The other reviews of this book already give the potential reader a good insight into what they are buying, and so I will comment on a fascinating conceptual tension within the book. Like all political realists (or so Schmitt would claim), Schmitt begins his theorizing from the empirical fact that "man is a dangerous and dynamic being". Schmitt allows that the nature of man may not be evil, but man's nature is inarguably problematic. Schmitt then inquires as to how man's problematic nature reveals itself conceptually. His answer is the enemy recognition. We know man is evil because he is prone to locating in the stranger, the other (that person or group who holds inimical aesthetic, religious, ethical beliefs), a potential source of violent conflict. A tension (there are many in the book!) then materializes when Schmitt speaks of the necessity of the state to make the proper enemy recognition if peace and security are to be maintained. It is of course a perilous folly if the state fails to make the proper enemy recognition (see Hindenburg's 1933 alliance with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement, and Stalin's secret pact with Hitler for three failed enemy recognitions before WWII). But how does the state make the proper enemy recognition, and not simply needlessly multiply conflict in order to root out the enemy? Thus, the Soviet archives tell us that Stalin erroneously viewed the West as a threat (particularly a rebuilt Germany) after WWII, and so seized Eastern Europe as a buffer zone. The tension of the enemy recognition is that it is the source of all of our troubles, but yet it must be made when necessary. Sounds like the stuff of which politics is made...

Politics is just the wooden horse in this book. Schmittian political theory treats killing as the unthinkable monstrosity which it usually is, but allows the state to have a monopoly on declarations of war, which is about the only thing that might be considered important by those who only permit it when they have an enemy. The things in this book apply so well to the Greeks who were camped outside Troy all those years, wondering why they couldn't win when they were so obviously right, that the kind of politics in this book might be considered classic. Schmitt was in a little trouble once, after World War II, when people wondered if he should be treated like a war criminal for openly thinking about the logic of this kind of thing as a German, who published this as Der Begriff des Politischen in 1932. There is a possibility that some of the people who won World War II didn't want politicians to think this way: "The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism, and every concrete antagonism becomes that much more political the closer it approaches the most extreme point, that of the friend-enemy grouping." (p. 29). Honestly, the things people think can get them in a lot of trouble, which is probably why you never see much thinking on television.

"The Concept of the Political", by Carl Schmitt, is a theorhetical tract wherein Schmitt lays the groundwork for a criticism of current 'liberal' political theory (liberal in the technical sense of the term, i.e. as concerned with the preservation of human freedom as the sovreign good of political society, as opposed to the word's conventional use as an adjective describing adherents of the various species of Leftist ideology; note as well that here we mean 'negative freedom', not 'positive freedom', in Isaiah Berlin's scheme). His reflections are somewhat disjointed, but fortunately the notes on this text penned by the great and sadly passed away Leo Strauss are appended at the end of the book. This provides a useful synthesis and critique of Schmitt's work; essentially, Strauss argues that Schmitt is criticizing liberalism from a concealed moral point of view, under the guise of the supposed necessities of politics as a function of human nature; however, what Schmitt never comes out and says is that the 'ethics' and 'morality' of liberalism, that he says he is disregarding in favor of cold-eyed necessity, is in fact just one of a plurality of possible ethical systems, and that there is an alternative ethical vision available that does in fact embrace politics as struggle between friends and enemies as valuable in itself, which is a step further than Schmitt takes the analysis, seeing the political and its allegedly unpalatable characteristics as a matter of pure necessity. Strauss never says so, but the antithesis his analysis sets up is strikingly similar to the godlike Friererich Nietzsche's notions of 'master morality' and 'slave morality'. Read this book, especially Strauss' epitome of it, alongside 'Beyond Good and Evil', 'On the Geneology of Morals', 'The Anti-Christ', and 'Twilight of the Idols', for a look at a positive formulation of what Schmitt merely hints at. Also good for further info on Nietzsche's political philosophy would be 'Nietzsche and the Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism' by Bruce Dettweiler; 'Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker', by Keith Ansell-Pearson; and 'Nietzsche and the Political', by Daniel W. Conway.

N.B. - Schmitt disgraced himself as a man for all eternity by his willing association with the satanic forces of the Third Reich. In no way should this be a reason for you to avoid this book. He repetedly denounces totalitarinism in it as different from his own ideas; likewise, do not allow the old canard that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi to keep you from reading him - this is an out-and-out lie, as Walter Kaufman proved half a century ago in his "Nietzsche: Philospoher, Psychologist, and Anti-Christ". Friederich Nietzsche would not have deigned to so much as urinate on Adolf Hitler if he found the Furher on fire. In any case, even if the charges against Nietzsche were true, it would still constitute an ad hominem attack, which has no rational vlaue whatsoever (the same goes for Schmitt). Ad hominems, in case you are wondering, consist of attempts to discredit ideas by discrediting their thinkers - e.g. 'elimination of affirmitive action is a mistake because white conservatives are racists and black conservatives are Uncle Toms'. I'm sure you've heard similar fallacies before. Neither man's ideas necessarily leads to Nazism or any other form of totalitarianism - people who oppose them just want you to think so. Read it, and ponder it, if you want a glimpse of a radically different way of thinking about politics.

I had to write a term paper for my critical thinking class in college, and it was on Aristophanes. The topic, more specifically, explored how Socrates' fate would have been different, had Aristophanes not written the play "The Clouds." This book was helpful in explaining the play, Aristophanes, and his relationship with Socrates. If you're studying anyhting of this nature, or are just interested in the two men mentioned in the title, I strongly recommend that you read it.

While the introduction, conclusion and first essay (on "Clouds") is apparently anchored in an argument between philosophy and poetry, the further Strauss leaves "Clouds" behind, the more we see through his close reading of the plays, in a way we never do from the younger Plato, the cultural disintegration of Athens under the assault of the war. Euripides, not Socrates, emerges at the real opponent and comedy triumphs over both tragedy and philosophy as the best teacher. This brings us close to an historical experience so often lost in classical studies, particularly in political philosphy, the madness in the streets of Athens and the fully-formed, transcendent characters which emerge with the comic treatment. These are not the spoiled aristocratic youth clustered around Socrates or the sophists (Plato's real enemies - not the poets). These are the men and women at the corner bar. This book makes you wish Strauss had done a "Hobbes and Shakespeare." His evident enjoyment of his subject leaks through with increasing intensity the further he seems to drift from his dichotomy. Could it be Strauss wished to remind his followers, ever so gently, to, like, lighten up and read a good comedy, even in the Greek some labor so hard to acquire? The book at least raises two questions: how did the bold Aristophanes avoid capital punishment? why did the ironic, diplomatic Socrates accept his?

This book follows the typical Strauss pattern: In the first few pages he makes a blanket statement (in this case, Aristophanes is a reactionary; in Thoughts on Machiavelli it was, Machiavelli is evil), then follows it up will a torturous and nuanced analysis of the thinker's ideas until you begin to wonder: In what way is Aristophanes a reactionary or Machiavelli, evil. He tells you the picture is black and white, then he brings you in so close that it all turns gray. Be this as it may, Plato's Symposium and Republic (especially Republic X where Socrates bans the poets from his just city) tells only half the story (philosophy's side). In this book Strauss tells the other half (poetry's side). In essence, Symposium and Republic (and to a certain extent, Phaedo) make up Plato's case as to why philosophy should be the teacher of public morality instead of poetry. Strauss' book takes Aristophanes' eleven existing plays and presents his opposing arguments, his defence of poetry and attack on philosophy. Interesting read for we who sit the other side of Plato's Republic (i.e. Medieval Christendom, where there is no longer any contest between Thomas Aquinas and Dante Aligheri).

Yes, Leo Strauss has the guts to say that Machiavelli is evil, and through a scintillating display of close reading, Strauss silently points, and nods, in the direction of the solution to why Machiavelli is evil. The other reviewers accurately convey the sense of mystery and sophistication about this text, but by reading Strauss's book "Persecution and the Art of Writing", the reader of "Thoughts on Machiavelli" may be able to arrive at the solution to the mystery.

A brilliant book.

So, says Strauss, Machiavelli is evil? Is that so? What do we mean by this? Is this not all too comforting an answer to a question that Strauss hammers the complexity of throughout his book? The problem of this book is one esoteric writer writing about another. You sit there with Strauss on one knee and Machiavelli on the other as Strauss remorselessly "blows his cover." Machiavelli has something to hide and Strauss is intent on showing what it is. The question that constantly recurrs is: What has Strauss to hide? Nobody is this adept at ferreting out others' hidden meanings without having hidden meanings themselves. Especially not when their doctrine is that philosophy is a series of hidden meanings reserved for the philosopher and encoded so as to be missed even by the scholars. It, in other words, takes a thief to catch a thief. So Strauss catches Machiavelli leaving us to wonder what he has also stolen from us in the process

One of the best and most important books of the 20th Century. I know that sounds ridiculous (shouldn't it be famous then?) but it's true. Strauss traces the beginnings of modernity to a concious design of Machiavelli's to overthrow all previous authority in favor of "new modes and orders." In other words, according to Strauss, the world we live in is not only not the result of imperonsal, inevitable "progress," it was made possible by one man who knew exactly what he was doing.

Through a detailed analysis of Machiavelli's books, Strauss shows how every important feature of modern thought is either directly traceable to Machiavelli, or else depends on a foundation he built. More importantly, Strauss outlines the differences between Machiavellism and what Machiavelli sought to replace--thereby making possible a (qualified) return to the superior understanding of pre-Machiavellian philosophy.

Such a return becomes more necessary every day, as the contradictions and prodigious errors of modern thought continue to erode civilization. Strauss alone has shown that return is possible--and this book is an indespenible guide for how to get there.

The city is the place where the Political Philosophy take there fulfill sense. It's the cavern where the philosopher must return and explain, with precaution, his Knowledge. Furthermore he must guide the city and the people on the right way. Trough, it's necessary explain and know what is the city, which it is their nature, what it is their relationship with the philosopher.

In this sense, in this book Strauss related us the answers to that's questions. He teaches us three different, but complementary, views of the city: the political, the philosophic and the historical perspective of the city.

He gives us numerous clues that it's must take us to value the risks of the single natural human association. He pushes us to think, in the last part of the book, about the risks of overcoming the natural limits of the city. So,he invites us to share his discussion as regards the world state.

As it's common in their books, it is an excellent index from the problems to those faces the political philosophy. I recommend it to you.
edsallent@eresmas.com

Leo Strauss was generally uderstood to be an originator of the scholarly opinion that Plato wrote esoterically, and Plato's dialogue on justice, "The Republic" has an exoteric message (to the outsiders) and an esoteric message (to the insiders). In 'City and Man' Strauss carefully, elegantly, systematically crafts the arguement by comparing and contrasting a historian, a philospher and finally a poltical scientist. In this neat way of using real men's works, in their historical context, the careful reader can come to appreciate why it was necessary for Plato to write esoterically and why it is consistent with Justice, or say Nature. Easily, yet strikingly, Strauss leads one through the birth of political philosophy, as a political-philosophy, not as a philosophical study of things political. P.S. I love this book.

Can you imagine a world of harmony between human mind and the whole so that learned people had trustful knowledge (not either blind faith or questionable hypothesis!) as regards the superiority of the soul to the body, a man's perfecting were not second to his comfortable self-preservation, and everybody conceived of justice as a means to procure common happiness? However close to a utopia, this is the way in which the Greek classical thinkers faced political things twenty-four hundred years ago.

Some of them were nothing more (or less) than philosophers, like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; some others, like Thucydides and Xenophon, were hard-die warriors as well. In a sense, they could not be more realistic. For justice was also understood by them as the outcome of political prudence or the practical wisdom to handle situations in order to serving right and reasonably yielding to compulsion altogether. And how was it that the classics accomplished so unexpected a synthesis of the idea of Justice as a heavenly reward for the wise management of the clash between Right and Compulsion in the pursuit of common happiness? Leo Strauss masterfully tells us in The City and Man

This is a different sort of Leo Strauss book. It's not a lecture given by him, and then edited for publication; rather, it is a transcription of a graduate class at U of Chicago in 1959. Yet despite this distance from Strauss' own hand- it reads as a rich and telling tale about philosophy and the possibilty of it. Strauss mentions early on that even the most average novelist, compared to the contemporary social scientist, produces a better insight to the human condition. Yet Strauss exceeds each craft in the course of this lecture. The amazing richness, touches of braod insight on a variety of topics, historical imagination and speculation, political comment and human awareness which leaks across the page are so satisfying and interesting, the book immediately stands out as significant, enjoyable, important, and worth re-reading as any classic piece of literature. Suspend all preconceptions and just float into this work; take it a page at a time- stop and wonder on the words- a careful reader will have to, for the surprising, unique, complex, complicated and shocking punctuate the work. An example is on page 94, when Strauss comments that Marx realized the bisexual nature of man had to be overcome if true communism would ever come to pass. Bisexual nature of man? What does this mean- how does it relate to Marx? The penetration and insight of Strauss on the material is so deft, it sparks insight to many other Platonic works, contemporary politics and the history of political philosophy. The uniqueness of Strauss' take on the Symposium is so daring, it will undoubtly lead one to reconsider their conception of Ancient Greek history, Platonic cosmology and the nature of mankind. Truly a priceless book.

Symposium is my favorite dialogue and as such I've read a number of commentaries (Rosen, Allen and Dover). This one is very special. Strauss has a reach, a clarity and an elegance that is stunning. Let me give you an example. Strauss claims that Aristophanes' The Frogs was the model for the Symposium. Never thought of that before, but when you think about it, it's obvious. Yes, a very powerful idea. This level is sustained throughout the book. You may not agree with everything Strauss says, but even where you disagree you will find him profitable.

This is a remarkable book. It consists of transcriptions of the lectures given by Leo Strauss in his 1959 University of Chicago course on Plato's political philosophy. The course was devoted to the study of Plato's Symposium, but Strauss of course discusses several other dialogues that he suggests are related to the Symposium. The lectures read differently than the books and essays Professor Strauss prepared for publication. They are somewhat more open; they go somewhat more slowly through the material; they are perhaps somewhat less apparently ironic. But this only begins to hint at the special riches of the access this book affords to Professor Strauss's classroom.

I bought PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF WRITING because I wanted an easy approach to whatever contribution Leo Strauss might be able to make to the understanding of political philosophy, and the idea that writers might be persecuted is fundamental to my understanding of what separates social thinking from what a philosopher might be capable of. The second chapter, which covers the topic "Persecution and the art of writing," is only from page 22 to page37 of this book. The Introduction attempts to provide a basis for understanding all the essays in this book "within the province of the sociology of knowledge." (p. 7). The final chapter, "How to Study Spinoza's THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE," is the culmination of a series of articles, which first appeared in 1941, 1943, and 1948, that is primarily concerned with understanding the works of a few philosophers in a manner which might be helpful "for a future sociology of philosophy." (p. 7).

The particular work of Spinoza discussed was an attempt "to refute the claims which had been raised on behalf of revelation throughout the ages." (p. 142). Studying the Treatise is primarily philosophical because "the issue raised by the conflicting claims of philosophy and revelation is discussed in our time on a decidedly lower level than was almost customary in former ages." (pp. 142-3). Later it is admitted that Spinoza's own age did not have Spinoza's books to discuss. "The only book which he published under his own name is devoted to the philosophy of Descartes." (p. 152). "But Spinoza, who wrote for posterity rather than for his contemporaries, must have realized that the day would come when his own books would be old books." (p. 153). My own understanding of Spinoza is not helped by the fact that the longest quotations, in note 2 on page 143 and note 19 on page 153, are in latin. Note 13 on page 149 quotes Carl Gebhardt (Spinoza. OPERA, vol. II, p. 317) in German. I thought I was going to be able to understand it best when Strauss wrote, "To ascertain how to read Spinoza, we shall do well to cast a glance at his rules for reading the Bible." (p. 144). Philosophy itself might demand that the most modern conclusion on that effort would be: "For the same reason it is impossible to understand the Biblical authors as they understood themselves; every attempt to understand the Bible is of necessity an attempt to understand its authors better than they understood themselves." (p. 148). In the case of the Bible, the idea of revelation offers the consolation to people who never wanted to be considered its authors that the book was written by someone else, as the angel who dictated the Koran to its prophet is the ultimate target of the book THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie in the most modern comic edition of this conflict. The only escapes which Spinoza would offer is "to potential philosophers, i.e., to men who, at least in the early stages of their training, are deeply imbued with the vulgar prejudices: what Spinoza considers the basic prejudice of those potential philosophers whom he addresses in the Treatise, is merely a special form of the basic prejudice of the vulgar mind in general." (p. 184). Given the facts of life for most people, this seems to be particularly bad news for the political, which could use a few intellectual connections.

An excellent text, Strauss explicates on his views of how philosophers in times of persecution will "hide" their most stunning and important ideas "between the lines" of their works. In this way, the authors avoid death, and also provide the deepest insight to only those intelligent enough to find it in the texts. Pay special attention to Strauss's chapter on the "Guide for the Perplexed:" not only is it an interesting read, but one can see Strauss himself using some of the same techniques that he claims authors of the past used. It's all a matter of trying to understand what he truly wants to tell us.

The title essay is a masterpiece I read once a month in the course writing journalism by day and reading of political comedy by night. By day it is extremely helpful keeping my job in a political environment not particularly conducive to complete freedom of expression at times. By night, coupled with Strauss's superb "Socrates and Aristophanes" is has proved a wonderful tool for unveiling meaning in Aristophanes, Rabelais, Cervantes, Sterne, Hasek, Garcia-Marquez, Kundera and the rest of the European comic tradition. I think his idea of a literary criticism "between the lines" based on ancient rhetoricians would be an extremely useful study for younger graduate students to follow - whenever such studies become possible again. The rest of the essays apply the theory of reading between the lines in interesting limit cases of persecution of political philosophy. They may lead the general reader to try such authors as Maimonides and Spinoza. Can't speak for specialists, not being one.

The writer of the above review has done a great job of conveying the basic arguments and value of Strauss's translation of the Hiero and his discussion with Kojeve. I think that there is yet more to be said. Strauss as a political philosopher argued the case that with Machiavelli modern political thought begins. One cannot help when reading the Hiero to begin to see further, it was already convincingly argued in Thoughts on Machiavelli, how Machiavelli's famous treatise The Prince is in many ways a response to this dialogue from Xenophon. The discussion of tyranny and the "joys" and "protections" that stem from such a life are questioned in the Hiero because of the ramifications of tyrannic rule. Strauss, in typical fashion, articulates and expands on the argument presented in the Hiero. The responses from Kojeve bring the classical into conflict with the most progressive of modern thought, the concept of the universal state. Particularly valuable in this edition is the collection of the correspondence of the two respondents which clarify, and present a more honest argument, the public discourse extant in the formal essays. Read this book as a companion to "The Prince" or studies of Hegel to see the dialogue between "Classical" and "Modern" or even "Post-modern" thought.

This astounding book, On Tyranny, pits Leo Strauss against Alexander Kojeve in the never ending battle of the Ancients against the Moderns. The book begins with the text of Xenophon's Hiero, followed by Strauss's in depth discussion of the Hiero. Then the fireworks start!

Kojeve, in his discussion of Strauss's comments, will elucidate his peculiar mixture of Hegelian, Marxist, and Heideggerian philosophies in order to defend the unity of 'Tyranny and Wisdom' at the end of history, with some amusing asides on Strauss's tendency to build a philosophical cult. Modern tyranny (Stalinism) is rational, or wise, because it leads to the universal, homogenous state. The state in which everyone -- people, politicians, and philosophers -- will be fulfilled. This state, where the people will be safe, politicians renowned, and philosophers enthralled by the rationality of it all, will happen as a result of historical action, or work. We will be living in a world that we made with our own hands. And, as the conflicts of history weed out ever more irrationalities, we come to feel more and more at home in this fabricated, technological world. This leads to less conflict and more fulfillment. Which means, as Kojeve said elsewhere, "History is the history of the working slave." This leaves some of us, Strauss included, wondering if the only thing more wretched than being a slave would be living as a contented one.

Strauss comments on all this in a reply that briefly starts out with a discussion of Eric Voegelin but then turns to the main event. Strauss wants to know how anyone will want to live in this world where everyone thinks the same, feels the same, wants the same. A world in which anyone who thinks/feels/wants differently, as Nietzsche said, goes voluntarily to the madhouse. A world that as Reason is woven into it, Humanity is pushed out of it. His prescription is a return to the ancients, who, as the Hiero shows us, knew that philosophy both could not and should not be realized in time. Otherwise, Humanity will end up engulfed by its own artifacts. Or, as Ernst Juenger remarked, "History is the replacement of men by things.

Leo Strauss, in his first printed work, does a superb job of distilling Hobbes essential ideas on man. By showing us the educational background of Hobbes and the philosophers he read Strauss, shows how Hobbes comes to believe that "man acts out of fear of death". The preservation of life is the primary goal of man in the "Hobbesean" world. "Vanity is the force that makes men blind, fear is the force which makes men see".

Strauss points out that Hobbes started out as a classical political philosopher who was influenced by his readings of Aristotle and Plato. Not until Hobbes was forty years old and he discovered the works of Euclid did Hobbes move away from the "humanist" view to a more "scientific" approach to political philosophy. Euclid teaches Hobbes that politics must have a philosophy; it can't just be studied through history. Hobbes criticism of Aristotle and historism was; "that the historian takes the great as his standard, while the philosopher is concerned with the right and true". Hobbes is the first to see clearly between "right" and "law" the state is founded on the "right" "law" is a mere consequence. Strauss points out that, "Hobbes becomes the first philosopher to realize that politics can be raised to the rank of science".

This book is not an easy read for the casual reader but is essential for one to understand the concept of political philosophy.

I read somewhere that Strauss carried this book in a water-tight container when he crossed the channel to England so that, even if the ship went down, his work would survive. However that may be, it is the rare opportunity to see Strauss genuinely struggle with a problem. The prevailing opinion, I am told, is that Hobbes' science, or the discovery of Galileo's analytic-synthetic method, was the origin of Hobbes political philosophy (the analysis of the prevailing order (state of nature), the synthesis or construction of a new order (Leviathan)). Strauss makes the convincing argument that not the scientific method, but instead Aristotelian humanism (in particular, the anthropology of the Rhetoric) was the "source" for Hobbes' Staatslehre. Central to this is a critique of aristocratism, and the aristocratic valorization of courage. Not courage but cowardice and the fear of death is the ruling passion of the Hobbesian bourgeois (if Bloom learned anything from Strauss, it was that). In particular, Hobbes borrowed from the Rhetoric the treatment of anger, in which the most asocial human passion is the desire for revenge (and justice). Strauss later repudiated (in Natural Right) the argument against Hobbes scientism, but the point was made.

This book isn't a good place to start if you're new to Leo Strauss. In fact, unlike the reviewer above me, I would discourage Straussian neophytes from this collection. Although the book is rich and very representative of the wide range of philosophical concerns (perhaps except for Machiavelli) that dominated Strauss' thought, the essays almost always refer to previous debates/issues raised by other philosophers and/or Strauss' earlier writings. "On Tyranny" for instance presumes knowledge of the Starussian-Kojeve debate-dialogue over Xenophon's Hiero. The last essay on "Kurt Riezler" is really, at least in some sense, a bold assessment of Martin Heidegger's thinking and its effect on Germany during WWII and after.

All the essays date from the 1950s, a period that was very prolific for Leo Strauss. Moreover, this collection testifies to Strauss' on-going debate with prominent scholars of the moment, who have lost some significance in the passage of time. Every selection, except for the 16 book reviews from the 1950s, is a revised lecture; thus Strauss had a particular audience in mind when he offered his remarks (in the brief preface he indicates where and when he spoke/published each essay).

The cleanest and purest essay for the novice, in my estimation, is "On Classical Political Philosophy". Yet even here, Strauss assumes awareness in his audience of what, and who, defines "Classical Political Philosophy" and how "Modern Political Philosophy"(what and whom explained, but also assumed) have distorted the original teaching of classical political philosophers. All things considered I would encourage new readers interested in Leo Strauss to read "City and Man" first (my personal favorite).

These comments don't lessen my estimation of the magnitude, intensity and gracefulness of "What is Political Philosophy". It is certainly worth owning and reading. Albeit, I found this book so wonderful precisely because it refreshed my memory about things that Strauss taught me in his other works.

Strauss was a master at examining the political philosophy of the past and thus he was able to point us towards many of the lessons we have forgotten from past philosophies today. This work contains his key contribution to modern political philosophy with his great essays "What is political philosophy", "Political philosophy and history", and also a nice collection on such thinkers as Xenophon, al-Farabi, Maimonides, Hobbes, and Locke.

This abridged version of Maimonedes thoughts covers about one quarter of the complete book with the same title. The selection by Guttmann concentrates on Maimonedes' attempt to bring rational Aristotelian philosophy in accord with classical Jewish literature. Thus, allegorical reading of the anthropomorphic features of the biblical God is urged for a better understanding of the hidden meaning and to bring it in conformity with reason. Other main aspects covered deal with Prophecy, Providence and the way to a godly life. It is the latter which struck me as most interesting because the dedication of every moment of one's life to God (except when engaged in mundane duties which ought to be kept to a minimum) is precisely what one finds in the Bhagavad Gita except that the name of the Deity is Krishna rather than Yahweh. Apart from the name there is absolutely no other difference. If we are serious in believing that there is only one God in control of the universe this should not be disturbing because all nations are entitled to use their name for the Deity which encompasses all. Yet Maimonedes insists that only through contemplation of the Jewish law can perfection be achieved and one finds some rather derogatory remarks about those who think otherwise. Although Maimonedes emphasizes that the way to God is through humility, tolerance of the views of others will not be found. Furthermore, while intellect and reason are extolled Maimonedes has no difficulty accepting oral traditions of biblical stories, especially in regard to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, which have not only no corrollary in the Pentateuch but are at times at variance with it. Thus, the imaginative faculty and the rational faculty, as Maimonedes called them, and which distinguish the human being from animals, did not seem to find complete harmony in his view of the world and may leave some of us still perplexed.
The introductions to the book by Frank and by Guttmann are very helpful in setting Maimonedes' work in its appropriate context. For the student of comparative religion this is a useful introduction to medieval Jewish philosophy as it originated in a Muslim milieu and which is still held in high esteem by some modern theologians.

Rambam knocks me over. This is an amazing work. This is one of the most important books in any language. This translation by Pines is excellent, clear, simple, unobtrusive, and has just the right small amount of clarifying notes.

The Guide clearly should be studied with others. I would like to discuss each chapter with other people as we read (and maybe re-read) them. My email address is my firstnamelastname at yahoo dot com.

This is volume one of a two volume set, so be sure to get both volumes. Volume one contains two interpretive essays, one by Leo Strauss and one by the translator, the former alone making this translation worthy of purchase, according to the Times Literary Supplement. Maimonides' work itself is an intentionally tangled web of reason, not to be undertaken by the casual reader; such a reader will leave disappointed with its obscure style. Maimonides assumes a great deal of Scriptural knowledge and a familiarity with the most important commentators of his time. Nevertheless, for those willing to put in the effort both in learning the fundamentals of religion and in exploring an almost endless maze of logic, Maimonides will provide a sumptuary feast and sketch the outlines of his view of philosophy and faith.