Over the past quarter century, the Cambridge School of Intellectual History has had a profound influence on the study of political theory in the U.S. The scholarship of historians such as John Dunn, Quentin Skinner, and John Pocock has almost single-handedly defined the terms with which political scientists understand early modern thought, and consequently liberalism and its alternatives. In this essay I analyze Quentin Skinner's “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas” as the seminal argument for the Cambridge School's interpretive strategy. In particular, I note the degree to which Skinner attacked the scholarship of Leo Strauss in order to establish the Cambridge approach. Contrary to Skinner, I argue Strauss too has a concern for genuine historical understanding. I conclude with a re-reading of Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing in order to show that Strauss' interpretive strategy ultimately comes much closer to the “historicity” claimed by Skinner and others.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshcraftRichard. 1975. “On the Problem of Methodology and the Nature of Political Theory. Political Theory3 (1): 5–25.
2.
BehnegarNasser. 2003. Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BelavalM. Yvon. 1953. “Pour une sociologie de la philosophie,” ‘Review of Leo Strauss’ Persecution and the Art of Writing.”Critique77 (October): 852–66.
4.
BerkiR. N.ParekhBhiku. 1976. “On Quentin Skinners ‘Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action.’”Political Theory4 (2): 235.
5.
BloomAllan. 1960. “Political Philosophy and Poetry.”American Political Science Review54: 457–564.
6.
BruellChristopher. 1993. “A Return to Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding.” In DeutschK. L.NicgorskiW., eds., Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker. Lanham, MD: Roman and Littlefield.
7.
BruellChristopher. 2002. “True Esotericism.” In FoleyM. P.KriesD., eds., Gladly to Learn and Gladly to Teach. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
8.
BurckhardtSigurd. 1960a. “English Bards and APSA Reviewers.”American Political Science Review54: 158–66.
9.
BurckhardtSigurd. 1960b. “On Reading Ordinary Prose: A Reply to Allan-Bloom.”American Political Science Review54: 471–73.
10.
CropseyJoseph. 1962. “The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Reply to Rothman.”American Political Science Review56 (2): 353–59.
11.
DruryShadia. B.1988. The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss. New York: St. Martin's Press.
12.
DruryShadia. B.1997. Leo Strauss and the American Right. New York: St. Martin's Press.
13.
DunnJohn. 1968. “The Identity of the History of Ideas”. Philosophy43: 97–98.
14.
GalstonWilliam. A.1982. “Review of John Dunn's ‘Political Obligation in Its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory.’”Journal of Politics44 (1): 256–58.
15.
GerminoDante. 1963. “The Revival of Political Theory.”Journal of Politics25 (3): 437–60.
16.
GunnellJohn. G.1978. “The Myth of the Tradition.”American Political Science Review72 (1): 122–34.
17.
GunnellJohn. G.1982. “Interpretation and the History of Political Theory: Apology and Epistemology.”The American Political Science Review76 (2): 317–27.
18.
GunnellJohn G.1986. “Texts in Context: Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of Political Theory; the Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts: An Essay on Political Theory, Its Inheritance, and the History of Ideas.”American Political Science Review80 (2): 631–39.
19.
GunnellJohnPocockJ. G. A., 1984. “Political Theory, Methodology, and Myth.”Annals of Scholarship1 (4): 3–62.
20.
KallebergArthur. L.1969. “Concept Formation in Normative and Empirical Studies: Toward Reconciliation in Political Theory.”American Political Science Review63 (1): 26–39.
21.
KendallWilmoore. 1967. “Review: Ancients and Moderns.”American Political Science Review61 (3): 783–84.
22.
MaimonidesMoses. 1963. The Guide of the Perplexed, Vol. 1, translated and with an introduction and notes by PinesShlomo, Introductory Essay by Leo Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
MansfieldHarvey. C.1975a. “Reply to Pocock.”Political Theory3 (4): 402–05.
McDonaldNeil. A.RosenauJames N., 1968. “Political Theory as Academic Field and Intellectual Activity.”Journal of Politics30 (2): 311–44.
26.
McSheaRobert. J.1963. “Leo Strauss on Machiavelli.”Western Political Quarterly16 (4): 782–97.
27.
ParekhB.BerkiR. N., 1973. “The History of Political Ideas: A Critique of Q. Skinner's Methodology.”Journal of the History of Ideas34:163–84.
28.
PocockJ. G. A.1971. Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History. New York: Atheneum.
29.
PocockJ. G. A.1973. “Verbalizing a Political Act: Toward a Politics of Speech.”Political Theory1 (1): 27–45.
30.
PocockJ. G. A.1975a. “On Richard Ashcraft's ‘On the Problem of Methodology.’”Political Theory3 (3): 317–18.
31.
PocockJ. G. A.1975b. “Prophet and Inquisitor: Or, a Church Built upon Bayonets Cannot Stand: A Comment on Mansfield's ‘Strauss's Machiavelli.’”Political Theory3 (4): 385–401.
32.
PocockJ. G. A.1980. “Review: Gunnell, John G., Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation.”Political Theory8 (4): 563–67.
33.
PocockJ. G. A.1981. “Virtues, Rights, and Manners: A Model for Historians of Political Thought.”Political Theory9 (3): 353–68.
34.
PocockJ. G. A.1985. “Machiavelli in the Liberal Cosmos.”Political Theory13 (4): 559–74.
35.
PocockJ. G. A.1989 (see 1971). Politics, Language, and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
RanneyAustin. 1965. “Political Science: The State of the Profession—A Review Article.”Political Science Quarterly80 (2): 277–87.
37.
RikerWilliam. H.1962. “Review: Tullock's Calculus of Consent.”Midwest Journal of Political Science6 (4): 408–11.
38.
RikerWilliam. H.1965. “Theory and Science in the Study of Politics.”Journal of Conflict Resolution9 (3): 375–79.
39.
RothmanStanley. 1962a. “The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy.”American Political Science Review56 (2): 341–52.
40.
RothmanStanley. 1962b. “The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Critique.”American Political Science Review56 (2): 341–52.
41.
RothmanStanleyRohertyJames M., 1962. “Communications: Rejoinder to Cropsey.”American Political Science Review56 (3): 682–85.
42.
SabineGeorge. H.1953. “Review of Persecution and the Art of Writing.”Ethics63 (3): 220–22.
43.
SchaarJohn. H.WolinSheldon S., 1963. “Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics: A Critique.”American Political Science Review57 (1): 125–50.
SkinnerQuentin. 1965. “History and Ideology in the English Revolution.”Historical Journal8 (2): 151–78.
47.
SkinnerQuentin. 1966a. “The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political Thought.”Historical Journal9 (3): 286–317.
48.
SkinnerQuentin. 1966b. “The Limits of Historical Explanations.”Philosophy4: 199–215.
49.
SkinnerQuentin. 1969a. “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.”History and Theory8 (1): 3–53.
50.
SkinnerQuentin. 1969b. “Review of Dunn: The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the ‘Two Treatises of Government.’”American Historical Review75 (2): 489–90.
51.
SkinnerQuentin. 1973. “The Empirical Theorists of Democracy and Their Critics: A Plague on Both Their Houses.”Political Theory1 (3): 287–306.
52.
SkinnerQuentin. 1974. “Some Problems in the Analysis of Political Thought and Action”. Political Theory2 (3): 277–303.
53.
SkinnerQuentin. 1976. “Review: Handbook of Political Science,” vol. 1. Political Science. Scope and Theory. Political Theory4 (3): 385–88.
54.
SkinnerQuentin. 1981. “Reply to Robert Sullivan.”New York Review of Books. November 5.
55.
StoringHerbert. J.1962. Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
56.
StoringHerbert. J.StraussLeoBernsWalterWeinsteinLeoHorwitzRobert. 1963. “Replies to Schaar and Wolin: I-VI.”American Political Science Review57 (1): 151–60.
57.
StraussLeo. 1946. “On a New Interpretation of Plato's Political Philosophy.”Social Research13 (3): 326–67.
58.
StraussLeo. 1952. Persecution and the Art of Writing. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
59.
StraussLeo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
StraussLeo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
StraussLeo. 1963. On Tyranny. New York: Free Press.
62.
StraussLeo. 1964. The City and Man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63.
StraussLeo. 1968. Liberalism Ancient and Modern. New York: Basic Books.
64.
StraussLeoCropseyJoseph. 1963. The History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
TarcovNathan. 1982. “Quentin Skinner's Method and Machiavelli's Prince.”Ethics92 (4): 692–709.
66.
TarcovNathan. 1991. “On a Certain Critique of “Straussianism.”Review of Politics53 (1): 3–18.
67.
TarltonC. D.1973. “Historicity, Meaning, and Revisionism in the Study of Political Thought. History and Theory12: 307–28.
68.
ThompsonLawrance. 1954. “Review of Persecution and the An of Writing.”Modern Philology51 (3): 208–10.
69.
TullyJames. H.1983. “The Pen Is a Mighty Sword: Quentin Skinner's Analysis of Politics.”British Journal of Political Science13 (4): 489–509.
70.
VoegelinEric. March 20, 1957. Letter to Fesler Concerning Review of Willmoore Kendall. New Haven: Box 20.39., Hoover Institution Archives.
WoottonDavid. 1983. Paolo Sarpi: Between Renaissance and Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
73.
WoottonDavid. 1988. “Lucien Febvre and the Problem of Unbelief in the Early Modern Period.”Journal of Modern History60 (4): 695–730.
74.
WoottonDavid. 1993. Political Writings: John Locke. New York: Mentor.
75.
WoottonDavid. 1994a. “Narrative, Irony, and Faith in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.”History and Theory33 (4): 77–105.
76.
WoottonDavid. 1994b. “Ulysses Bound? Venice and the Idea of Liberty from Howell to Hume.” In WoottonD., ed., Republicanism, Liberty, and Commercial Society, 1649–1776. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
77.
WoottonDavid. 2003. “Quentin Skinner on Himself: The Hard Look Back.”Times Literary Supplement, March 14: 8–10.
78.
ZuckenMichael. P.2002. “Appropriation and Understanding in the History of Political Philosophy.” In Launching Liberalism, a collection by Michael P. Zuckert. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
