Blasphemy and Leo Strauss's Machiavelli

Author(s): Dante Germino

Source: The Review of Politics, Vol. 53, No. 1, Special Issue on the Thought of Leo Strauss (
Winter, 1991), pp. 146-156
Published by: Cambridge University Press for the University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of
Review of Politics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407555
Accessed: 03-05-2015 19:15 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Blasphemy and Leo Strauss's

Machiavelli
Dante Germitno
In 1966,I publisheda reviewarticlehailingLeo Strauss'sThoughts
on Machiavellias an instantclassic. I also expressed some reservationsor "secondthoughts"about itsconclusions.' In theintervening
yearsmyappreciationfortheprofundityand originalityofStrauss's
has only increased,but many ofmydoubts have also
interpretation
remained. Here I wish to restateboth my admirationand reservations with particular attention to parts of Strauss's chapter on
Machiavelli published in the 1972 edition of his HistoryofPolitical
co-edited withJoseph Cropsey.2
Philosophy,
Let me at the outset state the obvious: Strauss's interpretation
of Machiavelli is well- indeed overwhelmingly-supportedby textual evidence, givenStrauss'smanner of readingbetween thelines.
No interpreter,
therefore,is entitledto dismiss it out of hand, even
if he or she disagrees with Strauss's methodology,in whole or in
part.In thisrespect,Claude Leforthas provideda model forscholars
whose philosophicalorientationdiffers
widelyfromthatofStrauss.3
Strauss has given us a trulyfreshlook at the great Florentine.
I do not choose here to enter into a debate withwhat mightbe
called Strauss'sstrictconstructionist
ofthegreattexts
interpretation
in politicaltheory.For a varietyofreasons,I do notagreewithStrauss
that it is possible to understand a thinker"as he understood himself,"any more than I agree withRanke thathistorycan be written
wiesieeigentlich
ist."Nevertheless"(as Machiavelli would say),
gewesen
I agree thatthe attemptto grasp and portraya great political theorist'sachievementempatheticallyfromthe inside is entirelylaud1. "SecondThoughtson Leo Strauss'sMachiavelli,"
37 (1966):
Journal
ofPblitics
794-817.Withoutin anywayimplying
his assentto myarguments,
I wouldlike
to expressmygratitudeto myfriendProf.HarveyMansfieldforhis comments
on an earlierversionof thisarticle.
2. Leo StraussandJosephCropsey,eds.,History
2nded.
ofPolitical
Philosophy,
(Chicago: Rand McNally,1972),pp. 271-92.
3. Claude Lefort,Le travail
del'oeuvre:
Machiavel
(Paris: Gallimard,1972),pp.
259-309.Bycontrast,
GennaroSasso,one ofItaly'spremierMachiavellischolars,
refusedevento discussStrauss'sconclusionsbecause he did not wantto spend
thetimenecessarytounderstand
Strauss'steaching.Machiavelli
egliantichi,
2 vols.
(Milan - Naples: RiccardoRicciardi,1987), 1: 4-5.

146
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Strauss'sMachiavelli

147

able. With respectto Machiavelli, Strausshas made one ofthegreat

attemptsat such a portrayal.
I wish here also to look at Strauss himselfempatheticallyand
fromthe inside, especially as it concerns his conclusion that Machiavelliwas a deliberate(religious) blasphemer,whose blasphemy
is all the more serious because it was covert.This matteris of crucial importanceto Strauss's understandingof Machiavelli's entire
teachingand its relationshipto modernity.Only the uncriticalacceptance of a conventionof modernityitself,that is, that religion
is a "privateaffair"and should have nothingto do withpolitics,can
preventa scholarin politicaltheoryfromtakingtheblasphemyquestion with the utmost seriousness.4
Strauss identifiesMachiavelli as a blasphemeron the basis of an
I, 26, where David ratherthan God
apparent mistakein Discourses
and authorofcertainwordsin theMagnificat
appearstobe thereferent
(Luke 1:53). For Strauss, everyblunder by Machiavelli-and especiallyevery"manifestblunder"--is deliberateand hides a deception.
Inasmuch as thepassage in questionis theonlyNew Testamentquotation in the Discourses,and inasmuch as it occurs in the twentysixthchapter,Machiavelli's "mistake"with regard to it conceals a
deception of mammoth proportions,Strauss alleges.
Strauss's reason forattributingcrucial importanceto Discourses
I, 26 deserves to be quoted at some length:
We haveseen [becausetheDiscourses
has 142chaptersto correspond
to Livy's142books]thatthenumberofchaptersoftheDiscourses
is
andhasbeendeliberately
chosen.We maythus..,. wonder
meaningful
whetherthenumberofchaptersofthePrince
is notalso meaningful.
The Prince
consistof26 chapters.Twenty-six
is thenumericalvalue
ofthesacrednameofGod in Hebrew,oftheTetragrammaton.
But
didMachiavelliknowofthis?I do notknow.Twenty-six
equals2 times
13.Thirteen... forquitesometimehas beenconsideredan unlucky
timesit was also and evenprimarily
considnumber,but in former
ereda luckynumber.So "twicethirteen"
mightmeanbothgoodluck
and bad luck,and hencealtogether:
A case can be made
luck,fortuna.
fortheviewthat[forMachiavelli]... God is fortuna[and] ... subject to humaninfluence(imprecation).5
Having established, to his satisfaction,the importance of the
number 26 forMachiavelli's theology,Strauss turnsto considerthe
26th chapter of the Discourses,
whose heading declares that "a new
4. See Leo Strauss,Thoughts
onMachiavelli
(Glencoe,IL: The FreePress,1958),
p. 231.
5. Straussand Cropsey,Political
Philosophy,
p. 286.
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

Dante Germino

prince..,. mustmake everythingnew."This means thatthe subject

of the chapteris tyranny,he says,because at the end of chapter25
Machiavelli had writtenthat he who wants absolute power must
make everything
new (offices,names, authorities,
leaders).6Although
Machiavelli avoids using the term tyrannyin both the Princeand
in Discourses
I, 26, tyrannyis the actual subject of the one and the
other,Strauss concludes.
Accordingto Strauss, Machiavelli's inferencethattheNew Testamentverse"He hath filledthehungrywithgood thingsand the rich
he hath sentemptyaway"applies to King David mustbe interpreted
as follows:
The quotationformspartoftheMagnificat,
theVirginMary'sprayer
ofthanksaftersheheardfromtheangelGabrielthatshewouldbring
a soncalledJesus;hethat"hathfilledthehungry
forth
withgoodthings
and sentthe richemptyaway"is none otherthanGod himself.In
thecontextof thischapter[Discourses
I, 26] thismeansthatGod is
a tyrant,
and thatKing David,whomadetherichpoorand thepoor
rich,was a Godlyking,a kingwho walkedin thewaysoftheLord
becausehe proceededin a tyrannical
way.We mustnotethatthisis
thesoleNew Testament
or in the
quotationoccurringin theDiscourses
Prince.
And thatsoleNew Testament
quotationis usedforexpressing
a mosthorrible
Someonemightsay..,. thattheblasphemy
blasphemy.
is notexpressly
utteredbut onlyimplied.But thisdefense,farfrom
helpingMachiavelli,makehis case worse,and forthisreason:when
a man openlyuttersor vomitsa blasphemy,
all good men shudder
and turnawayfromhim,or punishhimaccordingtohisjust deserts;
thesinis entirely
his. But a concealedblasphemyis so insidious...

because it ...

compels the hearer or reader to thinkthe blasphemy

byhimselfand so to becomean accompliceoftheblasphemer.Machiavellithusestablishes

a kindofintimacy
withhisreaders..,.whom
he calls "young,"
by inducingthemto thinkforbiddenor criminal
thoughts.... This is an important
partofhiseducationoftheyoung,
or to use a timehonoredexpression,
ofthecorruption
oftheyoung.7

The most strikingphrase in the above passage is "vomits a

blasphemy."By using it, Strauss clearlymeans to align himselfon
the side of the phrase's author,the sixteenth-century
French CalvinistInnocent Gentillet,one oftheprincipalfoundersofthetradi6. Niccolo'sMachiavelli,Tutte
leopere
(Florence:Sansoni,1971),pp.25-26.The

conclusion
ofDiscourses
I, 25reads:"maquellochevuolefareunapotesti
assoluta,
la qualedagliautori&chiamata
debberinnovare
tirannide,
ognicosa,comenel
sidir&"
anabsolute
which
theauthors
seguente
capitolo
(buthewhodesires
power,
calltyranny,
mustmakeeverything
inthefollowing
new,as isexplained
chapter).
7. Straussand Cropsey,Pblitical
Philosophy,
pp. 287-88.

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Strauss'sMachiavelli

149

tion which associates Machiavelli's name with scandalous and immoral "Machiavellianism."8Although Strauss thinksthat the traditionalversionofMachiavelli as a diabolical figureforgetsthatthe
devilhimselfwas a fallenangel,he thinksthatone can "ascend"from
thatversionto a more adequate understanding.On theotherhand,
the revisedversion(Machiavelli as humanist,republican,friendof
the people, politicallysecular but not antireligious)representsthe
triumphof Machiavellianism itself.Those scholars who hail the
"good,""progressive,"democratic"Machiavelli have been unknowinglycorruptedby Machiavelli'sevil message,hidden under a cover
of good thoughtsand good works.9
Let me now begin my criticismof Strauss on Machiavelli as
blasphemerby comparingwhat Machiavelli has to say about David
and about blasphemy in his "Exhortationto Penitence."(The Exhortationis a sermonbelievedto have been deliveredby Machiavelli
to a religiousconfraternity
ofwhichhe was a member.Some scholars
of note now place the date of the composition between 1525 and
1527, thatis, duringthe last two yearsof Machiavelli's life.) I shall
next proceed to a critique of Strauss's interpretationof Discourses
I, 26. In conclusion, I will consider Strauss's closing words to his
1972 textbookchapteron Machiavelli as theyappear to me to bear
on the question of philosophyversus revelation,or Athens versus
Jerusalem.
Regrettably,Strauss himselfreferredonly fleetingly
(once in the
textand twicein thefootnotes)to Machiavelli'slay sermonon penitence, so that it will be necessary to fleshout his view as to why
this seeminglypious work does not challenge his interpretationof
DiscoursesI, 26 and in general of Machiavelli as arch-atheistand
blasphemer.10
8. See Le A. Burd,II Principe
Press,1895),p. 55,
(Oxford:OxfordUniversity
whichis Strauss'ssourceforthe following
remarkby Gentillet."C'estatheiste
... a bienos&
vomirce blasph6me
.. ." (Strauss,Thoughts
onMachiavelli,
p. 334,n. 72).
9. Strauss,Thoughts
onMachiavelli
p. 13.
10. Ibid.,pp. 322, n. 133 and 332, n. 47. Strauss'sfirstfootnoterefersto the
Exhortation
as comparabletothethree"sermons"ordiscourseson a Latintextfoundin theDiscourses
(ibid.,p. 138)The secondfootnote
beginswitha reference
to Discourses
thatthevice of ingratitude
I, 30, whichdemonstrates
(in a prince,
towardhis victoriousgeneral,forexample)is "theeffect
of a naturalnecessity"
ofthesubjectofgrati(ibid.,p. 194). Strausscontinues:"Asforthesignificance
alla penitenza"
tude,see Machiavelli'sEsortazione
(ibid,p. 332). These crypticremarksseemto me to suggestthatMachiavelliviewsanyprofession
ofgratitude,
as feigned,and thattherefore
hiscounsel
especiallytowardone's"Lord"(signore),
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150

Dante Germino

In the "Exhortation,"Machiavelli refersto David as the author

ofthePsalms,as "reader[lectore]
oftheHoly Spirit"and as "prophet."11
Inasmuch as the Magnficatitselfis redolentwithphrases fromthe
Psalms,itwould appear thatan obviousjustificationforMachiavelli's
I, 26 ofthewords"He filledthe poor withgood
linkage in Discourses
thingsand the rich he sent empty away" to David was thathe believedhim to havebeen authorofthePsalms, interpreter
oftheHoly
Spirit,and prophet. Indeed, Machiavelli begins the "Exhortation"
by quoting the opening verse to Psalm 130 in the Vulgate: "Out
ofthe depthshave I cried unto thee,O Lord. Lord hear myprayer."
He could have proceeded to quote the next verse: "If Thou, Lord,
shouldest mark our iniquities . . . who shall stand?"
As definedby the Oxford
EnglishDictionary,
blasphemyis the"profane speaking of God or sacred things"as well as "impious irreverence." Another dictionarygives this definitionof blasphemy: "In
Jewishlaw, cursingor revilingGod or theking,who is God's representative;in later usage, pronouncingthe forbiddenname of God,
the Tetragrammaton"(or the fourHebrew letters,writtenwithout
vowel points, and transliteratedYHVH).12 If in DiscoursesI, 26
Machiavelli in factdeclared or even implied God to be a tyrant,
he would certainlyhave been guiltyof blasphemy.But did he? My
own readingofthechapterrevealsonlythatMachiavellisaysofDavid

ofcontrition
foringratitude
towardGod and one'sneighborin theExhortation
is also feigned.Strauss'sonlytextualreference
to theExhortation-andhis only
directquotationfromit- occursin Thoughts
onMachiavelli,
p. 201,towardtheend
ofhisdiscussionofDiscourses
III, 6 on conspiracies.
NotingMachiavelli'sobservationthatthedangersofconspiracies"surpassby fareveryotherkindofdanger,"
Straussinterprets
thisphraseas intendedto include"thedangerof damnation."
He continueswiththe following
"Or did Machiavellibelievethat
qualification:
thedangerofdamnationcan be avertedbyrepentance,
and perhapsevenrepentanceon thedeathbed? 'Penitence"he saysin his Exhortation
toPenitence,
'is the
sole remedywhichcan wipe out all evils,all errorsofmen.'"NeitherDavid nor
SaintsPeter,
intheExhortation)
Jerome,orFrancis(all mentioned
repentedon their
deathbeds.
11. All references
tothe"Exhortation
toPenitence"-entitled
"Exortatione
alla
as usedbyStraussand many
penitenza"-ratherthan"Esortazionealla penitenza"
others-are fromMario Martelli,ed., NiccldMachiavelli:
le opere
Tutte
(Florence:
Sansoni, 1971),pp. 932-34. The titlewas not Machiavelli'sown; his autograph
leftituntitled.An Englishtranslation
is in Alan Gilbert,Machiavelli:
manuscript
TheChiefWorks,
3 vols.(Durham,NC: Duke University
Press,1965),1: 170-75.
I have used myown translation,
however.
12. TheShorter
2 vols.(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985),
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
1: 200; Webster's
oftheEnglishLanguage
Dictionary
(New York,1952),pp. 90, 879.
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Strauss'sMachiavelli

151

that "when he became King he made the rich poor and the poor
rich."He does not say that David was the addressee of the precise
Nor does he sayofDavid thathe made everywordsoftheMagnificat.
thingnew withnew governments,new names, new authoritiesand
new men. It was Philip of Macedonia, not King David, who "built
new cities,destroyedbuildings, and transferredinhabitantsfrom
place to place." These "verycruel means, inimical to everyway of
living, not only Christian but human" were employed by Philip,
fatherof Alexander the Great, and not by David.'3
What Machiavelli says about David in the "Exhortationto Penitence"is thathe deeply repentedofhavingcommittedadulteryand
indirectmurder in the affairwith Bathsheba. In this one grievous
instance,David abused his power as king by takingBathsheba for
his mistressand arrangingto have her soldier husband killed on
the frontline of battle. This one instance, growingout of his lust
of the flesh,hardly makes David a tyrant. Furthermore,wrote
Machiavelli, in David "no greaterpenitencecan be foundin a man,
nor in God can there be discovered any greater generosityto
forgive."4
Is there"profanespeaking of God" or "impious irreverence"to
be foundin this?It is true thatMachiavelli's sermonpresentsGod
as most merciful,"as mindfulof human weakness,"and as opposed
to "therigorsofthe vendetta."
How is this"profanespeakingofGod,"
however?How is Machiavelli guiltyof "impious irreverence"when
in the"Exhortation"he declaresGod to have devised "themostpious
remedyforhumanweakness,"
namelypenitence?How do thesewords
square with an alleged vomiterof blasphemies?
In his recentintellectualbiographyof Machiavelli, Sebastian de
Grazia has siftedthroughevery scrap of writingleftby the great
Florentine. De Grazia concludes, somewhat surprisingly,that
Machiavelli"discoursesabout God alwaysin theconventionalreverent
attitude."Far frombeing an atheist or a blasphemer,Machiavelli
emergesin de Grazia's reconstructionas a man witha sincerebelief
in God. Here is de Grazia's summation:
Scatteredabouthiswritings..,.likepoppiesin a fieldofchickpeas,
aremanyreferences
toGod. Together
liketheyforman unmistakable
ness. Niccolo'sGod is the creator,masterdeity,providential,
real,
13. Machiavelli,Discorsi
decadi TitoLivio,in Martelli,Machiavelli:
sopralaprinma
le opere,
p. 109.
Tutte
le opere,
14. Machiavelli,[Exortationealla penitenza]in Martelli,Tutte
933.
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

Dante Germino
universal,one ofmanynames,personal,invocable,thankable,to be
and punishing,awerevered,a judge,just and forgiving,
rewarding
intheworld.'15
some,a forcetranscendent,
separatefrombutoperative

In the "Exhortationto Penitence" Machiavelli appears to take

sin- definedultimatelyas ingratitudeto God and enmitytoward
one's neighbor- seriously.Yet it is not sin "but the perseverancein
sin"whichGod judges to be punishable with"eternalhellfire."
God
of
"the
as
the
to
eternal
salvation,
opens up
way penitence"
path
human beings havinglost"theotherway"ofa sinlesslife,as a result
of the Fall.
"Everythingis created [by God] forthe honor and good of man,
and only man is created forthe good and honor of God," declares
Machiavelli in the "Exhortation."Man is given speech withwhich
to praiseGod, hands withwhichto build templesand make sacrifices
in His honor,and "reasonand intellectwithwhichhe is able to speculate about and understand"His greatness.See, however,continues
Machiavelli, withwhat ingratitudeman rebels against God's gifts!
The tongue,givenforspeech so thatman mighthonor God, is used
"to blaspheme" Him.
Surely it is noteworthythatin the"Exhortation"Machiavelli the
alleged blasphemer explicitlycondemns blasphemy.He also condemnsconverting
our intellectfroman instrument
forunderstanding
God's greatnessinto a means forspeculatingabout the world. Not
Machiavellitheallegedphilosopherofsupremeworldinsignificantly,
liness concludes the Exhortation with these lines fromPetrarch:
to repentand to knowclearly
thateverything
whichpleasesthe worldis
but a briefdream.16
Strauss'scase against Machiavelli forblasphemyin Discourses
I,
26 reliesheavilyon the convictionthatthe number twenty-six
had
a specialtheologicalsignificance
forMachiavelli.'7YetStrausshimself
15. Machiavelli
in Hell (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press,1989),p. 58.
16. Machiavelli,[Exortationealla penitenza],p. 934.
17. Cf. Thoughts
onMachiavelli,
pp. 48-53. Afterobservingthat"intakingseriMachiavelli's
ouslythenumber26, we are on therightpath"to understanding
StrausscomparesPrince
intention,
26, Discourses
I, 26, and Discourses
II, 26. (Discourses
III, 26 is notmentioned,
however).He thennotesthatMachiavelli"speaks
oftwenty-six
fromCaesartoMaximinus,and adds:"Thisisnottheplace
emperors
to givefurther
examplesofMachiavelli'suse ofthenumber26 or,moreprecisely
of 13 and multiplesof 13"(p. 52). Apparently
theproper"place"forStraussto

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Strauss'sMachiavelli

153

admitsthathe "does not know"whetherMachiavelli was aware that

26 is the numerical value of the Tetragrammaton.'8Could not
Machiavelli also have been ignorantthatthirteenwas both a lucky
a blasphemous
and an unluckynumberand hence stood forfortuna,
substituteforthe God of revelation?There is no more evidence for
the latter supposition than the former.
The differencebetween Sebastian de Grazia's and Strauss's atgraspingMachiavelli'steachingfromwithin
temptsat empathetically
is that de Grazia allows that teaching to emerge fromits author's
own words- and fromall of those words- placed in biographical
context.By comparison,and despitehis intention,Straussgivesthe
appearance of forcingMachiavelli to conformto a patternimposed
by him fromwithout. Machiavelli to de Grazia is verymuch the
citizen-activist
and masterofironythatone encountersin theletters.
Strauss'sMachiavelli, on the otherhand, resemblesa reclusivephilosopher or perhaps a gnosticsage who pores over ancient textsespeciallyPlato, Aristotle,Xenophon, and theBible -and who with
trulydiabolical clevernesshides a subversivemessage between the
lines, a message that by the nineteenthcenturyhad succeeded in
turningtwo thousand yearsofwesternphilosophyand religionupside down, almost single-handedly.
To such criticismsas I have offered,Leo Strauss mightwell have
thatI am just one more modern scholarwho
respondedregretfully
has been corrupted in his thinkingby the very success of the
Machiavellian doctrine.'9We moderns are said no longer to know
what blasphemy is because our "enlightened"minds are closed to
revealed truth.20Strauss would presumablyhave responded to de
mentionthesefurther
examplesis inhischapterin Straussand Cropsey.See footnote5 above.This is notto say thatStraussdid notgivenumerousexamplesof
onMachiavelli.
None of theseplacesseemsto qualify
multiplesof 13 in Thoughts
as "theplace"whenhe discussesthe significance
of thenumber26, however.
18. Straussand Cropsey,Political
p. 286. So faras I know,in Thoughts
Philosophy,
onMachiavelli
StraussdoesnotmentionthatthenumericalvalueoftheTetragrammatonin Jewishlaw is 26.
19. "TodojusticetoMachiavellirequiresonetolookforward
froma pre-modern
Machiavelliwho
pointofviewtowardan altogether
unexpectedand surprising
is newand strange,ratherthantolookbackwardfromtodaytowardsMachiavelli
who has become old and our own, and therewith
almostgood" (Thoughts
on
Machiavelli,
p. 12).
20. Ibid.,pp. 49-52, Straussdefendshis use ofthetermblasphemynotonly
withregardtoDiscourses
I, 26 butto Machiavelli'sentireteaching.The blasphemy
of I, 26 is said to be "onlythe spearheadof a large column"(p. 49). Indeed,
Machiavelliofnecessity,
so tospeak,hadtocommitblasphemies
andhad tocommit
themcovertly,
becausein his timetheauthority
oftheBiblewas"generally
recog-

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

154

Dante Germino

Grazia's reconstructionofa Machiavellian theologywiththeobservationthat,under fearofpersecution,Machiavelli ofcourse masked

his atheism in conventionalreferencesto the deity.In order to be
Machiavelli'sblasphemyhad to be subtle,so as notto bring
effective,
the wrathof the authorities,includingthe papacy which had commissioned him to write the HistoryofFlorence,
down on his head,
or to frightenand anger his readers,who were to be broughtlittle
by littleto consider worldlyhumanism as a substituteforbiblical
revelation.
My response to such a conceivable rejoinder by Strauss is as
follows.For all his brilliance,ingenuity,and formidableknowledge,
Strauss has imposed on Machiavelli the consistencyof a systembuilder. My own sense of Machiavelli is thathe was a man in love
with the tangible, the concrete,and the comical. The Florentine
Secretarywas a man who dismissedhis book the Princeas a "whim"
or "fantasy."21
The Discourseson Livy seem to have only the most
kind
of
general
plan, and it is not clear to me thathe ever finished
the work.
In effect,
Straussargues thatanyonewho dissentsfromhis overall
interpretationof Machiavelli has to be, even ifunknowingly,in the
serviceofMachiavelli'santireligiousmodernism.22Strausscontends
that each wave of modernityhas been more radical than the last,
so thatto the extentthatwe ourselvesare moderns,Machiavelli has
to seem "moderate" in comparison with Hobbes, Hegel, and
Nietzsche.23

nized and supportedbylaw."To bringforthwhatmodernscall his innerworldly

itsallegedsourcehumanism,he had to challengethatauthority
byimpugning
he had to do it covertly
(p. 52).
i.e.,God-and forfearof persecution
leopere,
21. Machiavelli,letterto FrancescoVettori,10December1513in Tutte
..
p. 1160."Et se vi piacque mai alcuno mio ghiribizoy.
withwhichwearemostfamiliar
22. "Thekindsofunbelief
todayarerespectful
indifference
and sucha nostalgiaforlostfaithas goeswithan inabilityto distinonMachiavelli,
guishbetweentheologicaltruthand myth"(Thoughts
p. 51). This
is not one of Strauss'sbetter"thoughts"See Dante Germino,Political
Philosophy
andtheOpenSociety
Press,1982),fora
(Baton Rouge: Louisiana StateUniversity
discussionofmyth,philosophy,
and mysticism
as modesofopenness
revelation,
towardtranscendent
Being,theBeing thatrevealeditselfto Moses in Exodus3
as "I AM THAT I AM." I shallreserveexplorationof thiscomplicatedmatter
foranotherplace.See theforthcoming
editedbyBarry
Strauss-Voegelin
Correspondence
of Calgary,forEric Voegelin'salternative
of
Cooper,University
understanding
and revelation.
philosophy
23. GivenStrauss'ssplendidmasteryofItalian,itis appropriatethatthebest
bookI havereadon Strausson modernity
is in Italian:RaimondoCubeddu,Leo

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Strauss's
Machiavelli

155

I do notthinkthatthereexistsa Rosettastoneto decipherthe

Machiavellian
andtherefore,
I do notthinkthatStrauss
hieroglyph,
has foundit. I do not thinkthatI personallyam underthespell
ofmodernity,
againstwhosepremisesI havearguedin printover
theyears.I do thinkthatStraussis a greatinterpreter
ofMachiavelli,
preciselybecause he is greaterthaneitherhis method(counting
and lastwords,
words,numbersofchapters,sentences,
notingfirst
or
his
conclusions
about
Machiavelli
as
a
witha
etc.)
philosopher
Where
Strauss
is
is
in
his
for
metaphysical
system.
greatest
eye textualdetail,hisinsistenceon takingseriouslyeveryapparently
idle
word.
Let me concludewitha consideration
ofStrauss'snotionofwhat
itmeanstophilosophize.Not accidentally,
he refers
to Machiavelli
as a "corrupter
oftheyoung"-forthesewordsofcoursewereorigireturned
nallypartoftheindictment
bythejuryagainstSocrates,
as reportedin Plato'sApology.
Socrateswas said to havecorrupted
theyouthbecausehe did notworshipthegodsworshipped
bythe
In otherwords,
polisand because he introduced"newdivinities."
Socratescorrupted
theyoungbecausehewasallegedly
blasphemous.
The last wordsof Strauss's1972 chapteron Machiavelliare:
" ... Machiavelliand Socratesmakea commonfrontagainstthe
Is Straussdeliberately
silentaboutthe"commonfront"
Sophists."24
Machiavelliand Socratesalso make againstrevelation?
In his famousJerusalemlecture,Leo Straussrefusedto decide

Strauss
e lafilosofia
politica
Italiane,1983).See
(Naples: EdizioniScientifiche
moderna
thewholepartII: "La modernith:
Storiadi una decadenza,"pp. 165-315.
24. Strauss and Cropsey,PoliticalPhilosophy,
on
p. 292. See also Thoughts
Machiavelli:
"Machiavelli's
claimthathe has takena roadnotyettroddenbyanyone
he did notreturnto an antiimpliedthatin breakingwiththeSocratictradition
Socratic position. . . (p. 291).

25. See Strauss'sJerusalem

lectureon "The MutualInfluence
ofTheologyand
no. 1 (Jerusalem.1954) and
Philosophy;in V Ivyun-Hebrew
PoliticalQuarterly,
and Athens"in TheCityCollege,
no. 6 (New York,1967). In "Mutual
"Jerusalem
Influence"
he declarestheBibleand philosophy
tobe "alternatives
and antagonists
in thedramaofthehumansoul"(pp. 113-14).Strauss'soverallconclusionis that
can neverrefuterevelation
norcan revelation
everrefutephilosophy.
philosophy
forthejust wayoflifeis incompatible
withthebiblical
Philosophyas thesearch
whichclaimstopossess
thetruth
aboutthejustwayoflife."Strauss's
teaching
teaching
does notlead to a subordination
ofphilosophy
to revelation.
As a Jew,although
distancedfromtheSynagogue,he does notrefuseto speakoffaithin an atheist
world"or as a philosopher
"toindicateto thebelieverthoserationalconclusions
ofphilosophy
whichare antithetical
tothefaith.The tertium
nondatur. .. remains
his secretposition"(Cubeddu, Leo Strauss,
pp. 44-45).
This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156

Dante Germino

whetherphilosophyor biblical revelationhas the ultimatehold on

Does this refusalbring him closer to Machiavelli
our allegiance."25
and suggestthat Strauss himselfrecognized that therewas somethingto be said in favorofMachiavelli,therebymitigatingthecharge
ofblasphemy?Was the charge ofblasphemya deliberateexaggeration by Strauss to bring the entire dilemma of Athens versus
Jerusalemback into public view? However one answersthesequestions,one should neverlose sightofthefactthatthetitleofStrauss's
Machiavellian masterpieceis Thoughts
on [and not Certainties
about]
Machiavelli.In the end, we are indeed leftwiththe thoughtsof Leo
Straussas inspiredby an originalreadingoftheFlorentineSecretary
with the enigmatic smile.

The VitalNexus
Vol. 1 Number1 May1990

Conscience -

Justice -

Freedom

A Leo StraussSymposium
Contributors:
GeorgeAnastaplo- ShadiaDrury
PeterEmberley- ErnestFortin
Orwin
JohnGunnell- Clifford
- RobertStone Publishedby

Values
TheInstitute
ofHuman
SaintMary's
University
Halifax,Nova Scotia

Canada

B3H 3C3

Subscription
$5.00
Institute
$25.00
(includesJournal)
Membership

NextIssue:
Law Symposium
Natural

This content downloaded from 186.18.172.79 on Sun, 03 May 2015 19:15:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions