Explore the vast range of titles available.

Addressing the central theme of his work-the complex relationship between religion, philosophy, and politics-the twelve newly available transcripts included in Leo Strauss on Religion offer unprecedented insights into Leo Strauss's thoughts on previously unexplored subjects. Essential for both avid readers and newcomers, this collection unveils sharper formulations and frank discussions, providing a rare peek into the ambiguous aspects of Strauss's renowned reticence in formulating his ultimate thoughts. Accompanied by fourteen interpretative essays from distinguished scholars, this volume serves as a comprehensive guide to Strauss's intellectual odyssey. Offering fresh perspectives, these essays navigate the understudied aspects of Strauss's reflections on religion, putting his thought in a new perspective thereby enriching the scholarly debate around the controversial yet influential legacy of Leo Strauss.

Naamazi focuses on politics, religion, and love reflecting on how Leo Strauss read the Arabian Nights. It is difficult to find any non-Western work of literature that has had a more lasting effect on Western thought than the One Thousand and One Nights. Since its introduction to Western readers by Francois Galland in 1704, this work has not only played a key role in shaping the Western image of the East but has also contributed to the West's self-understanding. According to Strauss, because free thought and critique of common authoritative answers are the most distinctive characteristics of philosophy, there has always been a fundamental tension between philosophy and religion.

The question addressed by this article is whether esotericism or secret teachings exist in Machiavelli’s writings. This question has been a major point of contention between the commentators of Machiavelli, with many denying the existence of esoteric teaching in the Machiavellian corpus. This article will explore the controversy by studying Machiavelli’s own works, and on this basis it will be contended that there are many references and elements present in Machiavelli’s works that justify an esoteric interpretation. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that Machiavelli has esoteric intentions that are different from the surface meaning of his texts. It is therefore necessary for commentators to go beyond the surface of his writings to uncover his deeper teachings.

The two manuscripts published here for the first time were written by Leo Strauss: the first in 1956 and the second between 1957 and 1962. The first, entitled “Lecture in Milwaukee: Michigan Midwest Political Science,” was written for the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Midwest Conference of Political Scientists on May 4, 1956, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The second is an unpublished passage of “An Epilogue” Strauss wrote for Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, published in 1962. Together these pieces improve our understanding of both the context in which Strauss developed his critique of the new political science and the audience to whom that critique was addressed. These two texts are of “biographical” interest. They are biographical in the sense that they clarify Strauss's thought and its evolution. The “Lecture in Milwaukee” clarifies the context in which Strauss's critique of modern political science was born: confrontation with the political scientists of the 1950s, here represented by Glendon Schubert who is not mentioned in Strauss's published writings. Without this lecture one might overlook the reference to “extrasensory perception” in the ironical discussion of “our man in Missouri” in “Epilogue.” The critique of Arthur Bentley, Bernard Berelson, Harold Laswell, and Herbert Simon by Strauss's students also takes on new meaning if read in the light of this lecture's references and Schubert's published article. Aside from Strauss's view of academia in the 1950s, his references in the lecture to the British Labour Party's policy toward Nazi Germany, to postwar American disarmament, and to prison reform and immigration policy in the United States provide rare and thus important information about Strauss's political views and judgment.

IT WOULD NOT BE AN EXAGGERATION to say that Leo Strauss’s view of Rousseau is perhaps his most puzzling encounter with modern political philosophers. It is puzzling because, on the one hand, every serious reader of Strauss and his writings on Rousseau must admit that there is a profound sympathy, not to say an agreement, between Strauss and Rousseau, an agreement that one can with difficulty claim to exist between Strauss and any other modern political philosopher.¹ On the other hand, and despite this profound concord between the two, Strauss consistently takes a highly critical position toward Rousseau. This perplexing