In Thoughts on Machiavelli, Leo Strauss observes, ‘Books like the Discourses and the Prince do not reveal their full meaning as intended by the author unless one ponders over them “day and night” for a long time’. He then continues, ‘It is fortunate for the historians of ideas, to say nothing of others, that there are not many books of this kind’ (p. 174). Is Thoughts on Machiavelli one of these books? Did Strauss ‘write as he read’? Recent scholarship on Strauss has shown the extent to which he took great care in formulating his thoughts (see, for example, Laurence Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche; and Nasser Behnegar, Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics). In Discourses on Strauss Sorensen examines in detail the concluding chapter IV of Strauss’ Thoughts on Machiavelli, ‘Machiavelli’s Teaching’, to gain greater insights into his views on the nature of relationship between reason and revelation. The tension between reason and revelation, or the choice between Jerusalem and Athens, warrants examination because Strauss himself regards it as one of the defining aspects of Western political philosophy. It has been the focus of recent Strauss commentary (see, for example, Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem).