Leo Strauss - Strauss On Reading

Strauss On Reading

In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing, commonly understood to advance the argument that some philosophers write in such a way as to avoid persecution by political or religious authorities. Some of Strauss's students (most notably Mansfield and Benardete) have read their teacher as interested in a philosophical "esotericism" aimed primarily at protecting politics from philosophy – the reasoning of which might negatively affect opinions undergirding the political order. Taking his bearings from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in the Phaedrus, Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art of exoteric writing is the proper medium for philosophic learning: rather than displaying philosophers' thoughts superficially, classical and medieval philosophical texts guide their readers in thinking and learning independently of imparted knowledge. Thus, Strauss agrees with the Socrates of the Phaedrus, where the Greek indicates that, insofar as writing does not respond when questioned, good writing provokes questions in the reader—questions that orient the reader towards an understanding of problems the author thought about with utmost seriousness. Both for Strauss and for Plato, genuinely philosophical writing does not impart special knowledge to its reader, but helps its reader deepen his own understanding of the problems underlying all special knowledge: those readers who seek special knowledge in Platonic dialogues hanker to apply fragments of philosophical discourse to political life—a superficial move—thereby betraying the cause of genuinely philosophical writers. The case of the trial of Socrates is paradigmatic.

Strauss's general "hermeneutical" argument—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably in The City and Man )—is that, prior to the XIX century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their "art of writing" was the art of exoteric communication. This was especially apparent in medieval times, when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of the Inquisition or comparably obtuse tribunals.

Strauss's argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric, hidden one for the few (hoi aristoi), but that, through rhetorical stratagems including self-contradiction and hyperboles, these writers succeeded in conveying their proper meaning at the tacit heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to "the letter" or historical dimension of texts.

Explicitly following G.E. Lessing's lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by "the many" (who did not read), but by those "few" whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality. It was precisely these righteous personalities who would be most inclined to persecute/ostracize anyone who was in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which stands or falls the authority of the few over the many.

Some scholars unfamiliar with common medieval hermeneutics (most notably, Shadia Drury) have found fault with Strauss's contention that pre-modern political philosophers upheld an "exoteric" or salutary teaching in the act of pointing to an "esoteric" or true teaching, which remained hidden to the non-philosophical reader. For highlighting the classical and medieval distinction between esoteric and exoteric dimensions of speech, Strauss is often accused of having himself written esoterically. The accusation would seem to rest upon the belief that in modern liberal societies and especially in the USA philosophers are free to voice their philosophical views in public without being accused of impropriety. In which case, however, it is hard to understand anyone's need to write esoterically. America has no Grand Inquisitor.

Leo Strauss's appreciation of moderation or restraint in writing is manifest in his favoring Jane Austen over otherwise more thoughtful modern novelists.