Thoughts on Machiavelli 1st US - 1st Printing Edition

The centrality of Thoughts on Machiavelli within Strauss' work cannot be overemphasized. During his lifetime (by my count), Leo Strauss published some 14 or 15 books (depending on whether you count The History of Political Philosophy). Thoughts on Machiavelli was published in 1958. It had been preceeded by Persecution and the Art of Writing (1952) and Natural Right and History (1953) and was followed by What is Political Philosophy (1959) and The City and Man (1964). This five books form the central period of Strauss' work wherein he came to his mature philosophical outlook. The four books prior to PAW can be seen as the ground work for his mature work. The books that follow the central five can be seen as Strauss' return to classical political philosophy to try to reveal the grounding experiences that led to the development of classical political philosophy and what he saw as its version of natural right.
Thoughts on Machiavelli (hereafter ToM) is central in another sense. Strauss saw the history of philosophy as the struggle between the Ancients and the Moderns. This was the historical theme that he used to frame his main theme which was the fundamental alternative of Reason versus Revelation. Strauss saw the conflict between reason and revelation as playing out differently in classical political philosophy and in modern political philosophy. Machiavelli (hereafter, M.) is THE turning point.
ToM is divided into four chapters. The first delves into the relationship between Machiavelli's Prince and his Discourses. The second chapter explores what M.is trying to do in the Prince and the third chapter explores M.'s intention in The Discourses on Livy. The fourth (which is wonderful example of Strauss' frustrating, demanding and consice writing) is Struass' critique and explication of what M contributed to modern political thought.
A good deal of what Strauss is trying to do in the book is to get us to experience anew the traditional insight that M. is a teacher of evil. Strauss feels that M. rejects both Christian and classical political philosophy because M. felt they were both based on unrealistic, indeed, unattainable ideals of morality. These overreaching ideals had had a terrible impact on the Italy of M.'s time turning it into a weak and corrupt group of city states that were incapable of defending themselves let alone of achieving greatness.
M. wanted to replace these moral theories (and their subsequent political philosophies) with one that was based on man as he was, i.e., driven first by survival and then by the need to excel over other men. This was matched by M.s way of seeing the world- a universe ruled by nature and chance (no God, no teleology) that could be mastered by men who exercised prudence and strength of will. Preferably that would be in the form of an elite leading a republic but there were times (such as the founding of a city or after a republic had devolved into corrupt licentiousness) when the leadership demanded the ruthless efficiency of a prince willing to do what had to be done. Thus Strauss sees M. as neither an advocate of a republic or of a prince but of whatever was called for by the circumstances of the time.
One last thing-Strauss is hard to read largely for two reasons. The first is that he almost always chose to make his argument by commenting on the work of a great thinker such as M. This presents several difficulties. The reader has to keep in mind whose thought is being expressed at any one point in time. I have sometimes found myself thinking, "wha' the ...Oh, that isn't Strauss talking, that is Strauss talking in the voice of M. so as to present M.'s ideas.". The other difficulty inherent in commentaries is that it helps to know the writings of the thinker being commented on. And you will never know those writings as well as Strauss (I cannot exaggerate Strauss' learning). He not only makes use of M.'s Prince and Discourses but The Life of Castruccio Castracani, Mandragola, The History of Florence, An Exhortation to Penitence and the occassional letter.
The latter complication is what makes for the second great problem when reading Strauss. Enter The Notorious Theory of Esoteric Writing!!! ToM is lastly central because it allows the reader to really see Strauss working with his theory of esoteric writing/reading in the second and third chapters as well as the assumptions on which that theory is based (for example, the idea of "perfect speech" on p.121). Strauss makes the assumption that very little, perhaps nothing, in M.'s writing is a mistake. One commentator said that "in Strauss, a blink is always a wink" (sorry, I don't remember where I read that). If there is a contradiction between what M. said in two places, than there is a reason that has to be teased out.
I am going to make one comment on the whole esoteric business. I challenge any of you who think that it is an absurdity that some people wrote esoterically to do what Strauss and the better of his followers have done over and over again. Come up with a coherent interpretation of a thinker that is based on the whole of their work that has nothing to do with what that thinker thought. I don't think it can be done. I am not saying that Strauss is right. I am saying that he never spouts nonsense and that any commentator on M. has to deal with Strauss' presentation.
In the meantime, you will find much more to profit from by wrestling with Strauss in ToM. As I say over and over in my reviews of his writings, I agree with little of his philosophy but I have learned much from him. Read him for yourself and see what YOU think.
By the way, as a follow up reading, you might try Kim Sorensen's Discourses on Strauss. It is a close reading of ToM that focuses on how that particular book discloses Strauss' thought on his reason versus revelation theme.

A great book from a great mind. Read most of his books, this is by far the best.

Frankly, this book has started out great and then graduated to a serious disappointment.

To put things into context: I had read "Persecution and the Art of Writing" about a decade ago and was very much impressed. Besides that I have also read (and re-read) Strauss's essay "Liberal Education and Mass Democracy". Also, Machiavelli and his thought is a subject in which I am greatly interested, and have some knowledge of. It goes without saying, that I had read the Prince and the Discourses (and also Livy's own 1st decade and sundry other works by M.)

So you can understand that I was expecting a rare treat from this book.

At first, my expectations were fully confirmed: the introduction and the first two chapters (a general one and the one on the Prince) were brilliant and I learnt a lot from them, even if Strauss's methods here were at some instances questionable in my eyes (the numerology of number of chapters, for example, and the inordinate amount of attention lavished on the matter of which quotations from Livy are placed where and whether they are in Latin or in Italian).

However, the third chapter (on the Discourses) proved a gard slog and not so a rewarding one for that. There is still a lot of interesting stuff there but it was very repetitively presented and a lot of the discussion was - in my opinion - empty scholasticism: for example the painstaking analysis of the lengths of chapter headings.

Frankly, but that stage I was feeling tired and that the high points of the book were already behind me. The last and longest concluding chapter seemed to offer much more of the same. So, with shame and regret, I gave up on this book, for which I had such high hopes.

Why 3 stars? Well, as I said, there is a lot of good stuff in the first half or so and I highly recommend it. But the second half is really a downer. I would also recommend anyone who wants to read this to first go over "Persecution and the Art of Writing" to make sure they know what they are getting into - it's not everybody's cup of tea.

P.S.
To clarify: I loved the parts where "Persecution and the Art of Writing"-style analysis was applied to Machiavelli. But the chapter headings, the quotations, and the numerology of chapters were just too much for me - I think that they were not what "Persecution and the Art of Writing" was about and that Strauss seriously overstretched himself there.

Here's an example: Discourses has 142 chapters, same as the length of Livy's work; on the other hand, the Prince has 26 chapters, so Strauss concluded that a/the key to figuring out the Prince must lie in Chapter 26 of the Discourses. Heh? (In that particular case I enjoyed his subsequent analysis of Chapter 26 and its possible conneciton to the Prince but still - heh?)

Here's another one - much is made of whether Livy is quoted at every instance in Italian or Latin, with the Latin quotaitons being somehow more important, according to Strauss. But why? I personally think that Machiavelli was just being incosistent, because he was - you know - a human being. Perhaps he composed the different parts of the book at different times; perhaps he had different editions of Livy at hand when doing so. Or perhaps it's all part of a really complex plan, but I'll stick with the simpler proposition.

"Persecution and the Art of Writing" had taught me to look for discrepancies in quotations - that was an eye-opener and I still regard it as a powerful method of analysis. But looking for deep meaning in whether the quotation is translated or not? I think it's just erecting castles from thin air.