عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Generally, there are several dominant ways to interpret political thought, such as discovering the rational structure of text, discourse analysis and hermeneutical methods. Hermeneutical methods can be divided into two macro categories: Contextual interpretations and textual interpretations. This article, in theoretical level, and with a focus on the hermeneutic interpretation of the text, tries to compare two of the contemporary commentators: Strauss and Skinner. It describes Strauss' method, criticisms against his school, and ultimately provides a description of Skinner’s methodology. To a better understanding of Skinner's critique of the Strauss school, an example of Straussian historiography points out Tabatabai's commentary, and briefly illustrates how Strauss’s method can be applied and shows its possible disadvantages. The purpose of the article is to describe the theoretical and critical comparisons of the two ways of interpreting political thought, which have great importance to historiography of thought. The article ultimately concludes that there are shortcomings in the textual reading of the political ideas that can be compensated by using some of Skinner's method.