What do you think?
Rate this book
Thoughts on Machiavelli
Leo Strauss argued that the most visible fact about Machiavelli's doctrine is also the most useful Machiavelli seems to be a teacher of wickedness. Strauss sought to incorporate this idea in his interpretation without permitting it to overwhelm or exhaust his exegesis of The Prince and the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy . "We are in sympathy," he writes, "with the simple opinion about Machiavelli [namely, the wickedness of his teaching], not only because it is wholesome, but above all because a failure to take that opinion seriously prevents one from doing justice to what is truly admirable in the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech." This critique of the founder of modern political philosophy by this prominent twentieth-century scholar is an essential text for students of both authors.
348 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
84 people are currently reading
778 people want to read
About the author
Leo Strauss
153 books368 followersLeo Strauss was a 20th century German-American scholar of 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.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the 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.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
May 12, 2014
I haven't had such a strongly negative reaction to a book in a very long time, so please take the one-star review in light of that. I don't think this is a worthless book by any means - it's fascinating - but I also really disliked it and think it's deeply misguided. On the Goodreads system I'm not really sure what else to give it.
What a person thinks of Machiavelli tells you far more about that person than it ever will tell you about Machiavelli. He's a diverse enough writer that you can a case for nearly any characterization you'd like, depending on where you'd like to put your emphases. Because of this, if any historian or political scientist tells you that they're the first one to truly understand Machiavelli, they probably have an agenda.
Leo Strauss thinks he understands Machiavelli, and he declares in his first two pages that Machiavelli is "a teacher of evil." It's a fascinating argument, for sure, but I found it to be extremely off putting. In broad strokes, Strauss argues that Machiavelli ushered in the destructiveness of modernity by severing the traditional ties between biblical theology/natural law and morality, and by orienting philosophy towards freedom rather than the traditional aim of virtue. It's perhaps most succinctly summarized by Strauss when he writes that "A stupendous contraction of the horizon appears to Machiavelli and his successors as a wondrous enlargement of the horizon... the new philosophy takes its bearing by how men lives as distinguished from how men ought to live... It understands man in the light of the sub-human rather than of the super-human." Machiavelli's greatest sin, according to Strauss is a radical lowering of expectations. Rather than trumpeting the primacy of moral virtue, Machiavelli's ends-justify-the-means ideology opened the door to a wash of relativism and a justification for rampant self-interest.
It's rhetorically powerful, but it's also rather arrogant and a hugely selective reading of his sources(and of modernity). Strauss clearly dislikes modern values and has pinned all of his complaints on Machiavelli. He justifies this by a slightly crazy reading of The Prince and Discourses on Livy that assumes his works are filled with hidden messages and deeply buried concordances. A slight contradiction is never a mistake or a sign of ambivalent thinking - instead, it's a sign of a hidden and often nefarious message. Strauss fills his work with conspiracy theories and numerology and then flatly declares that if anyone disagrees with him it's because they're "heirs of Machiavelli" and thus are hopelessly blinded to the truth by the propaganda of modernity. It's very arrogant and frustrating to read.
Don't read this is you'd like to learn about Machiavelli. It's very interesting, though, as a piece of 20th century cultural criticism.
What a person thinks of Machiavelli tells you far more about that person than it ever will tell you about Machiavelli. He's a diverse enough writer that you can a case for nearly any characterization you'd like, depending on where you'd like to put your emphases. Because of this, if any historian or political scientist tells you that they're the first one to truly understand Machiavelli, they probably have an agenda.
Leo Strauss thinks he understands Machiavelli, and he declares in his first two pages that Machiavelli is "a teacher of evil." It's a fascinating argument, for sure, but I found it to be extremely off putting. In broad strokes, Strauss argues that Machiavelli ushered in the destructiveness of modernity by severing the traditional ties between biblical theology/natural law and morality, and by orienting philosophy towards freedom rather than the traditional aim of virtue. It's perhaps most succinctly summarized by Strauss when he writes that "A stupendous contraction of the horizon appears to Machiavelli and his successors as a wondrous enlargement of the horizon... the new philosophy takes its bearing by how men lives as distinguished from how men ought to live... It understands man in the light of the sub-human rather than of the super-human." Machiavelli's greatest sin, according to Strauss is a radical lowering of expectations. Rather than trumpeting the primacy of moral virtue, Machiavelli's ends-justify-the-means ideology opened the door to a wash of relativism and a justification for rampant self-interest.
It's rhetorically powerful, but it's also rather arrogant and a hugely selective reading of his sources(and of modernity). Strauss clearly dislikes modern values and has pinned all of his complaints on Machiavelli. He justifies this by a slightly crazy reading of The Prince and Discourses on Livy that assumes his works are filled with hidden messages and deeply buried concordances. A slight contradiction is never a mistake or a sign of ambivalent thinking - instead, it's a sign of a hidden and often nefarious message. Strauss fills his work with conspiracy theories and numerology and then flatly declares that if anyone disagrees with him it's because they're "heirs of Machiavelli" and thus are hopelessly blinded to the truth by the propaganda of modernity. It's very arrogant and frustrating to read.
Don't read this is you'd like to learn about Machiavelli. It's very interesting, though, as a piece of 20th century cultural criticism.
Read
March 27, 2023If you are not a serious student of Machiavelli or Leo Strauss, then THOUGHTS ON MACHIAVELLI is not for you. Because I am neither, I do not feel qualified to rate this meandering and ponderous, but sometimes brilliant, tome and I will not attempt to do so on GoodReads.
I do have a few thoughts of my own to share about Strauss’ THOUGHTS. The first has to do with Strauss’ idea of American exceptionalism. That America is exceptional is an idea that was hijacked early in the first George W. Bush administration by jingoists and warmongers who promoted unilateral American warfare in the middle east. It was repeated so often during that time that, for many of us, the notion took on the character of a punchline to an old and tired joke.
But it was not a new idea. And it was not an unserious idea either. The founders of the United States aspired to do something new, and different. Abraham Lincoln thought that winning the war with the South would demonstrate to the world that the founder’s aspirations were not in vain. His Gettysburg Address had only one point, and that was it.
In his introduction to THOUGHTS ON MACHIAVELLI, Leo Strauss offered a nuance about American exceptionalism that struck me as clarifying. He said, “At least to the extent that American reality is inseparable from the American aspiration, one cannot understand Americanism without understanding Machiavellianism which is its opposite.” (p. 14) By this, I understand Strauss to be saying that while America’s many and often profound failures must not be ignored, neither should its aspirations. It is the nobility of its aspirations that makes the United States anti-Machiavellian and political philosophers would be wise to take that seriously. Somehow, the founders of the United States, even as they created a new state that was then the epitome of modernism, aspired to avoid the greatest wickedness of modernity, namely, Machiavellianism.
My second comment is related. It is that Strauss readily admits that Machiavelli teaches wickedness. But oddly, he does not seem to care about that as much as I would have expected. It puzzled me for a long while as I read THOUGHTS. Then it came to me. Strauss cares about wickedness and, in his unique and mischievous way, is prepared to call it out for what it is when he sees it. But more importantly to him is that Machiavelli is doing philosophy and he initiated new ways for philosophers to think about the human condition. Strauss thinks that students of philosophy should regard Machiavelli as one of the most consequential philosophers in the western tradition and they must study his philosophy with thoroughness and exactness. To belabor the wickedness, might miss the point.
I do have a few thoughts of my own to share about Strauss’ THOUGHTS. The first has to do with Strauss’ idea of American exceptionalism. That America is exceptional is an idea that was hijacked early in the first George W. Bush administration by jingoists and warmongers who promoted unilateral American warfare in the middle east. It was repeated so often during that time that, for many of us, the notion took on the character of a punchline to an old and tired joke.
But it was not a new idea. And it was not an unserious idea either. The founders of the United States aspired to do something new, and different. Abraham Lincoln thought that winning the war with the South would demonstrate to the world that the founder’s aspirations were not in vain. His Gettysburg Address had only one point, and that was it.
In his introduction to THOUGHTS ON MACHIAVELLI, Leo Strauss offered a nuance about American exceptionalism that struck me as clarifying. He said, “At least to the extent that American reality is inseparable from the American aspiration, one cannot understand Americanism without understanding Machiavellianism which is its opposite.” (p. 14) By this, I understand Strauss to be saying that while America’s many and often profound failures must not be ignored, neither should its aspirations. It is the nobility of its aspirations that makes the United States anti-Machiavellian and political philosophers would be wise to take that seriously. Somehow, the founders of the United States, even as they created a new state that was then the epitome of modernism, aspired to avoid the greatest wickedness of modernity, namely, Machiavellianism.
My second comment is related. It is that Strauss readily admits that Machiavelli teaches wickedness. But oddly, he does not seem to care about that as much as I would have expected. It puzzled me for a long while as I read THOUGHTS. Then it came to me. Strauss cares about wickedness and, in his unique and mischievous way, is prepared to call it out for what it is when he sees it. But more importantly to him is that Machiavelli is doing philosophy and he initiated new ways for philosophers to think about the human condition. Strauss thinks that students of philosophy should regard Machiavelli as one of the most consequential philosophers in the western tradition and they must study his philosophy with thoroughness and exactness. To belabor the wickedness, might miss the point.
June 27, 2007
This book is incredible. If you're on the lookout for an interpretation of Machiavelli that is absolutely unverifiable and seems obsessed with kabbalic numerology, look no further. I know you're out there.
November 7, 2017
I found this book remarkably frustrating. I hardly feel the urge to fling a book across the room whenever I read academic works. This book is so simplistic and extremely black and white. Leo Strauss, clearly an individual who sees religion - he himself was of Jewish descent - as the cement that holds society together. That prevents people from striving after their own ambitions. Machiavelli's advice, which to Strauss is synonymous to the individual Niccolò Machiavelli is, therefore, condemned as 'immoral and irreligious' and is labelled 'the teacher of evil'.
J.G.A. Pocock, Philip Pettit and Maurizio Viroli have opened up the Machiavellian debate by studying his republicanism. Though some have argued that they overlook the unscrupulous politics of Machiavelli's The Prince, at least they offer more solid interpretations than Strauss, who simply seems to condemn Machiavelli for not having voiced a concern for morality in The Prince. All in all, Strauss's thoughts are exactly that, thoughts, unsubstantiated and subjective to his personal view of the individual and his/her role in society.
Moreover, Strauss argues that if we do not share his view of Machiavelli's irreligious, immoral and evil teachings, that is because we have been brought up by it and thus blind to Machiavelli's true colours. In my opinion, any critic who feels the need to make such bold ideological statements, claiming that "immoral" individuals are thus Machiavellian, should be placed on the bottom shelf collecting dust. Criticism should be objective and not have a judgmental and overbearing tone towards its readers.
Yes, if a leader today would adopt the lessons of The Prince one would be shocked and appalled. But that is today. A time where most people do not have to worry about their city being invaded and pillaged by soldiers. A time where people can use the law to find retribution and only the state is allowed to exert violent behaviour. But did Machiavelli promote this advice or merely offer it? This is what is interesting about The Prince. This is why scholars still bother to study his works (take note of the plural: an informed decision cannot be made without reading his other works). And bringing along your strong personal sense of morality is not going to further the discussion, academically.
J.G.A. Pocock, Philip Pettit and Maurizio Viroli have opened up the Machiavellian debate by studying his republicanism. Though some have argued that they overlook the unscrupulous politics of Machiavelli's The Prince, at least they offer more solid interpretations than Strauss, who simply seems to condemn Machiavelli for not having voiced a concern for morality in The Prince. All in all, Strauss's thoughts are exactly that, thoughts, unsubstantiated and subjective to his personal view of the individual and his/her role in society.
Moreover, Strauss argues that if we do not share his view of Machiavelli's irreligious, immoral and evil teachings, that is because we have been brought up by it and thus blind to Machiavelli's true colours. In my opinion, any critic who feels the need to make such bold ideological statements, claiming that "immoral" individuals are thus Machiavellian, should be placed on the bottom shelf collecting dust. Criticism should be objective and not have a judgmental and overbearing tone towards its readers.
Yes, if a leader today would adopt the lessons of The Prince one would be shocked and appalled. But that is today. A time where most people do not have to worry about their city being invaded and pillaged by soldiers. A time where people can use the law to find retribution and only the state is allowed to exert violent behaviour. But did Machiavelli promote this advice or merely offer it? This is what is interesting about The Prince. This is why scholars still bother to study his works (take note of the plural: an informed decision cannot be made without reading his other works). And bringing along your strong personal sense of morality is not going to further the discussion, academically.
October 31, 2007
from this extraordinarily fertile but somewhat inconclusive set of reflections on Machiavelli, I glean three broad arguments: (1) machiavelli is a systematic and comprehensive thinker--a Philosopher who presents a comprehensive teaching--not an opportunistic and muddleheaded ideologist, (2) machiavelli's comprehensive teaching is not only unChristian, but radically and pervasively antiChristian, and (3) machiavelli presents his radical and antiChristian teaching using methods of indirection and deception.
to call this book ambiguous is to understate the matter--its haphazard appearance is certainly deliberate, and may well be intended to reflect the evidently unsystematic character of Machiavelli's work. i confess that i threw this book down in frustration more than half a dozen times, only to come back to it again after machiavelli confused me. this might be the most maddening and obscure of Strauss' books, and that is saying something. it is probably also among his best, and that is also saying something.
to call this book ambiguous is to understate the matter--its haphazard appearance is certainly deliberate, and may well be intended to reflect the evidently unsystematic character of Machiavelli's work. i confess that i threw this book down in frustration more than half a dozen times, only to come back to it again after machiavelli confused me. this might be the most maddening and obscure of Strauss' books, and that is saying something. it is probably also among his best, and that is also saying something.
May 19, 2020
As far as an analysis of Machiavelli goes, this is probably the best thing out there. I feel like I have a much more comprehensive view of the relationship between the works. Sometimes the analysis seems a bit silly, counting the number of contemporary to ancient examples just seems like overkill. So the book is definitely longer than it needs to be but it needs to be present right next to the prince and the discourses. Someone should come along at some point and be able to condense this book into about 50 pages, perhaps combine it with other Machiavelli analysis to make a 100-page book that is easier to quickly scan for information.
July 8, 2022
ugh this guy
October 19, 2025
Leo Strauss's Four-Part Lecture, Thoughts On Machiavelli, Examines The Florentine Statesman's Most Influential Political Writings.
Leo Strauss lived from 1899-1973 & was considered among the preeminent political scientists of the 20th century. He began teaching political philosophy at the University of Chicago in 1949 & was the author of 15 books, including Liberalism, Ancient & Modern & The City & Man. Professor Strauss greatly influenced the United States' foremost Machiavellian scholar, Harvey Mansfield Jr., & his most famous written work, Thoughts On Machiavelli was first published in 1958 & is an expanded format of a series of four lectures he delivered at the university in the fall semester of 1953. This edition is published by the University of Chicago Press, consists of 4 chapters, & is 348 pages in length.
In his study's first chapter, The Twofold Character of Machiavelli's Teaching, Professor Strauss presents his reader with an interesting simile in which he likens Machiavelli's dedication of The Prince to Lorenzo II de'Medici, an autocratic ruler, & his similar tribute in the 'Discourses on Livy' to two noted proponents of republican government, Zanobi Buondelmonti & Cosimo Rucellai, comparing them to a political scientist in modern times dedicating a disquisition on Liberal Democracy to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, & a treatise on Communism to Nikolai Bulganin, 6th Premier of the Soviet Union. The author then states that, "..The Prince is a short book, a manual which, while containing everything Machiavelli knows, can be understood within a very short time. Machiavelli achieved this feat of condensation by forgoing every kind of adornment & by depriving the book of every grace except that inherent in the variety of its matter & the weight of its theme."
Professor Strauss composed his famous Machiavellian commentary in the unmistakable tones of the lifelong cynic, & yet he somehow still manages to endear himself to his reader with his well-articulated arguments & unique insight. Later in the chapter he makes a striking observation after cross referencing two statements made in Discourse II 21 & Discourse II 25, regarding Florence's relationship with Pistoia. In the first one, "..he says that the city of Pistoia came under the sway of Florence because the Florentines had always treated the Pistoians like brothers." In the second, he states, "..that the city of Pistoia came under the sway of Florence by means of the following 'peaceful artifice'. Pistoia being divided into parties, the Florentines favored now one, now the other party & thus led the Pistoians to become so tired of party strife that they threw themselves voluntarily into the arms of Florence." The method described in the second statement, while technically free of conflict, can hardly be described as noble, or virtuous. Strauss has filled his study with keen observations & thoughtful interpretations, & his adeptness with & superior command of the English language should keep the reader engaged as they progress through the book.
Among the many interesting subtopics discussed by Strauss occurs on pages 40-41 with his appraisal of Discourse II 12, a section filled with illustrative comparisons between classical Roman & Renaissance rulers. The author summarizes it as what he considers to be a four-sided discussion: "..arguments from authority on either side, arguments from reason for either side, a solution based on a distinction, & a defense of the solution against an adverse argument." He also discusses an example regarding Castruccio Castracani of Lucca during his campaign against Florence. The imperial vicar attacked the Florentines in their own lands, & as such, they were unable to recover nor were they able to field an army to drive him out. Castracani would stage elaborate races between his followers & members of his entourage to demonstrate to his Tuscan adversaries his complete mastery over the surrounding terrain.
Chapter two is a comprehensive analysis of Niccolò's famous manual for autocratic rule, The Prince. In the opening passage the author refers to it as both a treatise & a tract for the times, placing it upon a tier alongside Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan & John Locke's Civil Government. Machiavelli was known to attach hidden meanings to specific words or numbers within his writing & the author creates a connection between the 26 total chapters in The Prince & the 26th chapter in the first book of the Discourses on Livy, also analyzing the fates of the ten Roman emperors discussed in chapter nineteen of The Prince, stating that eight came to a bad end, & only two died of natural causes.
He also provides a breakdown of the emperors appearing in Discourse I 10, informing the reader "..that of the 26 emperors discussed there, 16 were murdered & 10 died an ordinary death". Professor Strauss emphasizes Machiavelli's advice to Lorenzo II de'Medici, to whom The Prince is both the intended recipient as well as the dedicatee, to use as the model for his relationship with Pope Leo X the example of Cesare Borgia & Pope Alexander VI, for Leo was also a Medici just as Alexander was also a Borgia.
In Chapter three of Strauss' commentary, a detailed discussion of the Discourses on Titus Livy, the author introduces a concept he refers to as the Tacitean Subsection, which is a group of five chapters (19-23) in the third book containing references to & the opinions of the famous Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus. Strauss adeptly shifts the focus of his commentary to the manner in which Machiavelli is able to reconcile his own views & opinions with those of Tacitus on a variety of government-related topics such as tyranny, republicanism, & ruling the multitude. Later in the chapter Strauss shifts his focus to the patrician military commander, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was at the time of his appointment living a life of noble poverty on his small farm; however, the professor then informs the reader that the cause of his poverty was neither noble nor was it freely chosen, as Cincinnatus' son Caeso had previously been charged with capital crimes & heavily fined, & unfortunately this large sum had defaulted to Cincinnatus, who was forced to sell all of his belongings in order to pay it.
In the fourth & final chapter, entitled Machiavelli's Teachings, Strauss makes an intriguing observation regarding Machiavelli's highly stylized historical biography, The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca. He states that of the 34 sayings attributed to Castracani, 31 of them are actually traceable to Diogenes Laërtius' Lives of the Famous Philosophers. While the majority of this study revolves around The Prince & the Discourses on Livy, the professor occasionally discusses Niccolò's more obscure writings, such as the The Art of War as well as the Florentine Histories. The reviewer found these digressions to be interesting distractions, providing additional depth & character to an otherwise focused political commentary.
Thoughts On Machiavelli is a uniquely composed, effectively presented analysis on the core political writings of one of the most influential Renaissance statesmen ever to have lived. It is written in wry, endearing undertones which undoubtedly influenced later authors such as Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.'s Machiavelli's New Modes & Orders: A Commentary on the Discourses on Livy. Near the beginning of the book after discussing Niccolò's passages on "manifest blunders" in books five & six of the The Art of War, Strauss candidly remarks that, "Machiavelli's work is rich in manifest blunders of various kinds: misquotations, misstatements regarding names or events, hasty generalizations, indefensible omissions & so on." While it is true that the Straussian perspective on Machiavelli's written works is predicated upon the belief that he was an inherently evil writer, he manages to make his commentary as lighthearted & enjoyable to read as he was humanly able to do which in itself is an admirable feat. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, it is recommended for the reader to possess some familiarity with the content of The Prince & the Discourses on Livy prior to beginning Strauss' book.
For excellent translations of these 2 political writings, the reader would be well served with George Bull's translation of The Prince, published by the Penguin Classics, & James B. Atkinson & David Sice's 2002 The Sweetness of Power: Machiavelli's Discourses & Guicciardini's Considerations. Finally, for excellent versions of Machiavelli's various essays & disquisitions as well as an exceptional translation of The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, the reader need look no further than Peter Constantine's 2007 The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Thank you so very much for reading, I hope you enjoyed the review!
Leo Strauss lived from 1899-1973 & was considered among the preeminent political scientists of the 20th century. He began teaching political philosophy at the University of Chicago in 1949 & was the author of 15 books, including Liberalism, Ancient & Modern & The City & Man. Professor Strauss greatly influenced the United States' foremost Machiavellian scholar, Harvey Mansfield Jr., & his most famous written work, Thoughts On Machiavelli was first published in 1958 & is an expanded format of a series of four lectures he delivered at the university in the fall semester of 1953. This edition is published by the University of Chicago Press, consists of 4 chapters, & is 348 pages in length.
In his study's first chapter, The Twofold Character of Machiavelli's Teaching, Professor Strauss presents his reader with an interesting simile in which he likens Machiavelli's dedication of The Prince to Lorenzo II de'Medici, an autocratic ruler, & his similar tribute in the 'Discourses on Livy' to two noted proponents of republican government, Zanobi Buondelmonti & Cosimo Rucellai, comparing them to a political scientist in modern times dedicating a disquisition on Liberal Democracy to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, & a treatise on Communism to Nikolai Bulganin, 6th Premier of the Soviet Union. The author then states that, "..The Prince is a short book, a manual which, while containing everything Machiavelli knows, can be understood within a very short time. Machiavelli achieved this feat of condensation by forgoing every kind of adornment & by depriving the book of every grace except that inherent in the variety of its matter & the weight of its theme."
Professor Strauss composed his famous Machiavellian commentary in the unmistakable tones of the lifelong cynic, & yet he somehow still manages to endear himself to his reader with his well-articulated arguments & unique insight. Later in the chapter he makes a striking observation after cross referencing two statements made in Discourse II 21 & Discourse II 25, regarding Florence's relationship with Pistoia. In the first one, "..he says that the city of Pistoia came under the sway of Florence because the Florentines had always treated the Pistoians like brothers." In the second, he states, "..that the city of Pistoia came under the sway of Florence by means of the following 'peaceful artifice'. Pistoia being divided into parties, the Florentines favored now one, now the other party & thus led the Pistoians to become so tired of party strife that they threw themselves voluntarily into the arms of Florence." The method described in the second statement, while technically free of conflict, can hardly be described as noble, or virtuous. Strauss has filled his study with keen observations & thoughtful interpretations, & his adeptness with & superior command of the English language should keep the reader engaged as they progress through the book.
Among the many interesting subtopics discussed by Strauss occurs on pages 40-41 with his appraisal of Discourse II 12, a section filled with illustrative comparisons between classical Roman & Renaissance rulers. The author summarizes it as what he considers to be a four-sided discussion: "..arguments from authority on either side, arguments from reason for either side, a solution based on a distinction, & a defense of the solution against an adverse argument." He also discusses an example regarding Castruccio Castracani of Lucca during his campaign against Florence. The imperial vicar attacked the Florentines in their own lands, & as such, they were unable to recover nor were they able to field an army to drive him out. Castracani would stage elaborate races between his followers & members of his entourage to demonstrate to his Tuscan adversaries his complete mastery over the surrounding terrain.
Chapter two is a comprehensive analysis of Niccolò's famous manual for autocratic rule, The Prince. In the opening passage the author refers to it as both a treatise & a tract for the times, placing it upon a tier alongside Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan & John Locke's Civil Government. Machiavelli was known to attach hidden meanings to specific words or numbers within his writing & the author creates a connection between the 26 total chapters in The Prince & the 26th chapter in the first book of the Discourses on Livy, also analyzing the fates of the ten Roman emperors discussed in chapter nineteen of The Prince, stating that eight came to a bad end, & only two died of natural causes.
He also provides a breakdown of the emperors appearing in Discourse I 10, informing the reader "..that of the 26 emperors discussed there, 16 were murdered & 10 died an ordinary death". Professor Strauss emphasizes Machiavelli's advice to Lorenzo II de'Medici, to whom The Prince is both the intended recipient as well as the dedicatee, to use as the model for his relationship with Pope Leo X the example of Cesare Borgia & Pope Alexander VI, for Leo was also a Medici just as Alexander was also a Borgia.
In Chapter three of Strauss' commentary, a detailed discussion of the Discourses on Titus Livy, the author introduces a concept he refers to as the Tacitean Subsection, which is a group of five chapters (19-23) in the third book containing references to & the opinions of the famous Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus. Strauss adeptly shifts the focus of his commentary to the manner in which Machiavelli is able to reconcile his own views & opinions with those of Tacitus on a variety of government-related topics such as tyranny, republicanism, & ruling the multitude. Later in the chapter Strauss shifts his focus to the patrician military commander, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was at the time of his appointment living a life of noble poverty on his small farm; however, the professor then informs the reader that the cause of his poverty was neither noble nor was it freely chosen, as Cincinnatus' son Caeso had previously been charged with capital crimes & heavily fined, & unfortunately this large sum had defaulted to Cincinnatus, who was forced to sell all of his belongings in order to pay it.
In the fourth & final chapter, entitled Machiavelli's Teachings, Strauss makes an intriguing observation regarding Machiavelli's highly stylized historical biography, The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca. He states that of the 34 sayings attributed to Castracani, 31 of them are actually traceable to Diogenes Laërtius' Lives of the Famous Philosophers. While the majority of this study revolves around The Prince & the Discourses on Livy, the professor occasionally discusses Niccolò's more obscure writings, such as the The Art of War as well as the Florentine Histories. The reviewer found these digressions to be interesting distractions, providing additional depth & character to an otherwise focused political commentary.
Thoughts On Machiavelli is a uniquely composed, effectively presented analysis on the core political writings of one of the most influential Renaissance statesmen ever to have lived. It is written in wry, endearing undertones which undoubtedly influenced later authors such as Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.'s Machiavelli's New Modes & Orders: A Commentary on the Discourses on Livy. Near the beginning of the book after discussing Niccolò's passages on "manifest blunders" in books five & six of the The Art of War, Strauss candidly remarks that, "Machiavelli's work is rich in manifest blunders of various kinds: misquotations, misstatements regarding names or events, hasty generalizations, indefensible omissions & so on." While it is true that the Straussian perspective on Machiavelli's written works is predicated upon the belief that he was an inherently evil writer, he manages to make his commentary as lighthearted & enjoyable to read as he was humanly able to do which in itself is an admirable feat. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, it is recommended for the reader to possess some familiarity with the content of The Prince & the Discourses on Livy prior to beginning Strauss' book.
For excellent translations of these 2 political writings, the reader would be well served with George Bull's translation of The Prince, published by the Penguin Classics, & James B. Atkinson & David Sice's 2002 The Sweetness of Power: Machiavelli's Discourses & Guicciardini's Considerations. Finally, for excellent versions of Machiavelli's various essays & disquisitions as well as an exceptional translation of The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, the reader need look no further than Peter Constantine's 2007 The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Thank you so very much for reading, I hope you enjoyed the review!
April 27, 2020
This book is incredible. Immensely frustrating, even infuriating, yet despite long stretches of fussy pedantry it is also filled with moments of lapidary insight.
The book gives us a great mind, obsessively over-reading Machiavelli. Tiny discrepancies n interpretation or use of classical material across Machiavelli’s corpus are built into hugely significant signs to secret inner meanings; inner meaning sometimes only available through following the numerological patterns they point to, which finally reveal his cryptic blasphemies.
This is Straus’s belief in the need for esoteric reading run riot. I don’t doubt the basic truth that some texts conceal hidden meanings, or that this was a somewhat common way of writing pre-modernity. Yet here deep and painstakingly close reading, exacting attention to details and Strauss’s erudition and intellectual firepower are all deployed to wrest… nothing that new from Machiavelli’s work. In its outline Strauss’s view of Machiavelli is one of the two standard opinions – Machiavelli as amoral realist – turned up a few notches to present him as actively diabolical. Beyond this though, it is not clear what Strauss is trying to say about Machiavelli’s work here; there seems to be little actual argument.
And yet. Strauss has given a level of attention to his study of Machiavelli that I find fantastic – truly, hard to believe. While a lot of what this care turns up see like unexceptional errors and inconsistencies to me, it does also give him some deep, if fragmentary and isolated, insights. As an example – late in the book, so recently read – he is able to give a full account of Machiavelli’s use of Aristotle and other classical philosophers across his work, tying them together to give, to me at least, far greater clarity to Machiavelli’s cosmology and its constitutive connection to his morality than I feel I could ever have achieved myself.
I can’t recommend this book. I hated it a lot of the time I was reading it, even though I was strangely gripped to continue. I am glad I read it though –partly for some of the insights into Machiavelli’s work, but mainly for sharing in the experience of Strauss’s obsessive close reading.
The book gives us a great mind, obsessively over-reading Machiavelli. Tiny discrepancies n interpretation or use of classical material across Machiavelli’s corpus are built into hugely significant signs to secret inner meanings; inner meaning sometimes only available through following the numerological patterns they point to, which finally reveal his cryptic blasphemies.
This is Straus’s belief in the need for esoteric reading run riot. I don’t doubt the basic truth that some texts conceal hidden meanings, or that this was a somewhat common way of writing pre-modernity. Yet here deep and painstakingly close reading, exacting attention to details and Strauss’s erudition and intellectual firepower are all deployed to wrest… nothing that new from Machiavelli’s work. In its outline Strauss’s view of Machiavelli is one of the two standard opinions – Machiavelli as amoral realist – turned up a few notches to present him as actively diabolical. Beyond this though, it is not clear what Strauss is trying to say about Machiavelli’s work here; there seems to be little actual argument.
And yet. Strauss has given a level of attention to his study of Machiavelli that I find fantastic – truly, hard to believe. While a lot of what this care turns up see like unexceptional errors and inconsistencies to me, it does also give him some deep, if fragmentary and isolated, insights. As an example – late in the book, so recently read – he is able to give a full account of Machiavelli’s use of Aristotle and other classical philosophers across his work, tying them together to give, to me at least, far greater clarity to Machiavelli’s cosmology and its constitutive connection to his morality than I feel I could ever have achieved myself.
I can’t recommend this book. I hated it a lot of the time I was reading it, even though I was strangely gripped to continue. I am glad I read it though –partly for some of the insights into Machiavelli’s work, but mainly for sharing in the experience of Strauss’s obsessive close reading.
June 4, 2025
The challenges of this work lay in its depth of analysis at the level of the concerning texts’ structure. The meaning and significance of Machiavelli’s work within the broader tradition of modern political philosophy — abstractions that Strauss never deals with so directly — are embedded within the organizational contours of the writer’s craft that most readers might pass up as irrelevant or even undetected.
These lectures, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1958, possess a pedagogical objective. Note the unusual choice of words in central lectures: Intention — what does Machiavelli intend? Not, by contrast, what he says or writes, but rather the uncovering of his intentionality more than his explicit argumentation requires a new way or reading a work in order to uncover political and philosophical positions that remain hidden or unsaid without a proper accounting.
Strauss is one of the great readers in any tradition; his method of relentlessly calling attention to the subtle details of authorial decision-making that shape a work can strike a reader the way hearing a strange language might a traveller to a new world. Treading through the four lectures requires a great deal of patience, but every frustration of sorting through Strauss’s microscopic categorization of each section of the main works — The Prince and The Discourses on Livy — returns its reward. What are we to make of Strauss’s idiosyncratic grouping of sections of text — “the Tacitus subsection” — or the variety of voices that emerge in the interstices between Livy and Livy’s characters; between Machiavelli who speaks and Machiavelli who makes his point without speaking?
It can seem as though Strauss wants to convince us that someone or something is in the room with us that everyone agrees isn’t: a hallucinated Machiavelli. In speaking about Livy and the wisdom of the ancients, the Florentine is in fact speaking about a critical relationship to the biblical tradition. In not saying a thing, he means that thing with the most severity. We are told that he is at the origins of the Enlightenment, but perhaps he is better read as an Obfuscation. Commonly called the philosopher of wickedness, his ultimate aim is to find and promote the great models of virtue.
I will be spending the next few weeks thinking through these complexities that one might call Strauss’s twofold Machiavelli.
These lectures, conducted at the University of Chicago in 1958, possess a pedagogical objective. Note the unusual choice of words in central lectures: Intention — what does Machiavelli intend? Not, by contrast, what he says or writes, but rather the uncovering of his intentionality more than his explicit argumentation requires a new way or reading a work in order to uncover political and philosophical positions that remain hidden or unsaid without a proper accounting.
Strauss is one of the great readers in any tradition; his method of relentlessly calling attention to the subtle details of authorial decision-making that shape a work can strike a reader the way hearing a strange language might a traveller to a new world. Treading through the four lectures requires a great deal of patience, but every frustration of sorting through Strauss’s microscopic categorization of each section of the main works — The Prince and The Discourses on Livy — returns its reward. What are we to make of Strauss’s idiosyncratic grouping of sections of text — “the Tacitus subsection” — or the variety of voices that emerge in the interstices between Livy and Livy’s characters; between Machiavelli who speaks and Machiavelli who makes his point without speaking?
It can seem as though Strauss wants to convince us that someone or something is in the room with us that everyone agrees isn’t: a hallucinated Machiavelli. In speaking about Livy and the wisdom of the ancients, the Florentine is in fact speaking about a critical relationship to the biblical tradition. In not saying a thing, he means that thing with the most severity. We are told that he is at the origins of the Enlightenment, but perhaps he is better read as an Obfuscation. Commonly called the philosopher of wickedness, his ultimate aim is to find and promote the great models of virtue.
I will be spending the next few weeks thinking through these complexities that one might call Strauss’s twofold Machiavelli.
Read
May 6, 2025showing up to the “machiavelli biggest hater” competition but leo strauss is already there
May 18, 2023
(Originally reviewed in 2018, and revised in 2022)
What began as yet another book in my study of the Florentine Secretary evolved into an eleven month hate-read. To say that I found this book frustrating is an understatement, and I had to read it all the way through twice before I was convinced that I was finished. Along the way, I did side research on Leo Strauss. This is the first book of his that I have ever read, and may be the last.
Strauss is convinced that Machiavelli wrote on two levels: one for the causal reader, and another for the true seeker of knowledge. In shirt, esoteric versus exoteric. To further that argument, Strauss goes into great detail about how Machiavelli would deliberately select the number of a chapter in Discourses on purpose to relay his true meaning; etc. To me, this almost seems like the kabbalistic belief in "Gematria", where each and every letter in biblical writings had a mystical meaning. I'm not convinced.
Strauss also has an annoying tendency to repeat and restate an argument again and again.
Feel free to convince me that I am wrong.
What began as yet another book in my study of the Florentine Secretary evolved into an eleven month hate-read. To say that I found this book frustrating is an understatement, and I had to read it all the way through twice before I was convinced that I was finished. Along the way, I did side research on Leo Strauss. This is the first book of his that I have ever read, and may be the last.
Strauss is convinced that Machiavelli wrote on two levels: one for the causal reader, and another for the true seeker of knowledge. In shirt, esoteric versus exoteric. To further that argument, Strauss goes into great detail about how Machiavelli would deliberately select the number of a chapter in Discourses on purpose to relay his true meaning; etc. To me, this almost seems like the kabbalistic belief in "Gematria", where each and every letter in biblical writings had a mystical meaning. I'm not convinced.
Strauss also has an annoying tendency to repeat and restate an argument again and again.
Feel free to convince me that I am wrong.
September 27, 2011
Strauss bangs away on Machiavelli for about three hundred pages. It's a good read, especially if you are either a Straussian or a devotee of Machiavelli. I come away from reading this book with no less an affection for Machiavelli; a finger-puppet I own of Machiavelli provided me with much sagacious advice in graduate school.
Read
May 23, 2012Strauss always makes good on his promise to demonstrate the folly of insisting that everything has a meaning, but you can't read this book without realizing how poorly you read Machiavelli the first time. There are a few nice observations, though.
March 31, 2012
I think Strauss gets important aspects of Machivelli wrong. Someday I'll write a book about it. Today is not that day.
December 12, 2014
Blah! Felt like you'd have to do a devotional read to like this book. very little of interest to me here. Probably Depok Chopra's favorite bookon Machiavelli.
May 2, 2017
It is not to be wondered that Leo Strauss has, as a political philosopher, been subject to a great deal of popular disdain. He fully earned his bad reputation as a corrupter of philosophy, and yet at the same time he remains a philosopher worthy of study, if only because as we have to deal with snakes in the grass that it is worthwhile to read the writings of someone who may be readily and openly admitted to be such a snake in the grass himself. One cannot read this book and the author's praise of the prudence and autonomy of Machiavelli's thought without seeing Leo Strauss as a similar sort of person himself, someone who studied the ways of the heathen and the thought of early modern political philosophers in order to oppose both contemporary political thinking as well as to oppose biblical morality [1]. In at least one passage, the author wishes the reader to grand the autonomy of political science as a discipline. And yet this autonomy cannot be granted. The claims of God are universal, and claim lordship over every aspect of existence. Since the author, and his subject, desired to rebel against God's laws and ways and desired to set themselves up as authorities and receive glory and honor for themselves that properly belonged to God, they were open rebels to biblical law, and open scoffers of biblical religion, something this book has in large quantity. It therefore goes without saying that both Strauss and Machiavelli end up being wicked, as a matter of course, because they confuse the lower paths of life and power as being the ultimate areas of life. Woe be to those who call good evil and evil good.
The depth of material in this book may be judged from the fact that some 300 pages of close type are only comprised of four chapters, and that there are no section headings to indicate a change in thought. We are dealing with a great commentary here, and one that makes few concessions to its readers, and little elucidation of the author's own serpentine way of thought. Throughout the book, the reader is in considerable doubt as to whether the author is more interested in expressing Machiavelli's thought through erudite analysis or seeking to convey his own under the cover of discussing Machiavelli. The first chapter of the book examines the two-fold character of Machiavelli's political thought in that it appears to be contrary between the Prince and the Discourses on the first ten books of Livy. The next two chapters then look at the intentions of Machiavelli in both works, and how they ultimately serve the same end, even if the emphasis is different based on different arguments and a different intended audience. The fourth and final chapter, which takes up about 120 pages of material, looks at the core of Machiavelli's teaching, spending a lot of time on Machiavelli's radical and ungodly views on moral virtue.
In reading this book, one becomes aware that the popular disdain for Machiavelli is justified. People who know only a little bit about Machiavelli are content to know that his viewpoints are evil, while those who pretend that he was not evil have to engage in a great deal of dishonest sophistry in order to present him as good, the same sort of sophistry that Machiavelli himself engaged in to avoid meeting with an ignominious end. And yet when reading this book, one cannot help but be convinced that Leo Strauss, like Machiavelli, could justly be considered a deliberate corrupter of the political virtue of the youth. For just as Machiavelli wrote to the young in order to encourage them to become harsher and less virtuous in order to overthrow the accepted ways of their day and time, so too Leo Strauss and his disciples engaged in the same sort of corrupting practice to encourage neoconservatism and the replacement of the virtuous behavior of the state with the use of the naked power of government in order to seek after violence, overthrow the electoral verdicts of the people of other nations, and engage in ferocious conflict within and without the state, without a belief in that virtue that alone prepares mankind for eternal life and that alone makes authority legitimate in the eyes of the public.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
The depth of material in this book may be judged from the fact that some 300 pages of close type are only comprised of four chapters, and that there are no section headings to indicate a change in thought. We are dealing with a great commentary here, and one that makes few concessions to its readers, and little elucidation of the author's own serpentine way of thought. Throughout the book, the reader is in considerable doubt as to whether the author is more interested in expressing Machiavelli's thought through erudite analysis or seeking to convey his own under the cover of discussing Machiavelli. The first chapter of the book examines the two-fold character of Machiavelli's political thought in that it appears to be contrary between the Prince and the Discourses on the first ten books of Livy. The next two chapters then look at the intentions of Machiavelli in both works, and how they ultimately serve the same end, even if the emphasis is different based on different arguments and a different intended audience. The fourth and final chapter, which takes up about 120 pages of material, looks at the core of Machiavelli's teaching, spending a lot of time on Machiavelli's radical and ungodly views on moral virtue.
In reading this book, one becomes aware that the popular disdain for Machiavelli is justified. People who know only a little bit about Machiavelli are content to know that his viewpoints are evil, while those who pretend that he was not evil have to engage in a great deal of dishonest sophistry in order to present him as good, the same sort of sophistry that Machiavelli himself engaged in to avoid meeting with an ignominious end. And yet when reading this book, one cannot help but be convinced that Leo Strauss, like Machiavelli, could justly be considered a deliberate corrupter of the political virtue of the youth. For just as Machiavelli wrote to the young in order to encourage them to become harsher and less virtuous in order to overthrow the accepted ways of their day and time, so too Leo Strauss and his disciples engaged in the same sort of corrupting practice to encourage neoconservatism and the replacement of the virtuous behavior of the state with the use of the naked power of government in order to seek after violence, overthrow the electoral verdicts of the people of other nations, and engage in ferocious conflict within and without the state, without a belief in that virtue that alone prepares mankind for eternal life and that alone makes authority legitimate in the eyes of the public.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2012...
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews