Leo Strauss was a prodigiously influential political philosopher in the twentieth century. Born and educated in Germany, Strauss also lived in France and England before moving to the U.S. in 1937. He was appointed professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago in 1949, where he remained for nearly twenty years. Strauss encouraged a return to the study of ancient philosophy, especially Plato. His thought exhibits a certain contempt for modernity, which he saw as rejecting the Socratic method of classical philosophy in favor of modern science. Strauss is also known for his vigorous attacks on relativism and nihilism, which appear in many of his writings. Strauss's most famous work is Natural Right and History (1950), in which he documents the rise and fall of the idea of natural right, or what is right by nature. Contemporary social science, Strauss argues, embraces both relativism and the distinction between fact and value. Thus social scientists today believe their work must be entirely value-free and objective. But, Strauss contends, this gives us no basis for the ultimate principles we choose. In keeping with his ancient-verses-modern dichotomy, the distinction between classical and modern natural right is of great significance to Strauss in Natural Right and History. Classical natural right claims the good life for man to be "the life that is in accordance with the natural order of man's being, the life that flows from a well-ordered or healthy soul . . . The perfection of man's nature." However, beginning with Hobbes, modern natural right finds the possibility of man's perfection wholly impractical, instead championing the instinct of self-preservation and the rights of the individual. Strauss further emphasizes what he sees as a fundamental conflict between reason and revelation, between philosophy and faith. Traditional Christianity, of course, does not usually find reason and faith in conflict; following Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II insistently affirms in the recent encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason) that both can lead us to the truth. However, Strauss believes one must always be subservient to the other. He writes in Natural Right and History, "Man cannot live without light, guidance, knowledge; only through knowledge of the good can he find the good that he needs. The fundamental question, therefore, is whether men can acquire that knowledge of the good without which they cannot guide their lives individually or collectively by the unaided efforts of their natural powers, or whether they are dependent for that knowledge on Divine Revelation. No alternative is more fundamental than this: human guidance or divine guidance." Strauss, a Jew, believes that reason must take the claims of revelation seriously or else be guilty of dogmatism. His contempt for modernity extends to the question of revelation, for he believes modern philosophy refuses to consider the possibility of divine revelation. Strauss is also known for his remarkable interpretations of classic texts. Expounding upon the work of Plato, Maimonides, Hobbes, and many others, Strauss emphasizes that many past writers could not readily reveal their ideas because they feared persecution. But Strauss believes that the great thinkers left these ideas concealed in their work for those diligent and erudite enough to discover them. Thus a text's true meaning is often contained between the lines. Strauss's essay Persecution and the Art of Writing, first published in 1952, develops this theme. This esoteric ability to read the classic texts, however, finds many critics who accuse Strauss and his followers of elitism and self-satisfied rationalism. Adulation, criticism, and misunderstanding surround the thought of Leo Strauss. Despite the fact that many scholars find his interpretations arcane and his ideas quixotic, Strauss has gained a diverse following in both politics and academics. He found many admirers in varied conservative figures of twentieth century politics, including Paul Wolfowitz, George Will, William Kristol, and Irving Kristol. Strauss has also left his mark on modern academia through his followers, Straussians, who hold positions at a number of political science departments in American universities. Those departments that do not claim Straussians, however, are often dominated by feminists, Marxists, and empiricists and therefore are usually quite hostile toward his ideas. Straussians, among them Allan Bloom, who wrote The Closing of the American Mind, tend to carry an inspiring passion for teaching and learning from the great thinkers of the past. Strauss's work is not for the casual reader. His books must be read meticulously and with the same care that he thinks we must apply to the great books of the past. His work includes: Philosophy and Law: Contributions to the Understanding of Maimonides and his Predecessors (1935), The Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1936), On Tyranny (1948), Thoughts on Machiavelli (1958), What is Political Philosophy? And other essays (1959), and The City and Man (1964). For readings on Strauss, Dinesh D'Souza's article "The Legacy of Leo Strauss," published in the Spring 1987 issue of Policy Review, provides a more thorough introduction to the issues surrounding Strauss's thought. Susan Orr's Jerusalem and Athens (Rowman & Littlefield, 1995) examines Strauss's ideas about the conflict between reason and revelation. Orr argues that "if he tips the scales at all it is toward Jerusalem." Revolt Against Modernity (Kansas, 1996), by Ted McAllister, compares Strauss's attack on modernity with another twentieth century political theorist, Eric Voegelin. [Posted July 2003, PAR]