PART 4 OF 4
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
Sept. 11, 1957
M. Alexandre Kojeve
15 Bd. Stalingrad
Vanves (Seine)
France
Dear Mr. Kojeve:
It was only last week that I could read your typewritten statement and your letter. I had had a minor illness, no real vacation and I'm feeling very tired. My general reaction to your statements is that we are poles apart. The root of the question is I suppose the same as it always was, that you are convinced of the truth of Hegel (Marx) and I am not. You have never given me an answer to my questions: a) was Nietzsche not right in describing the Hegelian-Marxian end as "the last man"? and b) what would you put into the place of Hegel's philosophy of nature? I am under the impression that you read Plato from your Hegelian point of view without sufficiently waiting for what would reveal itself as Plato's view by simply listening to Plato and strictly adhering to his suggestions. You take for granted that the "ideas" are "concepts" and that Plato is exclusively concerned with the "ideas" and not with the "soul". Hence you are certain that there cannot be ideas of the "sensible species". Without a previous solution of the question ''of which things are there ideas and of which things are there no ideas" there cannot be a fruitful discussion of the community of ideas. Your whole interpretation appears to me schematic and arbitrary. Apart from the dialogues you use the Aristotelian reports. The Aristotelian reports are of course most competent but they do not answer the question of how definitely or how seriously Plato asserted the things Aristotle says he asserted. (Incidentally, precisely Aristotle's report should induce one to ascribe to Plato the assertion that there are "ideas of the sensible species".) I am not satisfied that there are Platonic dialogues devoted to criticism of Aristotle and that the dialogues devoted to the criticism of Aristotle are the seven mentioned by you. In particular I regard it as impossible to divorce the Timaeus and the Critias from the Republic as you do.
I see only two points in your exposition regarding which we can at least begin to have a conversation. The two points are the Eleatic Stranger and the Critias.
I am absolutely certain that the stranger is not a parrot and that you misinterpret completely his introduction by Theodorus and Socrates' welcoming speech. On the other hand I believe that you are right in saying that there is something wrong about his assertion concerning the community of rest (ideas) and motion (non-ideas). This does not prove however that he lacks comprehension, for every Platonic dialogue is based on the deliberate disregard of something crucially important, and what is right for the Platonic Socrates is right also for the Platonic Eleatic Stranger. Briefly, the separateness of the ideas makes it impossible to understand the whole which consists of onta and gignomena; [1] it makes it impossible to understand the soul (and therefore the philosopher who can only be understood in contradistinction to the non-philosopher). In order to overcome the separateness the stranger assimilates onta and gignomena (motion and rest) and he expresses this thought most radically by defining being as acting and suffering which (acting and suffering) as far as I understand Plato cannot be said of the ideas; the stranger wrongly but not ignorantly abstracts from the radical difference between onta and gignomena. Instead of assimilating onta and gignomena one must seek for the bond between them, but the thesis of the stranger is superior to the mere chorismos-thesis <separateness-thesis> because it is based on an awareness of the fundamental inadequacy of the bare separateness thesis. I suspect that the Timaeus in its doctrine of the soul brings out the "bond" solution to the problem -- at the price of abstracting from something else of utmost importance. (What that something else is I do not yet know.) The mere fact that the Stranger is the murderer of Parmenides shows that he is not a parrot. Cf. also the Beauty of the non-corrected Eleatic thesis: "there is only the One" and the philosopher-sophist states man are three, whereas I believe the Eleatic thesis as corrected by the stranger is to the effect "the one consists of many" and "philosopher sophist-statesman" is One.
Regarding the Critias I make this suggestion: The Republic deals with the "city in speech", the Timaeus with the "cosmos in deed" and the Critias with the "city in deed": the cosmos in speech is missing ("the fourth is missing"): the promise of Hermocrates' speech conceals the not promised but required speech by Plato himself. The city in deed is necessarily inferior to the city in speech -- it is necessarily "diluted", the good is identified with the ancestral (therefore the best city in speech is necessarily Athenian; the Critias shows that the best city abounds not only in virtue but in gold as well). The city in deed must be the city in motion and motion means war. The biggest war of historical Athens was the Sicilian expedition and this was an unjust war and it ended in a defeat. The ideal war of "old Athens" must therefore be a just war (a war of defence) with a super Sicily (the biggest island in the farthest West) ending in an Athenian victory. The description of the most glorious Athenian deed cannot be given by an Athenian for reasons of propriety (see the much more limited praise of Athens given by the stranger Aspasia in the Menexenus). Now, the victory of Athens over "Sicily" has of course also a transpolitical meaning as you will be the first to admit (Hermocrates was the chief man responsible for Athens' defeat in the Sicilian expedition; Timaeus comes from southern Italy which is almost Sicily; Elea is in southern Italy; and last but not least the Cephalus of the Republic and his family stem from the same region). One must also not forget the invasion of Athens by Parmenides in the Parmenides. In brief Sicily, "the West", tries to conquer Athens but is defeated by Athens. This, if I understand you correctly, is exactly what you say, but this victory of Athens over Sicily is asserted by Critias, a somewhat dubious figure, and Plato prevents him from telling his story. It seems to me that the incomplete character of the Critias means exactly this: the victory of Athens over Sicily is a half victory and therefore also a half-defeat. You will disagree with my final conclusion but it is obvious that you can use all my other statements regarding the Critias very well for your purposes. Yet this statement could not have been arrived at except by adhering to the unambiguous Platonic suggestion that the Timaeus and Critias belong with the Republic and this proves that one must stick much more closely than you do to the obvious donnees platoniques. (Critias is a competitor of Alcibiades and Alcibiades is the instigator of the Sicilian expedition.)
I hope that you continue to be in good health. I expect to have finished my study on Machiavelli by the end of this year.
Yours
LS
***
Geneva, 10.24.57.
My dear friends,
Truth to tell, I have absolutely nothing to tell you. Which is to say that regarding A<...> and myself everything is going well. I am in Geneva, where I expect to spend 5-6 weeks: Common Market meetings.
At the margins of "great politics," [1] I granted myself a most restful [2] working party, which allows me to read and write while meetings are in session: specifically this letter.
Enclosed a slip with three books. I would be most grateful if you could have them sent to me (in Vanves). I have read the Rosan book about Proclus recommended by Hering. Not very "profound," but very clear and apparently accurate. A useful book.
But it also contains the "biography" of Pr<oclus> by "Marinus"! Without commentary and taken 100% seriously. Now, in fact, and as I had assumed after reading the vita Isidori, this "Marinus" is clearly nothing but a pseudonym of my friend Damascius, and the so- called "biography" nothing but a shameless mockery of its hero. It is written in the style of the vita.
If you want to be amused, I greatly recommend that you read this "Marinus" in Rosan, Proclus (N.Y. 49). It takes up only 22 pages. But as I suspect that you will not choose to read them, I will copy a few particularly tasty passages.
III. ... Everyone of these [physical virtues] was naturally present in our blessed philosopher from birth, and their traces could be seen clearly even in that external oyster-like shell of his ... He was so beautiful that, although all his pictures are excellent, none of the painters was able completely to capture his likeness, that all remained far behind in the imitation of his true form ... [In this connection Rosin points out in a note: A portrait-bust has been found ... It is one-third broken and has a peculiarly hooked nose"].
IV. ... It is astonishing that those basic qualities of the soul, which he had spontaneously. and innately, were the same parts of virtue that Plato considered to be the elements of a philosophical character ...
IX.... He learned Aristotelian philosophy under Olympiodorus . Now Olympiodorus was known as an able speaker, but because of the ease and rapidity with which he spoke, only a few of his hearers could understand him ...
... The logical writings of Arist., which are difficult to understand for those who read them, he [Proclus] nevertheless easily learned by heart, and at a single reading ...
XIII. Within less than two years, Syrianus [one of the <...> of the Vita Isidori] read with him all the writings of Arist<otle> in logic, ethics, politics, physics and even theology. And after going through these sufficiently as if they were preparatory rites or lesser mysteries, he led him, systematically and not, as the [Chaldean] Oracle says "by enormous steps", up to the greater mysteries of Plato, and revealed their truly divine visions to the untainted eyes of his soul and the pure gaze of his mind. And Proclus, on his own part, by constant practice and attention, both day and night, and by writing down everything that was said in the form of a summary with his own opinions produced in a short time so much that by the age of 28 he has written his Comm<mentary> on the Timaeus as well as many other commentaries, all finely done and full of learning. Such an occupation improved his character even more, because he added knowledge to his moral virtues.
XIV. He also acquired the political virtues from the writings of Ar<istotle's> Polit<ics> and from the Laws and the Rep<ublic> of Plato. So that even in this no one might say he was concerned with words alone and not with deeds; since his preoccupation with higher things prevented him from taking part in political affairs himself, he persuaded the pious Archiadas to do this, by teaching him the political virtues ...
XV. Proclus showed that he possessed a Herculean courage even in politics And when his enemies, like a horde of giant vultures, tried to put him on trial [or perhaps: annoyed him excessively], he left Athens in obedience to the Revolution of the Whole, [3] and travelled to Asia. Actually this was all for the best, for his guardian Spirit really provided him with this pretext for the journey so that he might be initiated into the ancient rites that were still preserved there ... Acting and living in this fashion, he passed even more unnoticed than the Pythagoreans [Epicureans??], who firmly obeyed that command of their master to "live unnoticed" [lathe biosas]. But he spent only one [4] year in Lydia and returned to Athens by the Providence of the Goddess of philosophy. This was the manner in which Proclus gradually obtained his courage ...
XVI. ... He was an excellent judge in every field. And whenever he found someone who was not taking his own work seriously, he severely censured him. It was this that made him appear very quick-tempered and quite emulous [cf. IV...: he appeared to us as to be by nature modest ...], because he wanted and was able to judge everything correctly. He was indeed emulous, but emulous only in respect to virtue and goodness; perhaps nothing great among human beings could be done without this kind of motivation. I also admit that he was quick-tempered. Nevertheless [5] he was mild at the same time, for he calmed down easily and quickly, becoming as soft as wax within a moment; -- one minute he would be scolding someone and the next minute because of his sympathetic nature he would be helping him ...
XVII. I am glad that this sympathetic nature of his has come to my mind, for I believe that no other person can be said have been as sympathetic as he. Because he never desired a wife or children, although he had received many offers of marriage from noble and wealthy families, he was free of experience of having his own family, ...
XVIII. ... We now come to his purifying virtues which are quite different from social virtues..... But the purifying virtues are superior to these..... The philosopher Proclus practiced these purifying virtues throughout his philosophical career, ..... He always did that which was conducive to separating the soul, and whether in the night-time or daytime, he would pray against evil demons, bathe himself, and use other methods of purification, both Orphic and Chaldean, such as immersing himself in the sea resolutely every month, or even twice or three times a month. And he did all this not only in the prime of his life, but even in his later years he religiously performed these customary actions.
XX.... He was indifferent in this way not only to physical pain, but even more so to external evils, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Whenever these occurred he would always say; "that's [6] the way things are; that's the way they usually are". Which seemed to me to be a maxim that deserved to be memorized and which sufficiently proved the greatness of the philosopher's soul. As to anger, he tried to repress it as much as he could [cf. above XVI, in fine].
XXII. he arrived at higher [7] virtues ... which could no longer be called phronesis in the human sense but rather sophia or even some more reverent name. While he was absorbed with this, Proclus learned with ease all of Greek and non-Greek theology and also that truth that [8] had been hidden in the form of myths; he explained all these in a very enthusiastic manner ... He went through all the writings of previous authors and whatever he found that was fruitful he would select and combine ... In his lectures he was able to discuss each doctrine sensibly and he mentioned all of them in his writings. He had an unbounded love of work: sometimes he would teach five or more classes a day, write on the average about 700 lines of prose [Chrysippus, who was notoriously prolific, was said to write 300 lines], visit with other philosophers and then in the evening give lectures that were not based on any text; in addition to all this he would sleeplessly worship the gods every night and bow in prayer to the sun when it arose, at midday and when it set.
XXIII. Proclus himself was the originator of many previously unknown doctrines in natural, intellectual and even more divine subjects. He was the first to claim that there was a genus of souls who were able to perceive many Ideas at one time and who occupied a middle position between the Nous which knows everything at once ... and those souls who can concentrate upon only one Idea at a time. Anyone who wishes to, may learn of his many other innovations by going through his works, which I cannot do now, since it would prolong this biography too greatly to mention all of them. But whoever does read his works will agree that what I have just said is true ...
XXVI. ..... it was by means of these divine oracles that Proclus reached those highest virtues of the human soul which the inspired Iamblichus has excellently called "theurgic". For gathering the interpretations of previous philosophers together with proper judgment by a great deal of labour for five whole years [contra: "less than two years" for "all the writings of Arist<otle>." (cp. XIII above)], he brought together all the rest of the Chaldean literature and the most important commentaries on these divinely-given Oracles. In regard to this he had the following wonderful dream: the great Plutarch [Syriannus's teacher] appeared to him and foretold that he would live for as many years as there were four-page sheets in his works on the oracles; afterwards he counted these and found that there were 70. That the dream had been divine was proved by the close of his life. For [9] although he really lived, as was said before, for 75 years, during the last five years he was no longer strong. . . To be sure, he still prayed, even in this condition, composed hymns ... but he did everything in accordance with this weakened condition so that he marvelled whenever he thought of the dream and constantly said: "I have really lived for only 70 years [?!] [10]
[compare with III: ... Fourthly he had health ... And he was gifted with this virtue from infancy so highly, that he was able to say that his body had been ill only two or three times in a long life of altogether 75 (sic!) years. The final proof of this, to which I myself can testify, was that he did not even recognize in his last illness what kind of suffering had befallen him, so rarely had he experienced pain. -- compare XXXII: [11] ... He had been afraid when he was in the prime of his life that the arthritis of his father might attack him also ... And it was not without reason that he feared this, because, as I should have said before, he was indeed suffering pain of this kind.].
XXVIII.... Proclus proceeded step by step; first he was cleansed by the Chaldean purification; then he held converse, as he himself mentions in one of his works, with the luminous [!] apparitions of Hecate which he conjured up himself; then he caused rain-falls by correctly moving the wry-neckbird wheel, [12] by this means he saved Athens from a severe drought. He proposed means to prevent earthquakes; he tested the divinatory power of the tripod; and even wrote verses about his own destiny ...
XXXIII. But if I wanted to tell everything about him, such as his friendship with Pan, the son of Hermes, and the great kindness and aid which he received from this god in Athens, or if I related the good fortune that he obtained from the Mother of the Gods to whom he always prayed and in whom he greatly rejoiced, I would probably seem to some readers simply to be prattling and to others to be saying the incredible. For the many great things which this Goddess did for him and said to him almost daily were so numerous and so unusual to be written about, that I no longer remember them very clearly. But if anyone wishes to know more about his affinity with the Goddess, let him read his book on the Mother of the Gods [otherwise unknown!], for it will be seen how he reveals the whole theology of this Goddess [13] with divine inspiration and explains philosophically what is symbolically done or mythically said of her and Attis, so that no one need any longer be disturbed by hearing the seemingly absurd wails [14] and other things that are secretly said at her ceremonies. [Compare with Julian's equally ironic speech about the Mother of the Gods].
[These citations might suffice to elucidate the somewhat enigmatic meaning of the following passage from the Preface of the "Biography":]
I. ... I was afraid lest, in the words of Ibycus, I might win the esteem of men by sinning, not against the gods, as he said, but against a wise man [sc. Proclus], especially since it would not have been right that I alone of all his friends should keep silent and should not, on the contrary, make every effort to tell the truth about him, in spite of the fact that of all men I was under the greatest obligation to speak out openly. Perhaps, in fact, I might not have even won men's esteem, because they would not have attributed to modesty my refusal to undertake this task but to mental laziness or even a worse fault of soul. For all these reasons, therefore, I felt myself compelled to set forth at least some of the countless superior accomplishments of the philosopher Proclus and some of the things that have been truly reported about him.
[All in all: amicus Plato ...]
But isn't the irony unmistakable?
After you have read this letter, could you send it to Strauss in my name. I have spoken to him about Julian, Damascius, and "Sallustius." This "Marius" will complete the picture!
As ever yours,
K.
***
Geneva, 11.5.57
Dear Mr. Strauss,
Please excuse that I only now answer your letter of 9.11. But various things have interfered. I am here in Geneva (GATT meeting) and will probably stay here until the end of the month.
To the issue:
I fully agree with you that a "general" discussion of Plato does not make much sense. The only really sensible thing to do would be to read the 7 dialogues together.
But for my part, the whole thing did not in any way arise from preconceived "general" views. On the contrary, rather by accident, I came across some passages from the Sophist that seemed to me "senseless" or sounded "ironic." Thereupon I read the other 6 dialogues, in which I found many similar passages. All this then led to a comprehensive interpretation that in itself made sense and, in my opinion, is also historically possible (but very much astonished me!). In my first (long) letter in this connection I cited many of these passages (without copying them), and briefly interpreted the whole thing. What I really expected from you was that you would take a specific stand on everyone of the passages in question. Well, time did not allow you (as you yourself have told me) to look up the passages themselves. Thus you answer only with "general" considerations about Plato, and the entire discussion gets sidetracked.
I can only hope that when you are done with your Machiavelli you will have the time and the inclination to answer my first letter concretely (assuming that Klein has not lost it in the meantime [which would be a great pity, as it is my only writing dealing with the issue]). I attach particular importance to the first part of the Parmenides (up to the so-called "dialectic").
So far I am acquainted with only one concrete stand on your part: that regarding the Eleatic Stranger.
Now, here I can really not understand why you refuse to see the ironical element in the depiction of the Stranger. Socrates's reaction is, after all, exactly the same as his reaction to Protagoras, Euthydemus, etc.: ironically exaggerating admiration of the "divine wisdom" of a sophist.
Finally and in conclusion, the following may surely not be ignored:
1 ͦ The depiction of the "philosopher" in the Thaet<etus> is manifestly ironic;
2 ͦ Theodorus does not see the irony, takes the depiction seriously and recognizes himself in it [in which he is again right];
3 ͦ The Stranger is introduced [in the Soph<ist>] by this Theodorus, as a philosopher.
4 ͦ That is to say: in the eyes of Theodorus, the Stranger corresponds to the depiction of the" philosopher" in the Thaet<etus>; hence in Plato's eyes, the Stranger is a "sophist"; more precisely, a "modern [= post-socratic] sophist, that is to say, a scholar [natural- scientific with "philosophical" pretensions; ! say, Plato has the "Pythodorus" of the Parm<enides> in mind [for me "Pythod<orus>" = Theodor<us> + Thaetetus + Eudoxus; that is to say, in the Sophist: Stranger = Eudoxus].
Here, then, is a concrete difference in our interpretations of Plato. But here, too, the question can probably be resolved only by a comprehensive interpretation of all relevant passages in the [7] dialogues.
In the meantime I have read [Apud Rosan, Proclus, N.Y.] the supposed "biography" of Proclus by the so-called "Marianus." When I read the vita Isidori, I suspected that this "Marianus" was nothing but an alias for Damascius and that the "biography" might in fact be an "ironic" parody. Reading this "biogr<aphy>" has fully confirmed it [here I did indeed have a preconceived opinion!] The ''biogra<phy>" is a duplicate of the vita Isidori.
I have copied some passages from it and sent them to Koyre with the request that he forward the letter to you.
All this is interesting because Damascius emigrated to Persia and could have begun an oral tradition there that extends up to Farabi.
I have tried in vain to get Bloom to read the vita Isidori [Isi-dar or Pytho-dor]. But he is busy with an Othello interpretation where he appears as Yahwe and Iago as Christ ... [1]
I have not yet begun my Julian-essay (for your Festschrift), but I hope to be able to write it in Geneva. Perhaps with a short footnote about "Sallustius" -- Damascius -- "Marinus." But I would have liked first to know what you think about these texts. But that will hardly be possible.
With heartiest cordial greetings.
Your Kojeve
***
Paris 5.15.58
Dear Mr. Strauss,
Many thanks for sending me your Farabi. I have just read it. It is "first-class." [1]
As you know, I am now more or less of the same opinion as Farabi. Only, for me F<arabi>'s "Socrates" is the historical Plato himself. Either the Laws are intended by Plato as Farabi understands them, or they are forgeries (by Philippos of Opus and Speusippus) (or: Books I-IX [in particular IX) forged, and X-XII re-written). Plato's real opinion is found in the Rep<ublic > + Statesman + (Tim<aeus> + Kritias) + Philebus. They deal exclusively with the "Academy," that is to say, with life together [2] in view of wisdom, [2] or philo-sophizing. This "Academy" ought to be a "monastery," that is to say, "separated" (chorismo) from the "world." The "lawgiver" is the Kephalos, the Head of the Academy [3]: he ought to be "sole ruler" and not bound by any "laws" (= prejudices). Etc. However: the "common" reader knows nothing of the Academy and thinks exclusively of the polis. Read that way, the Republic and the States<man> are deliberately "absurd": in the Republic the cynic-sophistic "communism" (including the ridiculous "community of women"), and in the States<man> ---- sophistic "tyranny." The entirely serious polemic (against Euclid-Eudoxus-Aristotle) revolves around the "politeia" inside the Academy; that is to say: 1) either dialectics (= genuine diairesis without "koinonia" [atomos eidos), or "logic" + "science"; 2) either "the good life" through the living model (paradigma) of the "leader," or -- "study."
This genuinely platonic conception was tried ("monks") for a thousand years (by both Christians and Muslims), and degenerated into Bayle's Republic of Letters which remains "alive" to this day. Betrayal of the Intellectuals). [4] Genuine politicians (statesmen) were always opposed to this (as Julian already was): namely, what Plato may really have meant was of no concern to them, and what they (mis)understood of Plato was naturally "utopian" (because it could only be carried out by a "superhuman" tyranny). That is how it stood until Hegel-Marx: for they did not want either to destroy the Academy (= "monasteries") or to render them inactive and ineffectual, but wanted on the contrary to transform them into a "polis." For Hegel/Marx (but by no means for Plato), the philosophers ought indeed (and hence can) become "Kings" (Napoleon-mine) [naturally not the other way around, which would be "utopian"; whereas the phil<osopher's> becoming king is not at all utopian -- insofar as this "becoming" is a revolution]. [Something like this is perhaps also what Machiavelli had in view.]
As for "the art of writing," it is possible that Farabi goes back to a tradition (oral?), namely to Damascius's teaching in Persia. He stayed there for only two years, but that might have been enough. Damascius himself goes back to Julianus. [In the Vita Procli, "Marianus" quotes almost literally from Julian's Speeches, and in the vita Isidori echoes of Julian can also be found.] And Julian was not alone (even disregarding his friend Sallustius). The entire so-called "Vespasian School" thought as he did, It is not a "school," and certainly not "mystical" or "neo-platonic," but rather "epicurean" or democritian. So was Julian, but as Emperor or "civil servant" he deliberately opposed the "epicureanism" ("gardens") of those "intellectuals" (cp. his speech to [ = against] Themistius). That is perfectly evident in Eunapius's Vita Soph. [6] (although Eunapius himself did not understand it): especially clearly in connection with Julian's greeting of Maximus (a typical "adventurer"). If you have the time, you must read Eunapius!
With best greetings,
Your Kojeve
P.S. By the way, Julian was of the opinion (as were Dam<ascius> and Farabi) that Plato thought exactly as they did, and only never said so openly.
***
Paris 2.17.59.
Dear Mr. Strauss,
Many thanks for the new book. [1] Although I know the lectures, the book seems to have come out very differently. I will certainly read it.
Please excuse me for thanking you only now. But I was travelling: India, Siam, then Geneva. As a civil servant, naturally.
I would like to hear what you think of my Julianus, [2] in which I publicly appear as a faithful Strauss-disciple.
If you now have more time we might perhaps also resume our Plato dialogue. Klein naturally did not react at all. And you yourself did not have the time to check the passages I cited.
In any event I would like it if I could have my first (long) Plato letter back. It must at present be with Klein. It is the only piece I have written on the question.
I keep hoping I can go to the U.S. But I am now so "European" that it is not altogether easy.
It appears that Gallimard (NRF) intends to have my posthumous works typed up: in exchange for the right to publish some parts post mortem. The latter is a matter of indifference to me. But as soon as I have a typescript, I will send it to you, for your judgment. Besides, Bloom has probably spoken to you about it.
With best greetings,
Your Kojeve
***
Paris, 4.6.61
Dear Mr. Strauss,
We have not written to each other for an eternity. I don't even know who first did not answer.
The last thing I had from you was your Machiavelli. [1] I am not sure I wrote you about it. It seems to me that I did.
In any event, the book is first class. I am naturally not in agreement with the conclusion suggested at the end. But that is not important.
According to Hegel (Ph<enomenology> of M<ind>, propaganda in the modern sense was not discovered until the Enlightenment. According to you, it was discovered by Machiavelli. You appear to be right. But Hegel is also right, in the sense that mass- propaganda in the modern sense developed only in the 18th century. However, Machiavelli is also right (at least according to your interpretation), when he says that the "modern" system of propaganda is specifically Christian.
In the meantime I have completed my Ancient Philosophy. Over 1000 pages. Taubes [2] has had them photocopied. In my view it is by no means "ready for publication." But if Queneau insists, I will not refuse. (To refuse would, in this case, also amount to taking oneself seriously!)
Bloom is hard at work on his translation [3] and I hardly see him. On the other hand, I frequently talk with Rosen, [4] whom I rather like. He seems to me to be more serious than Bloom.
In terms of health, I am quite well. My official work is very interesting and productive.
I would enjoy hearing from you.
With most cordial greetings,
Your Kojeve
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
January 30, 1962
M. Alexandre Kojeve
13 Bd. du Lycee
Vanves (Seine) France
Dear M. Kojeve:
I write to you today at the request of Gadamer. He is very anxious that you should come to the opening meeting of the International Hegel Association which will take place at the end of July in Heidelberg and that you should give there a lecture. I suppose he wants you to present your overall interpretation of Hegel. I am sure it would be for the common good if you would give that lecture. Be so good as to let me know at your earliest convenience what you plan to do, so that I can inform Gadamer. The only reason why he did not write to you directly was that he thought that a letter from me to you might be more effective.
How far advanced is your work? I am preparing a small book to be called "The City and Man," three lectures, one on the Politics, one on the Republic and one on Thucydides. My German book on Spinoza is in the process of being translated into English; I plan to write a very long preface to it containing my autobiography.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
As ever yours,
Leo Strauss
LS:ef
enclosure
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
March 27, 1962
M. Alexandre Kojeve
13 Bd. du Lycee
Vanves (Seine) France
Dear M. Kojeve:
On January 30 I wrote to you as follows:
"I write to you today at the request of Gadamer. He is very anxious that you should come to the opening meeting of the International Hegel Association which will take place at the end of July in Heidelberg and that you should give there a lecture. I suppose he wants you to present your overall interpretation of Hegel. I am sure it would be for the common good if you would give that lecture. Be so good as to let me know at your earliest convenience what you plan to do, so that I can inform Gadamer. The only reason why he did not write to you directly was that he thought that a letter from me to you might be more effective.
How far advanced is your work? I am preparing a small book to be called "The City and Man," three lectures, one on the Politics, one on the Republic and one on Thucydides. My German book on Spinoza is in the process of being translated into English; I plan to write a very long preface to it containing my autobiography.
Hoping to hear from you soon."
Inasmuch as I have not received a reply would you please give this your earliest attention. As ever yours,
Leo Strauss
LS:ef
***
3.29.62
Dear Mr. Strauss,
Please excuse me for not yet having answered your first letter. Oddly enough, I was planning to do so today, before I received the second letter.
Well, the reason is that I could not decide to say no, although I had no desire to accept the invitation.
The older I get, the less interested I am in so-called philosophical discussions. Except for yourself and Klein I have not yet found anybody from whom I could learn something. If you or Klein or both of you were to go to Heidelberg, I would naturally also come. But otherwise....
It is really a matter of utter indifference to me what the philosophical gentlemen think or say about Hegel.
A few days ago I gave a lecture on dialectics at the College Philosophique of Jean Wahl [1] who had been asking me to do so for over five years. It was terrible. More than 300 very young people came, the room had to be changed, and nevertheless people sat on the floor. When one thinks that this happens only for lectures by Sartre! And that when I first spoke at the Ecole barely a dozen people were in attendance! But the worst was that all these youths set down everything I said. I tried to be as paradoxical and shocking as possible. But no one became indignant, no one thought of protesting. Everything was quietly written down. I had the impression of having become a kind of Heinrich Rickert. [2] In other words, an "old gent." The public, on the other hand, was typically Saint Germain and Cafe Flore (I spoke at a short -- at most 100 meters -- distance from it). So that at times I felt like some famous twist-teacher....
All this in order to tell you that I am becoming more and more "platonic." One should address the few, not the many. One should speak and write as little as possible. Unfortunately my Essay at a Reasoned History of Pagan Philosophy is to be published, and it comprises more than 1000 (sic) pages!
With very best greetings,
Your
Kojeve
P.S. Why do you never come to Europe?
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
May 29, 1962
M. Alexandre Kojeve
15, Boulevard du Lycee
Vanves (Seine) France
Dear M. Kojeve:
I thank you for your letter of March 29. I informed Gadamer immediately. I understand your judgment on this kind of meetings and I am in the habit of acting on the same judgment. Your experience with the philosophic seminar of Wahl does not surprise me. If one wants to see young people who are not mentally in their seventies, one has to come to Chicago. Would it be at all possible for you to spend some time with us, assuming that the money could be raised?
I am looking forward with the utmost interest to your history of pagan philosophy. I am glad to see that, as is indicated by the adjective, you have returned to the faith of your fathers. I myself have written a fairly long chapter on Plato (but only on his political philosophy) for a history of political philosophy which I am editing. My present preoccupation is with my old book on Spinoza which has been translated into English and for which I am writing a new preface, [1] intended to bridge the gulf between 1930 Germany and 1962 U.S.A. It comes as close to an autobiography as is possible within the bounds of propriety. In addition I am preparing for publication three lectures on the city and man, dealing with the Politics, the Republic and Thucydides. Only after these things have been finished will I be able to begin with my real work, an interpretation of Aristophanes.
Klein claims to have finished his book on the Meno -- only three more months for checking on the footnotes -- but since he has said more or less the same three years ago I believe I shall have to wait another lustrum for its appearance.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
As ever yours,
Leo Strauss
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
October 4, 1962
M. Alexandre Kojeve
13 Bd. du Lycee
Vanves (Seine), France
Dear Mr. Kojeve:
I am very sorry that it took me so long to reply to your letter of July 17. I was very glad to hear that you might be willing to pay us a visit here in Chicago. It is not impossible that we can arrange it financially in 1963, perhaps in the early months of that year. But in order to convince the authorities, I would have to know for how long a period you would be able to come; for a week, a month, a quarter (i.e., two months) or any other period. I must know this very soon, a brief postcard would be sufficient.
I am very anxious to see the second edition of your book especially the supplement on Japan.
With kindest regards.
As ever yours,
Leo Strauss
LS:ef
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
November 16, 1962
M. Alexandre Kojeve
13 Bd. du Lycee
Vanves (Seine)
France
Dear M. Kojeve:
I believe that a month's stay here would be perfectly agreeable to the authorities here. Unfortunately, the months June-September would be the worst from our point of view. What about April, or say April 10-May 10? Be so good as to let me know as soon as possible.
What you say about my preface to my book on Spinoza is not entirely new to me. I think I have taken into consideration your objection, whereas you have not taken into consideration the point which I make. Perhaps we can clear up this difficulty when you come here.
With kindest regards.
As ever yours,
Leo Strauss
***
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Chicago 37, Illinois
Department of Political Science
January 25, 1963
M. Alexandre Kojeve
13 Bd. du Lycee
Vanves (Seine), France
Dear M. Kojeve:
I am sorry that it took me such a long time to reply to your letter. There are all kinds of administrative difficulties, to say nothing of my own work. I eventually succeeded in talking to the individual who is in charge of the lectures such as those which I hope you will give. They are having a meeting next week; for one reason or the other he insists on corresponding directly with you. So I expect that you will hear from him within the next two weeks.
I am now writing the third and last chapter of a short book to be entitled The City and Man (Aristotle's politics; Plato's Republic; Thucydides). Around Easter Pines' new translation of Maimonides' Guide with a rather long introduction by me [1] as well as <a> History of Political Philosophy [2] written by my former students, and, last but not least, the English version of Gallimard's On Tyranny will be out. You may have heard that Bloom has succeeded in becoming a member of the Political Science profession.
With kindest regards.
As ever yours
Leo Strauss
Ls:ef
***
June 3, 1965
Dear Mr. Kojevnikoff,
Thank you so much for your letter. I have told Cropsey that you did not get a copy of the Festschrift. He is certain that the publisher sent you one. Perhaps you can check once more at home.
I very much regretted that you could not make a side-trip to Chicago. As for myself, I hardly travel any more. I experience considerable discomfort ever since my circulation has stopped functioning properly. In any case, Gildin, who has evidently sat at your feet with open ears and open mouth, has given a detailed report on your political views. I was pleased to see that you are just as critical of D.S. liberals as I am. It did not surprise me, because I know there is reason, and that you are reasonable.
I almost came to Europe this Spring: I had accepted an invitation from Hamburg for the 1965 S<ummer> S<emester>,but then had to cancel it for reasons of health. I should have liked to see with my own eyes how things are developing in Germany. From intelligent young Germans I got the impression that the development exhibits a certain parallelism to 1830 and ff: a turning away from German speculation (in the twentieth century, away from Heidegger) toward Western positivism (that is to say, American social science).
I did not get your Koyre essay. Please do send it to me. Or do you mean your contribution to the Melanges Koyre. [1] That one I did indeed get; it arrived together with your letter.
I was unable to write to Mrs. Koyre. That is very bad. I trust that she will forgive me.
As for your contribution to my Festschrift, I had been acquainted with it for a long time, since you had sent me the manuscript. I was very gratified, since it shows that persecution and the art of writing are not some fancy. (Incidentally, a young American -- Hathaway -- is currently working on the pseudo-Dyonisius from your point of view. [2] I have referred him to your observations regarding the neo-Platonists.)
I have just finished dictating a book, Socrates and Aristophanes. [3] I believe that it will elicit an occasional smile from you, and not only because of Aristophanes' jokes and of my Victorian paraphrases of them. If all goes well, I will then turn to Lucretius.
Did you get my The City and Man? [4] And what do you say about Klein's Meno? [5]
Cordially as ever,
Your
Leo Strauss