Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modernity preface p. 6.
  21. ^ Laurence Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 126.
  22. ^ "From these things it is evident, that the city belongs among the things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal" (Aristotle, The Politics, 1253a1–3).
  23. ^ Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 13.
  24. ^ Pangle, Thomas L., Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006, p. 51: "Classical political philosophy is not concerned to rule, but it is concerned to understand, political society—and to share its understanding, in a constructive fashion, with political society, as much as possible."
  25. ^ Leo Strauss, "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism", 27–46 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989) 29–30.
  26. ^ Leo Strauss, "Relativism", 13–26 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas L. Pangle, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 25.
  27. ^ Leo Strauss's Classic Natural Right Teaching, S. B. Drury, Political Theory magazine, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1987), pp. 299–315
  28. ^ "Exoteric Teaching" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, p. 275.
  29. ^ Smith, Steven (2007). Reading Leo Strauss. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226763897. excerpt entitled "Why Strauss, Why Now?"
  30. ^ Mansfield, Harvey (1975). "Strauss's Machiavelli". Political Theory. JSTOR 190834. ... a book containing much that is appreciably esoteric to any reader stated in a manner either so elusive or so challenging as to cause him to give up trying to understand it.
  31. ^ Damon Linker (October 31, 2014). "What if Leo Strauss was Right?". The Week. Retrieved 2014-11-04.
  32. ^ Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss p. 25
  33. ^ Noble lies And Perpetual War: Leo Strauss, The Neo-Cons, And Iraq article at the Information Clearing House (conspiracy theorists) website
  34. ^ Allan Bloom, "Leo Strauss", 235–55 in Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) 238–39.
  35. ^ Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964, p. 193
  36. ^ Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, p. 3
  37. ^ Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995, 123
  38. ^ Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995, 125
  39. ^ Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995
  40. ^ Lilla, Mark (2001), "Alexandre Kojève", The Reckless Mind. Intellectuals in Politics, New York: New York Review Books, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-940322-76-9.
  41. ^ Strauss, Leo, Gourevitch, Victor; Roth, Michael S. (eds.), On Tyranny
  42. ^ Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue", 907–38 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 907–8.
  43. ^ Leo Strauss, On Tyranny (New York: Free Press, 1991) 22–23, 178.
  44. ^ Leo Strauss, "The Crisis of Our Time", 41–54 in Howard Spaeth, ed., The Predicament of Modern Politics (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1964) 47–48.
  45. ^ Leo Strauss, "What Is Political Philosophy?" 9–55 in Leo Strauss, What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1959) 18–19.
  46. ^ Leo Strauss, The City and Man (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964) 10–11.
  47. ^ Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 68.
  48. ^ Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 60.
  49. ^ On Tyranny, p. 143
  50. ^ Voegelin, Eric; Strauss, Leo (20 August 2004). "Letter 30: April 18, 1950". In Emberley, Peter; Cooper, Barry (eds.). Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964. University of Missouri. p. 68. ISBN 978-0826215512.
  51. ^ Anonymous (2011-07-15). "Strauss and Voegelin on Popper". Philosophy of Science. Archived from the original on 2013-07-28. Retrieved 4 February 2019.
  52. ^ Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime by Kenneth Deutch (1999), p. 104
  53. ^ Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953) p. 164
  54. ^ Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society By Jerry Z. Müller
  55. ^ a b Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity (SUNY 1997), Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker, Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, p. 55
  56. ^ Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, Leo, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, 1997, State University of New York Press, p. 3
  57. ^ Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, L., Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, 1997, State University of New York Press, pp. 413–14
  58. ^ a b c Dannhauser, Werner J. Leo Strauss in His Letters in Enlightening revolutions: Essays in Honor of Ralph Lerner, edited by Svetozar Minkov and Stephane Douard, p. 360 (2007 Lexington Books)
  59. ^ Deutsch, Kenneth L. and Walter Nicgorski Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker pp. 11–12, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield
  60. ^ Schall S.J., James V. A Latitude for Statesmanship: Strauss on St. Thomas in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, ed. Kenneth L. Deutsch and Walter Nicgorski, pp. 212–15, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield. For an early treatment of Aquinas' understanding of the relation between philosophy and sacred, revealed law, see Strauss's early Philosophy and Law (Philosophie und Gesetz), where Christian medieval theology testifies to a less than amicable opposition between pagan (though not necessarily Platonic or political) philosophy and Biblical morality.
  61. ^ Feser, Edward, "Leo Strauss 101" (a review of Steven B. Smith's Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism), National Review Online, May 22, 2006. Archived November 15, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  62. ^ Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy (Vol. 25/1, at [1])
  63. ^ As seen especially, Ch. III: "The Origin of the Idea of Natural Right"
  64. ^ Natural Right and History, p. 119
  65. ^ a b c d Approaches to Political Thought, edited by William L. Richter, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 16 Mar 2009), p. 56
  66. ^ Nicholas Xenos, "Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror," Logosjournal.com
  67. ^ Claes G. Ryn, "Leo Strauss and History: The Philosopher as Conspirator," Humanitas, Vol. XVIII, Nos. 1 & 2 (2005).
  68. ^ Paul Gottfried, "Strauss and the Straussians", LewRockwell.com, April 17, 2006. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  69. ^ Cf. Paul Gottfried, "Paul Gottfried: Archives", Lewrockwell.com. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  70. ^ a b Seymour M. Hersh, "Selective Intelligence", The New Yorker, May 12, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2007.
  71. ^ Brian Doherty, "Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?", Reason Online, July 1997. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  72. ^ The City and Man, p. 104
  73. ^ Peter Minowitz, Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009). Also see "Straussophobia: Six Questions for Peter Minowitz," Harper's Magazine, 9/29/09 [2]
  74. ^ Robert Alter, "Neocon or Not?", The New York Times Book Review, June 25, 2006, accessed February 16, 2007, citing Yale scholar Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006).
  75. ^ Steven B. Smith, excerpt from "Why Strauss, Why Now?", 1–15 in Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006), online posting, press.uchicago.edu. Retrieved June 1, 2007.
  76. ^ Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind (New York: NY Review of Books, 2001) 133.
  77. ^ Nathan Tarcov, "Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up" in The American Interest September–October 1986, at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-11-30. Retrieved 2009-06-28.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  78. ^ Jenny Strauss Clay (June 7, 2003). "The Real Leo Strauss". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2015.
  79. ^ a b c d e f g h Mark C. Henrie (May 5, 2011). "Straussianism". First Principles – ISI Web Journal.
  80. ^ "Transcript of Harvey Mansfield (IV)". conversationswithbillkristol.org. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  81. ^ Marchal, Kai (2017). Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-1498536264..
  82. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2009-02-17.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  83. ^ Arnhart, Larry "Roger Masters: Natural Right and Biology", in Leo Strauss, The Straussians, and the Study of the American Regime, edited by Kenneth L. Deutsch and John A. Murley. Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. https://books.google.com/books?id=0AUpAMhf8OAC&pg=PA293
  84. ^ See L. Poague ed. Conversations with Susan Sontag, Interview with M. McQuade, 'A Gluttonous Reader', University of Mississippi Press, 1995, pp. 271–78.
  85. ^ Marchetti, Giancarlo. "Interview with Richard Rorty." Philosophy Now Volume 43, October–November 2003.
  86. ^ Ryerson, James. "The Quest for Uncertainty Richard Rorty's Pragmatic Pilgrimage." Linguafranca Volume 10, December 2000/January 2001. Web. 21 June 2011. <http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/print/0012/feature_quest.html>.

Further reading

  • "A Giving of Accounts". In Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity – Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought. Ed. Kenneth H. Green. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.
  • Altman, William H. F., The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism. Lexington Books, 2011
  • Benardete, Seth. Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002.
  • Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". 235–55 in Giants 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 in Leo 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 Studies 38, no. 1 (2008): 147–63.
  • Bruell, Christopher. "A Return to Classical Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding". Review of Politics 53, 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. ISBN 978-88-6969-032-7.
  • 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. ISBN 978-0-8476-8692-6.
  • Drury, Shadia B. Leo Strauss and the American Right. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
  • ———. 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 Metaphysics 22, 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.
  • 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. ISBN 978-0-674-03185-2.
  • Howse, Robert. Leo Strauss, Man of Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2014]
  • Ivry, Alfred L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides". 75–91 in Leo 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. ISBN 978-3-7705-4378-6.
  • Kartheininger, Markus. "Aristokratisierung des Geistes". In: Kartheininger, Markus/ Hutter, Axel (ed.). "Bildung als Mittel und Selbstzweck". Freiburg: Alber, 2009, pp. 157–208. ISBN 978-3-495-48393-0.
  • Kerber, Hannes. "Strauss and Schleiermacher. An Introduction to 'Exoteric Teaching". In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Ed. Yaffe/Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 203–14.
  • 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's Persecution and the Art of Writing". Review of Politics 64, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 261–83.
  • Lampert, Laurence. Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
  • Macpherson, C. B. "Hobbes's Bourgeois Man". In Democratic 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. ISBN 978-0-226-92420-5 (cloth)
  • Marchal, Kai, Shaw, Carl K.Y. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington 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 Politics 60, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 231–46.
  • Meier, Heinrich. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
  • ———. "Editor's Introduction[s]". Gesammelte Schriften. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. 3 vols.
  • ———. Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
  • ———. How Strauss Became Strauss". 363–82 in Enlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor of Ralph Lerner. Ed. Svetozar Minkov. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.
  • Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism". American Political Science Review 100 (2006): 279–95.
  • Minowitz, Peter. "Machiavellianism Come of Age? Leo Strauss on Modernity and Economics". The Political Science Reviewer 22 (1993): 157–97.
  • ———. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009.
  • Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Hermeneutics and Classical Political Thought in Leo Strauss", 178–89 in Essays 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 Ideas 33, (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 Politics 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 100–25.
  • ———. "Leo Strauss's Perspective on Modern Politics". Perspectives on Political Science 33, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 197–203.
  • ———. 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. ISBN 978-88-89909-31-7.
  • Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". 87–140 in Hermeneutics 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. ISBN 978-1-58465-600-5.
  • Shorris, Earl. "Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the Philosophy of Mass Deception". Harper's Magazine 308, issue 1849 (June 2004): 65–71.
  • Smith, Steven B. Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. ISBN 978-0-226-76402-3. (Introd: "Why Strauss, Why Now?", online posting, press.uchicago.edu.)
  • Smith, Steven B. (editor). The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. ISBN 978-0-521-70399-4.
  • 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. ISBN 978-2-253-13067-3.
  • Tarcov, Nathan. "On a Certain Critique of 'Straussianism' ". Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 3–18.
  • ———. "Philosophy and History: Tradition and Interpretation in the Work of Leo Strauss". Polity 16, no. 1 (Autumn 1983): 5–29.
  • ——— and Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy". 907–38 in History of Political Philosophy. Ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. 1963; Chicago and London, U of Chicago P, 1987.
  • Thompson, Bradley C. (with Yaron Brook). Neoconservatism. An Obituary for an Idea. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers, 2010. pp. 55–131. ISBN 978-1-59451-831-7.
  • West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a "Declaration of Independence" Soul?" Perspectives on Political Science 31, 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

General resources

Scholarly articles, books and parts of books

Related journalistic commentary, other articles and parts of books