Adam Smith’s Hidden Debt to Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes Leviathan Frontispiece
Detail from the frontispiece for the first edition of the Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes; lead etching by Abraham Bosse.

Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes are not usually mentioned in the same sentence together, much less positively. But this is a key line of argument in Joseph Crospey’s book, Polity and Economy, which subtly examines and points out the links between the two canonical thinkers.1 Crospey, a student of Leo Strauss, and later co-editor with Strauss of their edition of the History of Political Philosophy, wrote the book early in his academic career, and although he added a mini-biography of Smith in a later edition, did not change the first four chapters that comprise this deep-reaching analysis of Smith.

Continue reading “Adam Smith’s Hidden Debt to Thomas Hobbes”

  1. Joseph Crospey, Polity and Economy: An Interpretation of the Principles of Adam Smith (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1957).

Reconsidering Strauss’ ‘Esoteric Writing’ in light of Marcus Tullius Cicero

Bust
Bust of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Capitoline Museums, 1st Century AD, Roman.

One of Leo Strauss’ most controversial revelations — revelations insofar as they rely on a rather imaginative reading of the texts they rely upon — is his ‘discovery’ of ‘esoteric writing,’ which has been applied by all and sundry, without discrimination or context, as a suitable methodological framework. It is my contention here that the biggest challenge to Strauss’ concept of esoteric writing can be found in the works of Cicero, particularly in his dialogues De Republica and De Legibus.1

Continue reading “Reconsidering Strauss’ ‘Esoteric Writing’ in light of Marcus Tullius Cicero”

  1. All quotes from these two dialogues are from: Cicero, The Republic and the Laws, trans. Niall Rudd (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).