and phronesis. Strauss, on the othernhand, seems to suppress formal structurenentirely, and to leave us withnnothing but phronesis. We are thennobligated to ask: What is the basis for ansound practical judgment according tonStrauss? On the basis of his adherence,nexplicitly and implicitly, to Socraticnignorance, Strauss seems to point tonthe following alternative. The good isneither the posing of fundamental questions,nor it is traditional, i.e., “Socratic,”nconservatism. But how can thenposing of a question provide the answernto a practical problem? And is notnStrauss’s Socrates a scarcely concealednskeptic and atheist? To restate the secondnof these alternatives, is not Socraticnprudence simply the traditional wisdomnof men of common sense, and sonnot at all genuinely philosophical? Ifnso, is this not finally to admit thatn”historicism,” Strauss’s great nemesis,nis the last truth about human things?nThis conclusion is suggested by anconsideration of the central essay innStrauss’s collection (a pivotal positionnin his hermeneuties), “Note on thenPlan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good andnEvil.” For Nietzsche, the philosophernis Plato; so too he clearly prefers thenbiblical Hebrews to the Christians. Tonbe sure, Nietzsche rejects both Platonand the Hebrews, or at best may bensaid to incorporate elements from eachninto his ambiguous prophecy concerningnhuman creativity and the philosophersnof the future.nIn my opinion, Strauss does notnaccurately characterize Nietzsche’s intentionnwhen he says, in a hasty generalization,nthat “for Nietzsche, as distinguishednfrom the classics, politicsnbelongs from the outset to a lowernplane than either philosophy or religion.”n(Conversely, it may also bendoubted whether, on Strauss’s ownntestimony, the “classics” placed politicsnon the same level as philosophy.)nThis statement suggests the influencenof Heidegger, whose presence broodsnover the pages of this volume.nIn the opening essay, officially devotednto Husserl, Strauss says: “Therenis no room for political philosophy innHeidegger’s work, and this may well bendue to the fact that the room in questionnis occupied by gods or the gods.”nIn his own interpretations, Heideggerntransformed Nietzsche into a metaphysician.nStrauss seems to imply thatnNietzsche was a theologian: “The doctrinenof the will to power—the wholendoctrine oi Beyond Good and Evil—isnin a manner a vindication of God.”nSince Strauss says on the same pagenthat the will to power is an interpretation,nthat is to say, a human creation,nthe “God” whom Nietzsche vindicatesnwould seem to be Nietzsche himselfnThe political implications are obviousnenough. To put my point in anothernway, Strauss clearly regarded Nietzschenand Heidegger as the most importantncritics and representatives ofnlate modernity. On the reading presentednhere by Strauss, the modernnepoch is essentially a religious phenomenon.nMore cautiously, it culminatesnin a quarrel between religion andnphilosophy, a quarrel in which religionnassimilates poetry, thus returningnus to the pre-Soeratic “origins” soncrucial for both Nietzsche and Heidegger,nand in so doing triumphs over itsnancient enemy.nThe quarrel between the ancientsnand the moderns, as presented explicitlynby Strauss and as implied by Gadamer,nseems to have resulted in thendefeat of both Plato and the HebrewnBible. The victors, however, are neithernAristotle nor Christianity, but thenpre-Socraties, i.e., all those except fornParmenides, or the advocates of comprehensivenchange, whose general (asnSocrates says in the Theaetetus) isnHomer. In slightiy more precise terms,nthe victors are a romanticized andnhence “Judeo-Christianized” versionnof the pre-Socraties. Could this benbecause the quarrel was from the outsetnbetween two different kinds of poetry,ni.e., interpretations of the good?nGadamer’s prudence is unable tonestablish the connection between itselfnand formal structure or, as one couldnput it by using terms he himself accentuates,nbetween beauty and truth.nStrauss’s Talmudie or Byzantine cunning,nlightly camouflaged by a combinationnof historical learning and intricatenpolitical rhetoric, seems tonrecommend the adoption of a Burkeannversion of classical conservatism.nWhether the recommendation isnsound depends upon an assessment ofnthe political nature of the late modernnepoch, not upon a direct perception ofnthe political nature ostensibly commonnto Socrates and to us.n§t. Paul’s Famil5r3V[agazinenYour childrennare inundated by thenworst of Western culture.nWhy not give them thenbest of Western culture?n… four times a year.nSurely no editor has ever had a more cantankerous stablenof writers. Aesop, Chaucer, Cervantes, Stevenson, Kipling,nPyle, Andersen, the Grimms… Where did (they) find suchna crowd of sundry folk? But then, I know. It was on anpilgrimage.nJohn Senior, authornThe Restoration of Christian Culturen$10.00 per year ($13.00 U.S. currency if outside U.S.)nSt. Paul’s Family MagazinenP.O. Box 772X, Fort Scott, Kansas 66701n1-800-523-5562nnnMARCH 1987/29n