THE TYRANNICAL TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHY IN LEO STRAUSS’S INTERPRATION OF HIERO

Abstract

In Hiero, Xenophon presents us with quite different picture of tyranny: while a tyrant called Hiero complains that tyrants are the most wretched men in the world, a poet called Simonides tries to console him by arguing that the tyranny can be the source of happiness and felicity. In On Tyranny, Leo Strauss attempts to probe into the esoteric dimensions of Hiero, calling our attention to the fact that neither Hiero’s criticism nor Simonides’s praise can exhaust all the viewpoints Xenophon tries to formulate. Strauss claims that rather than being mere a condemnation of tyranny Hiero or a praise of tyranny Simonides , Hiero is at bottom a critique of laws, legality and polis. According to Strauss, what is involved in this critique is no less than the comparison between the political and philosophical life; a comparison through which Xenophon covertly claims the superiority of the latter. In the first part of our study, we will draw a general frame within which to place Strauss’s interpretation of Hiero. The basic theme here is the tension between philosophy and polis; the tension which Strauss gives a special importance throughout his oeuvre and which yields to the issue of esoteric writing. In the second part, we will study the details of arguments given expression in the dialogue by Hiero and Simonides. In the last part, we will concentrate on the esoteric dimensions of Hiero which Strauss underlines in On Tyranny

Keywords

• Classical Political Philosophy, Hiero, Leo Strass, Tyranny, Xenophon.

LEO STRAUSS’UN HIERO YORUMUNDA TİRANLIK ÖĞRETİSİ VE FELSEFE

Öz

Xenophon, Hiero’da bize alışılmadık bir tiranlık tablosu sunmaktadır: Hiero adlı bir tiran, tiranların yeryüzündeki en mutsuz kişiler olduğunu iddia ederken, Simonides adlı bir şair tiranlığın mutluluk kaynağı olabileceğini ifade ederek, Hiero’yu teselli etmektedir. Bu iki görüşün, eserin ezoterik boyutunu gözlerden saklamaya hizmet ettiğine dikkatimizi çeken Strauss, On Tyranny adlı çalışmasında, bu küçük hacimli eserin ihtiva ettiği anlam katmanlarını ortaya çıkarmaya çalışır. Strauss’a göre, gerek tiranın dile getirdiği tiranlık eleştirisi gerekse de hayırhah bir tiranlığın mümkün olabileceğini ifade eden tiranlık öğretisi, Xenophon’un asıl ifade etmek istediği şey değildir. Hiero’yu Xenophon’un diğer eserleri ile birlikte bütünlüklü bir bakış açısına tabi tutan Strauss, Xenophon’un Hiero’da yapmak istediği şeyin yasaların ve polis’in bir eleştirisi olduğuna dikkatimizi çeker. Bu eleştirinin işaret ettiği nokta ise felsefi hayat ile siyasi hayatın yani Hikmet ile Polis’in mukayesesidir. Çalışmamızın birinci kısmında, Strauss’un Hiero yorumuna dair genel bir çerçeve çizmeye çalışacağız. Bu çerçevenin ana unsurları, Strauss’un eserlerine damgasını vurmuş olan felsefe/polis gerilimi ve bu gerilimin bir ifadesi olan ezoterik yazım geleneğidir. Çalışmamızın ikinci bölümde, Hiero’nun içeriğine odaklanarak, Hiero ve Simonides arasındaki diyaloğun detaylarını inceleyeceğiz. Üçüncü bölümde ise, Xenophon’un dile getirdiği tiranlık öğretisinin Strauss tarafından ortaya konan ezoterik yorumuna odaklanacağız

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hiero, Klasik Siyaset Felsefesi, Leo Strauss, Tiranlık, Xenophon.

References

1. Altman, William, “Leo Strauss in 1962, Perspectives on Political Science, Vol.39(2), 2010 s. 97- 107.
2. Aristotle, Politics, çev. H. Rackham, Harvard University Press, 1959.
3. Beiner, Ronald, “The Soul of the Tyrant, and the Souls of You and Me: Plato’s Understanding of Tyranny”, Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics, der. Toivo Koivukoski ve D. E. Tabanick, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2005, s. 181-197.
4. Bertman, A. Martin, “Hobbes and Xenophon’s Tyrannicus”, History of European Ideas, Vol. 10(5), 1989, s. 507-517.
5. Boesche, Rober, Theories of Tyranny: From Plato to Arendt, The Pennsylvania University Press, Pennsylvania, 1996.
6. Burns, W. Timothy, “The Place of the Strauss-Kojeve Debate in the Work of Leo Strauss”, Philosophy, History and Tyranny, der. T. W. Burns ve B. P. Frost, State University of New York Press, New York, 2016 s. 15-51.
7. Buzetti, Eric, (2015). “A Guide to the Study of Leo Strauss’ On Tyranny, der. T. W. Burns, Brill’s Companions to Leo Strauss’s Writings on Classical Political Thougt, , Brill, Boston, s. 227-258.
8. Buzatti, Eric, Xenophon the Socratic Prince: The Argument of the Anabasis of Cyrus, Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2014.

9. Darby, Tom, “Who has the Right to Rule the Planet?”, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 20(1), 2000, s. 40-53.
10. Drury, B. Shadia, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Palgrave Macmillan.New York, 2005.
11. Gilbert, Alan, “Leo Strauss and the Principle of Right: An Introdution to Strauss’ Letter”, Constellations, Vol. 16(1), 2009, s. 78-81.
12. Gish, Dustin, “Socratic Rhetoric and Political Philosophy: Leo Strauss on Xenophon’s Symposium”, Brill’s Companions to Leo Strauss’s Writings on Classical Political Thougt, der. T. W. Burns, Brill, Boston, s. 258-285.
13. Haşlakoğlu, Oğuz, Platon Düşüncesinde Tekhne: Sanat ve Felsefenin Ortak Kökeni Üzerine Bir İnceleme, Sentez Yayıncılık, Bursa, 2016.
14. Higgins, W. Edward, Xenophon the Athenian: The Problem of Individual and the Society of Polis, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977.
15. Johnson, M. David, “Strauss on Xenophon”, Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry, der. Susan E. Alcock, Leiden: Brill, Leiden, 2012, s. 123-161.
16. Koivukoski, Toivo, “The Education of Tyrant”, Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics, der. Toivo Koivukoski ve D. E. Tabanick, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2005, ss. 197-213.
17. Kojève, ALexandre, “Tyranny and Wisdom”, On Tyranny ed. V. Gourevitch ve M. S. Roth, The Free Press, New York, 1991.
18. Lilla, Mark, “The New Age of Tyranny”, Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics, der. T. Koivukoski ve D. E. Tabanick, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2005, s. 243-251.
19. Louis, Adrien, “Leo Strauss et la Question de la Tyrannie: L’Argumentation de On Tyranny”, Archives de Philosophie, Vol. 74(3), 2011, s. 469-490.
20. Newell, R. Waller, “Kojève’s Hegel, Hegel’s Hegel, and Strauss’s Hegel: A Middle Range Approach to the Debate about Tyranny and Totalitarianism,” Philosophy, History and Tyranny, der. T. W. Burns ve B. P. Frost, State University of New York Press, New York, 2016, s. 197- 219.
21. Newell, R. Waller, Tyranny: A New Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, ss. 219-251.
22. Newell, R. Waller, “Is There an Ontology of Tyranny”, Confronting Tyranny: Ancient Lessons for Global Politics, der. T. Koivukoski ve D. E. Tabanick, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, 2005, s. 141-161.
23. Plato, (1991). Republic, çev. Allan Bloom, Basic Books.
24. Pippin, Robert,“Being, Time and Politics: The Strauss-Kojeve Debate”, History and Theory, Vol. 32(2), 1993, s. 138-161.
25. Ruderman, S. Richard, “Through the Keyhole: Leo Strauss’ Rediscovery of Classical Political Philosophy in Xenophon’s Constitution of the Lacedaemonians”, Brill’s Companions to Leo Strauss’s Writings on Classical Political Thougt, der. T. W. Burns, Brill, Boston, 2015, s. 213- 226.
26. Ruderman, S. Richard, “On Leo Strauss’s Presentation of Xenophon’s Political Philosophy in The Problem of Socrates”, Brill’s Companions to Leo Strauss’s Writings on Classical Political Thought, der. T. W. Burns, Brill, Boston, 2015, s. 193-212.
27. Singh, Aakash, Eros Turannos: Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojeve Debate on Tyranny, University Press of America London, 2005.
28. Stauffer, Devin “The Difference between Socrates and Xenophon in Leo Strauss’ Account of Xenophon’s Anabasis”, Brill’s Companions to Leo Strauss’s Writings on Classical Political Thougt, der. T. W. Burns, Brill, Boston, s. 305-314.
29. Strauss, Leo, On Tyranny, The Free Press, New York, 1991.
30. Strauss, Leo, “Restatement”, On Tyranny, der. V. Gourevitch ve M. S. Roth, The Free Press, New York, 1991, s. 177-213.