A teacher of evil

"Thoughts on Machiavelli" is vintage Leo Strauss. In other words, the book is difficult to read, convoluted, and constantly strays from the main subject. And yes, both Strauss' notorious preoccupation with numerology and the Houyuhnhnms make their usual guest appearances. For those unwilling to sift through the book, a shorter summary of Strauss' position on Machiavelli can be found in his "History of Political Philosophy".

At least these days, Strauss is often suspected of having an esoteric message at variance with the seeming contents of his books. There seems to be a kernel of truth in this criticism. Strauss considers Machiavelli to be a teacher of evil and wickedness. At the same time, he also writes that Machiavelli didn't really discover anything new about politics which wasn't known already to the ancients. And Strauss, of course, claims to be a follower of the ancients. Further, Strauss takes Machiavelli to task for being more interested in Xenophon than Plato or Aristotle. Of Xenophon's writings, Machiavelli emphasizes the less philosophical works. But in "History of Political Philosophy", Strauss himself praises Xenophon, saying that he knew how to be ruthless, and how to govern both gentlemen and nongentlemen (the common people or the mob). Naturally, this has led some people to suspect that Strauss doesn't *really* oppose the evil and wickedness of Machiavelli. Rather, he commands it himself! Esoterically, of course.

In one sense, however, Strauss do oppose Machiavelli, but for all the wrong reasons. To Strauss, the main problem with Machiavelli seems to be, that he was too democratic and plebeian! He doesn't say this directly, but it's strongly implied. According to Strauss, the ancients believed that all politics was by nature imperfect (Machiavellian?). The perfect city was a utopia in the strict sense of that term. The ideal cities of Plato's "Republic" or Aristotle's "Politics" were extremely unlikely to ever be constituted. Their constitution was wholly dependent on chance. The perfect city can exist in speech only. However, a small elite of philosophers can reach perfection even in an imperfect city. The majority of the people, on the other hand, will remain unphilosophical. The gulf between the elite and the plebs will always be a large one. Poets and orators are needed to manipulate the plebs into thinking that the imperfect (Machiavellian?) city is really the best possible. This, then, was the perspective of the ancients, at least in Strauss' interpretation. Please note one more time that Strauss *supported* the ancients!

So what's the problem with Niccolo Machiavelli, then? Machiavelli created a utopia that *could* be reached, but only by lowering the standards. He wasn't interested in cultivating the moral virtues of a philosophical elite. Rather, he wanted to create an entirely new order of things by giving the common people a large share of political power.

This is what Strauss really has against Machiavelli, behind his complaints about "lowering the standards", "teacher of wickedness", and so on. Strauss attacks on Machiavelli's real or perceived Realpolitik are disingenuous, since he has already told us that Realpolitik was conducted even by the ancients. It's the republicanism of Machiavelli he dislikes.

Nor does Strauss like Machiavelli's insistence that Fortuna can be tamed by those of sufficient virtue (virtue in the new, Machiavellian sense). To Strauss, the idea of creating a really just or equal society must remain a utopia, a city in speech only. He explicitly says that man shouldn't try to conquer nature, and supports the idea that inventions and technological progress should be curtailed, if it threatens the elitist order. Strauss' conservative attack on modernity turns out to be pretty far-reaching! What Strauss has against the modern world, apparently, is the idea that humans can change and reform old, oppressive structures and hierarchies. Not because it's utopian, but because it might actually work...

Strauss wants a society in the thrall of Fortuna, where the "Machiavellian" realities of Realpolitik are glossed over by smart orators, while the philosophers cultivate their contemplative virtues, aloof from the inevitable imperfections of civil society.

This also explains why Strauss considered our Florentine friend to be a teacher of evil. He exposed the poets and orators, pointing out to the common man how things really work in politics. But, above all, he pointed to something better: a democratic republic of the people. In plain English, Machiavelli was a revolutionary who told the truth!

Esoterically or otherwise, Leo Strauss turns out to be the real teacher of evil.