Persecution and the Art of Writing [Paperback]

Leo Strauss (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 15, 1988 | ISBN-10: 0226777111 | ISBN-13: 978-0226777115

The essays collected in Persecution and the Art of Writing all deal with one problem—the relation between philosophy and politics. Here, Strauss sets forth the thesis that many philosophers, especially political philosophers, have reacted to the threat of persecution by disguising their most controversial and heterodox ideas.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Leo Strauss's contributions to political philosophy include Natural Right and History, Platonic Political Philosophy, and The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, all published by the University of Chicago Press.

Product Details

• Paperback: 214 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press (October 15, 1988)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226777111
• ISBN-13: 978-0226777115
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.5 x 0.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 9.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.1 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #52,584 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent source for readers of philosophy, October 24, 2000

By A Customer

This review is from: Persecution and the Art of Writing (Paperback)

An excellent text, Strauss explicates on his views of how philosophers in times of persecution will "hide" their most stunning and important ideas "between the lines" of their works. In this way, the authors avoid death, and also provide the deepest insight to only those intelligent enough to find it in the texts. Pay special attention to Strauss's chapter on the "Guide for the Perplexed:" not only is it an interesting read, but one can see Strauss himself using some of the same techniques that he claims authors of the past used. It's all a matter of trying to understand what he truly wants to tell us.

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Strategems which Errors seem..., May 25, 2008

By 

greg taylor (Portland, Oregon United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Persecution and the Art of Writing (Paperback)

This book is absolutely central within the body of Leo Strauss's work. It stands as the culmination of his earliest work and the beginning of his middle phase of work (which most readers and commentators seem to focus on).
Leo Strauss started his philosophical career directly confronted with what he would come to call the "theological-political problem". As a Jewish intellectual in during the Weimer years, he found himself confronted with the ways that liberal political philosophy had failed the Jewish people. That confrontation led him from an exploration of different forms of Zionism to the roots of the Enlightenment critique of revelation in Spinoza and Hobbes and back to (what Strauss called) the Medieval Enlightenment works of Maimonides, Farabi and Halevi. Particularly in the writing of Maimonides and Farabi (but also in the writings of Lessing), Strauss found the clues that led him to his theory of esoteric and exoteric writing.
When talking about this Straussian way of reading, the first thing to emphasize is that it is not a universal hermeneutic. Strauss is not saying that all philosophy or theological books were written with an esoteric component. He is saying that some were and that there are indications that can be used to detect when a book is so written.
Before we get to that, let's consider THE basic presumption of Strauss's- that there are two types of men, philosophers and non-philosophers. And the two are motivated fundamentally differently and are capable of fundamentally different lives. Furthermore, it is important to realize that what Strauss believes is going on in an esoteric text is that one philosopher is writing in such a way that other philosophers can discern his hidden meaning.
Why would someone do this? This is also key. Strauss feels that since the mid-1800s in most Western cultures that it has not been as necessary to write this way. In fact, as a culture, we have forgotten that this was necessary. The radical Enlightenment determined that all truths must be told to all humanity and we have come to accept that.
But not long ago, that was not the case. Men and women died or were tortured for daring to express the heterodox thought. So the first reason philosophers wrote esoterically is to avoid the fate of Socrates.
The second reason is more Straussian. Philosophers wrote that way for reasons of propriety. They too believed that most men were not capable of living the philosophical life with its calling into question of all opinion (see p.59 of PAW). They furthermore believed that "opinion is the element of society: philosphy or science is therefore the attempt to dissolve the element in which society breathes" (the quote is from the essay On a Forgotten Kind of Writing in the collection What is Political Philosophy).
So the philosophers (the wise men), by disguising their questioning of
the dogmas on which any one society is based, acts responsibly. They do not call into question those dogmas for those for whom it would be hard to live virtuously without them (the vulgar). (Before you go ballistic with the elitism of it all please remember that this is what Strauss is saying that people like Maimonides, Farabi and Plato thought- what he thinks is a lot more elusive. Also keep in mind, that it is easy to find this same attitude in our Founding Fathers. Very very few of them were free of some form of the wise man/ vulgar dichotomy. The whole idea of the Electoral College is based on it.)
The third reason one writes esoterically is to unearth "the young men...[who] might become philosophers: the potential philosphers are to be led step by step from the popular view which are indispensable for all practical and political purposes to the truth which is ...purely theoretical" (p. 36 of PAW) (By far, the most disturbing thing about Strauss is the complete lack of women as any sort of presence in his writings- for someone who was romantically intrigued by Hannah Arendt in their youth (she loathed him) this absence seems almost like a symptom. Of what I have no idea. I'm just saying.)
So we should look for esoteric literature during time of repression. What other clues should we look for? There are four main clues from what I can tell.
The first is in the determination of the literary or rhetorical nature of the work in question. Strauss never fails to point out the Plato's works are dialogues, that you cannot assume that Socrates or the Athenian Stranger is the stand-in for Plato, that what is Platonic has to be ascertained as a result of the all the conversational strands. (See his essay on Plato in the collection The History of Political Philosophy).
The second is that someone who is a careful and precise writer writes something that contradicts something else they wrote. There are a lot or ways to do this. On pp. 70-73, Strauss lists five different ways that Maimonides contradicts himself throughout the Guide for the Perplexed. For example, Strauss notes that it is possible to express a contradiction by contradicting not the original proposition but one of its implications. The casual reader does not notice this but the careful reader does and begins to try to understand why someone like Maimonides or Plato would make such a mistake.
A third clue is a specific instruction from the author on how to read the works of others. Thomas Pangle provides some good examples of this from Locke's First Treatise in p.137 of his The Spirit of Modern Republicanism.
Locke, e.g., wrote that "in a Discourse of this Nature," written by "a Master of Style...obscurity [which includes "silently passing over" matters that could not be avoided were a frank and full exposition provided] cannot be imputed to want of Language." This is Locke's way of telling the reader to look for such passages in his own work and to search out the hidden meaning.
The fourth clue is the use of commentary. In his essay on Farabi's
reading of Plato, Strauss points out passages where Farabi acts ignorant
of aspects of Plato philosophy of which he could not possibly be ignorant.
It is through rhetorical devices like these, that authors both indicate a
hidden meaning and hide that meaning. Obviously, there are as many
strategems as authors.
There are some obvious advantages to Strauss's approach. First, and
foremost, his is a humble approach. He does not approach the thinkers of the past assuming that he knows more than they do or that his place in history gives him a priviledged position as to truth. His approach to the reading of others opens us up to learning from them. It opens us up to the possibility that Farabi or Maimonides may enrich my life and become my teacher. Strauss has really opened up the possibilities with this approach. He is not offering us anything like a universal approach. He is forcing us to sink into the particular of each author. What we do with this approach is up to us.
Suggested readings: The essays by Diskin Clay and Paul A. Cantor in Alan Udoff's collection, Leo Strauss's Thought, are extremely useful. I flat out stole my review title form Cantor's use of a quote from Pope as an epigraph.

14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars How to write between the lines, June 16, 2000

By 

Wm M Hatch (Merced, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Persecution and the Art of Writing (Paperback)

The title essay is a masterpiece I read once a month in the course writing journalism by day and reading of political comedy by night. By day it is extremely helpful keeping my job in a political environment not particularly conducive to complete freedom of expression at times. By night, coupled with Strauss's superb "Socrates and Aristophanes" is has proved a wonderful tool for unveiling meaning in Aristophanes, Rabelais, Cervantes, Sterne, Hasek, Garcia-Marquez, Kundera and the rest of the European comic tradition. I think his idea of a literary criticism "between the lines" based on ancient rhetoricians would be an extremely useful study for younger graduate students to follow - whenever such studies become possible again. The rest of the essays apply the theory of reading between the lines in interesting limit cases of persecution of political philosophy. They may lead the general reader to try such authors as Maimonides and Spinoza. Can't speak for specialists, not being one.