Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Leo Strauss often spoke of Jerusalem and Athens. He never spoke of Rome in the same context, never of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Western civilization, in his view, was fertilized by the dynamic tension between only two, not three, cities. This theoretically unresolvable stress between Jerusalem and Athens was what made this culture unique. Western civilization stood between reason and revelation. For Strauss, it seemed self-evident that this tension, which initially arose when the pious Jews encountered the philosophers Plato and Aristotle, was incapable of intellectual reconciliation but still it remained the font of its cultural vitality.
1. Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 164.Google Scholar
2. Strauss, Leo, “Jerusalem and Athens: Some Introductory Reflections,” Commentary 43 (1967): 43–57.Google Scholar
3. Strauss, Leo, The City and Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 3.Google Scholar
4. Strauss, Natural Right and History, p. 164.Google Scholar
5. Fortin, Ernest, “Between Lines: Was Leo Strauss a Secret Enemy of Truth?” Crisis 7 (12 1989): 25.Google Scholar
6. Strauss, Leo, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Westport, CT.: Greenwood, 1973), p. 19.Google Scholar
7. Strauss, Leo, “How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy” The Rebirth of Classical Political Realism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss, ed. Pangle, Thomas L. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), p. 222.Google Scholar
8. Schall, James V., “Revelation, Reason, and Politics: Catholic Reflections on Strauss,” Gregorianum 62 (1981): 2, 349–66; 3, 467–98Google Scholar; Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
9. Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).Google Scholar
10. Strauss, , “Persecution and the Art of Writing,” Persecution, pp. 22–37.Google Scholar
11. See Pangle, Thomas L., “The Theological-Political Problem” in his Introduction to Leo, Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
12. See Mclnerny, Ralph, St. Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982), pp. 157–58Google Scholar; Schall, James V., “Aristotle on Friendship,” The Classical Bulletin 65 (1989): 83–88.Google Scholar
13. Strauss, Leo, “On the Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy,” Independent Journal of Philosophy (Vienna) 3 (1979): 111–18Google Scholar
14. E. B. F. Midgley at the University of Aberdeen is in the process of completing an important manuscript upon the philosophic integrity of St. Thomas's treatment of Aristotle.
15. See on this matter, Wilhelmsen, Frederick D., Christianity and Political Philosophy (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980), pp. 194–216Google Scholar; McCoy, Charles N. R., “On the Revival of Classical Political Philosophy,” On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy: Essays of Charles N. R. McCoy, ed. Schall, James V. and Schrems, John J. (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1989), pp. 131–49Google Scholar; Midgley, E. B. F., “Concerning the Modernist Subversion of Political Philosophy,” The New Scholasticism 53 (Spring 1979): 168–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. See Schumacher, E. F., A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Harper Colophon, 1977), pp. 27–39Google Scholar; also Schall, James V., “The Natural Law-Aristotle,” Vera Lex 7 (1987): 11–12, 26Google Scholar; “Nature and Finality in Aristotle,” Laval théologique etphilosophique 45 (1989): 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 164.Google Scholar
18. Jaffa, Harry V., “Leo Strauss: 1899–1973),” The Conditions of Freedom: Essays in Political Philosophy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), p. 6.Google Scholar
19. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 163Google Scholar. See McCoy, Charles N. R., The Structure of Political Thought (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), chaps. 2, 4, and 5.Google Scholar
20. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 161.Google Scholar
21. Ibid.
22. Strauss, Leo, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe, IL.: The Free Press, 1958), pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
23. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 164.Google Scholar
24. See Strauss, , Thoughts, pp. 254–56Google Scholar. See also the discussion of this same point in Maritain, Jacques, “The Problem of Means in a Regressive or Barbarous Society,” Man and the State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 71–79Google Scholar. For a comment on Strauss's view of statesmanship in extreme situations, see Schall, James V., “Christians and War: Playing God,” Hillsdale Review 7 (Fall 1985): 29–34.Google Scholar
25. See Schall, James V., “The Recovery of Metaphysics,” Divinitas 23 (1979): 200–219.Google Scholar
26. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 164.Google Scholar
27. Ibid, p. 163.
28. Ibid., pp. 163–64.
29. Ibid., p. 164.
30. Ibid., p. 164.
31. Strauss, , Thoughts, pp. 207–208.Google Scholar
32. Ibid., p. 221.
33. Fradkin, Hillel, “Leo Strauss and Contemporary Jewish Thought,” in Contemporary Jewish Writers, 1989, manuscript p. 22Google Scholar, forthcoming, B'nai B'rith. The citation in text is from Strauss, Leo, Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (New York: Basic Books, 1968), p. 256.Google Scholar
34. Deuteronomy, 4:6 (italics added).Google Scholar
35. Fradkin, , “Leo Strauss and Contemporary Jewish Thought,” p. 39.Google Scholar
36. Strauss, , The City and Man, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
37. See the conclusion to “What Is Political Philosophy?” in Strauss, Leo, What Is Pblitical Philosophy and Other Studies (Glencoe, IL.: The Free Press, 1959), p. 55.Google Scholar
38. Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 1.Google Scholar
39. See Strauss, Leo, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963).Google Scholar
40. Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy? p. 43.Google Scholar
41. Strauss, , Persecution, p. 19.Google Scholar
42. Voegelin, Eric made a similar argument, Science, Politics, and Gnosticism (Chicago: Regnery-Gateway, 1968), pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
43. Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy? p. 40 (italics added).Google Scholar
44. Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 163.Google Scholar
45. Translations from St. Thomas are the author's.
46. Strauss, , Thoughts, p. 299.Google Scholar
47. Ibid., p. 208.
48. See Strauss, Leo, “Marsilius of Padua,” History of Political Philosophy, ed. Strauss, Leo and Joseph, Cropsey, 2nd ed. (New York: Rand-McNally, 1972), pp. 251–70.Google Scholar
49. Aquinatis, Sancti Thomae, In Octo Libros Politicorwn Aristotelis (Quebeci: Tremblay & Dion, 1940), Lectio IX, Liber VII, p. 378.Google Scholar
50. Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 49.Google Scholar
