Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing

by Arthur M. Melzer

Winner of a CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title Award in 2016

Philosophical esotericism--the practice of communicating one's unorthodox thoughts "between the lines"--was a common practice until the end of the eighteenth century. The famous Encyclopédie of Diderot, for instance, not only discusses this practice in over twenty different articles, but admits to employing it itself. The history of Western thought contains hundreds of such statements by major philosophers testifying to the use of esoteric writing in their own work or others'. Despite this long and well-documented history, however, esotericism is often dismissed today as a rare occurrence. But by ignoring esotericism, we risk cutting ourselves off from a full understanding of Western philosophical thought.
           
Arthur M. Melzer serves as our deeply knowledgeable guide in this capacious and engaging history of philosophical esotericism. Walking readers through both an ancient (Plato) and a modern (Machiavelli) esoteric work, he explains what esotericism is--and is not. It relies not on secret codes, but simply on a more intensive use of familiar rhetorical techniques like metaphor, irony, and insinuation. Melzer explores the various motives that led thinkers in different times and places to engage in this strange practice, while also exploring the motives that lead more recent thinkers not only to dislike and avoid this practice but to deny its very existence. In the book's final section, "A Beginner's Guide to Esoteric Reading," Melzer turns to how we might once again cultivate the long-forgotten art of reading esoteric works.

Philosophy Between the Lines is the first comprehensive, book-length study of the history and theoretical basis of philosophical esotericism, and it provides a crucial guide to how many major writings--philosophical, but also theological, political, and literary--were composed prior to the nineteenth century.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Writing, Occult, Academic, Politics

464 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Brad Lyerla · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have two things to share about this impressive book right now. The first is bad news. When you are done reading PHILOSOPHY BETWEEN THE LINES, you might conclude that you need to re-read many books that you have already read. The second is good news. Isn’t it wonderful that there is a reason to re-read great books?

Unfortunately, I am too swamped right now to write a review worthy of Melzer’s wonderful book. In the meantime, I recommend Alan E. Johnson’s review here on GoodReads if you want to understand more completely why you should read BETWEEN THE LINES.

For the fun of it, I asked ChatGPT to summarize the tenth chapter of BETWEEN THE LINES. Here is what ChatGPT offers: In Chapter 10 of Philosophy Between the Lines, Arthur Melzer delves into how the recognition of esoteric writing—particularly as revived by Leo Strauss—supports Strauss’s critique of historicism and his understanding of modernity.

Esoteric writing, according to Melzer, is a technique that many pre-modern philosophers employed to communicate their more controversial or dangerous ideas without incurring persecution or destabilizing society. Strauss, whose work Melzer engages deeply, argued that modern philosophy, starting with thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes, represents a decisive break from the ancient tradition of esoteric writing. The ancients saw a fundamental conflict between the demands of reason and the needs of society. For them, philosophers had to conceal certain truths to protect society’s stability and shield themselves from persecution. In contrast, modern philosophers embraced a more straightforward and optimistic relationship between theory and practice. This shift, for Strauss, marks the beginning of modernity, characterized by the belief that society can be reformed to align with reason.

Strauss’s critique of historicism—a view that ideas are historically determined and thus only make sense within their specific cultural and temporal contexts—relies on the rediscovery of esoteric writing. Historicism, according to Strauss, emerged when modern philosophers abandoned the esoteric tradition and began presenting their ideas more openly, as if they were universally applicable truths. Melzer explains that, for Strauss, this transition reflects a loss of philosophical subtlety and depth. Where ancient thinkers were aware that some truths were dangerous or unsuitable for public consumption, modernity’s rejection of esotericism leads to an uncritical belief in progress and the possibility of reconciling philosophy with politics.

Melzer highlights that Strauss used the practice of esoteric reading to demonstrate that many pre-modern thinkers were not historicists. They were aware that their philosophical insights transcended their historical contexts, even if they were forced to communicate them cautiously. By uncovering the esoteric layers in classical texts, Strauss argued that these thinkers were grappling with timeless truths, not just the contingencies of their specific societies. This challenges the historicist view that philosophical ideas are wholly determined by their historical circumstances.

In essence, Melzer shows that esoteric writing allows Strauss to reassert the relevance of classical philosophy in modern times. The ancients, through their subtle and concealed methods, engaged with enduring philosophical questions in ways that modernity, with its emphasis on transparency and historicism, fails to appreciate. Strauss’s method of reading between the lines thus becomes a tool for reviving a more profound engagement with the philosophical tradition, one that recognizes the limitations of historicism and the dangers of modernity’s uncritical faith in progress

[Alan Johnson]

The primary thesis of Arthur M. Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing is that "prior to the nineteenth century, all philosophers, in one degree or another, adjusted the presentation of their thought to the particular conventions prevailing in their time and place" (page 346)—in other words, that they wrote in an esoteric manner. The ancient and medieval philosophers had, according to Melzer, three reasons for such esotericism: (1) defensive esotericism (to protect the philosopher from the rage of the multitude, especially in religious matters), (2) protective esotericism (to shield ordinary people from radical ideas that challenge the ingrained prejudices of traditional political societies), and (3) pedagogic esotericism (to provide a proper method for educating future philosophers). Enlightenment philosophers added what the author calls "political esotericism" (an attempt to gradually make the populace more rational, albeit with some temporary accommodation to defensive esotericism); they also opposed the whole enterprise of protective esotericism. Furthermore, pedagogic esotericism has, according to Melzer, largely given way, during the last two centuries, to new styles of collective scholarship.

Ancient and medieval philosophers, in this reading, had no interest in enlightening the masses. They believed that a permanent conflict existed between philosophy and the public such that philosophy is always both in danger from and a danger to the multitude. In contrast, the Enlightenment philosophers believed that harmony could eventually exist between philosophy and popular opinion. Their task, as they saw it, was to make that harmony possible by gradually enlightening the masses and improving their material conditions through technology. Thus, modern philosophy, in the view of Melzer, brought philosophy down from the clouds to be in service to the political and economic needs of humankind. The ancient and medieval philosophers pursued a "philosophic politics" with the sole purpose of protecting philosophers from the community and the community from the philosophers. The modern philosophers subordinated philosophy to the needs of the many.

Philosophical esotericism, as described by Melzer (and by Leo Strauss, whom Melzer frequently cites and claims to follow), is thus to be distinguished from mysticism. Philosophical esotericism has little in common with mystical Neo-Platonism or mystical religious views of any kind. The conflation of philosophical and mystical esotericism has been responsible, in part, for the widespread ignorance and/or condemnation of philosophical esotericism since 1800. Another reason for the present-day hostility to philosophical esotericism has been the very success of the Enlightenment project. Today, we have scientists and philosophers openly proclaiming atheism and agnosticism—views that would have caused them to be burned at the stake in earlier centuries. Philosophical esotericism thus seems to be no longer necessary and, for that reason, largely forgotten as a historical phenomenon.

It must be acknowledged that Melzer proves his thesis that the major philosophers practiced esoteric writing before 1800. In fact, as Melzer amply demonstrates in the voluminous online appendix to his work, many philosophers before 1800 explicitly admitted engaging in esoteric writing. Acceptance of this historical conclusion liberates the postmodern reader from one of the greatest fallacies of our time: historicism. The historicists point to the antiquated statements of philosophers throughout the ages as proving that all philosophers are merely products of, or mouthpieces for, the particular times and places in which they lived. Melzer— and, before him, Strauss and other Straussians—can be thanked for pointing out that the statements so characterized by historicists were merely exoteric expressions of the philosophers who wrote before 1800. A true understanding of these philosophers can be acquired only by a careful and difficult hermeneutical examination of their writings. Melzer provides an excellent introduction to such esoteric interpretation in chapter 9 ("A Beginner's Guide to Esoteric Reading") of his book.

Melzer's book also contains many other explicit and implicit arguments and observations. Some of these are quite illuminating. Others are, to my mind, incorrect or questionable. For example, Melzer writes that Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) was the first to explicitly and publicly advocate complete liberty of conscience and separation of church and state (pages 181, 258). This repeated statement ignores—as does Melzer's book generally—the great contribution of Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1683), whose explicit public advocacy of these principles resulted in the English Parliament ordering the public hangman to burn his Bloudy Tenent, of Persecution, for cause of Conscience in 1644. As a result of this and other of his writings and statements published before Bayle was born or old enough to write his own publications, Williams became an extremely controversial figure, both in England and in New England (where he was banished from Massachusetts Bay for the public expression of these and related views in 1635-36). More than a decade before Bayle was even born, Williams had already founded Providence (now in Rhode Island)—a community expressly dedicated to liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. And Williams's writings and teachings influenced others to speak out publicly in favor of liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. Indeed, one of Williams's close friends, John Milton, published writings supporting a modified (perhaps somewhat more esoteric) version of Williams's radical views during the same time period. Several of the so-called "sectarians" and Levellers during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum also appear to have been influenced by Williams before they publicly advocated these principles. It is even an interesting question whether John Locke himself was influenced, directly or indirectly, by Williams's writings. I elaborate upon these developments and inquiries, among others, in my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience.

Williams himself was not an Enlightenment figure. Although he adduced secular reasons for his principles, he also relied (as did Locke and others) on scriptural interpretation in arguing for liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. In Williams's case, such citation to scriptural authority was probably not merely exoteric. But his essential arguments were so clear and so convincing that they provided a strong foundation for the modern concept of the purely secular state—arguments that were entirely in conflict with the prevailing orthodoxy of his time. Williams argued that civil government does not need ecclesiastical support and that any mixture of government and religion results in the corruption of both government and religion. These arguments were later restated in a more secular context by such Enlightenment luminaries as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

My more complete review, if any, of Melzer's book will have to await another time and place. For now, Melzer is to be congratulated for his erudite elaboration of views expressed by Leo Strauss in Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952) and other writings. Among the questions to be considered further are whether Melzer's views are identical to those of Strauss (though it is evident that a substantial overlap exists), whether it is desirable—or even possible—to return to the premodern view that philosophy should not attempt to encourage people to become more rational (an apparent premise of Melzer's and perhaps Strauss's arguments), and whether some kind of modified Enlightenment understanding of the proper role of philosophy can and should be adopted. Although the last paragraph of Melzer's book acknowledges that Strauss "did not hold (and it does not follow) that this practice [of esoteric writing] must therefore be universally restored and the Enlightenment somehow be undone," Melzer and the Straussians generally, as far as I know, do not address in any detail what their approach means in practice. Do they support the contemporary attempts of the Religious Right to restore theocratic laws and customs rejected out of hand by Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison? Do they wish for Western Europe and the United States to return to the traditional political societies of ancient Greece—polities based on theocratic or Erastian principles? It is the perhaps esoteric lack of clarity about such specifics that has contributed to the prejudice against the Straussians. That is unfortunate, because, as this book demonstrates, many of their arguments are based on solid reasoning and evidence.

(Originally posted 2/6/2015; revised 8/9/2015)

[Danny Druid · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is one of the most delightful intellectual experiences I have had in a very long time. Arthur Melzer's book is about the history of the lost practice of esoteric writing, a practice whereby authors conceal their true intentions, feelings, or doctrines through a variety of rhetorical techniques. But more importantly, Melzer's book is about how human beings learn, and how our understanding of how humans learn has changed in the shift from Tradition to Modernity during the "Enlightenment", the most ironically named time period in all of human history. Melzer's insights into the nature of learning are actually more valuable than the main topic itself.

Melzer's nuance shows itself in such instances as when he describes that different authors used esotericism for different reasons. Cicero and Aristotle, for instance, where almost certainly atheists who were pretending not to be to avoid persecution. This is more obvious for Machiavelli and Rousseau. Plato on the other hand had a mystical doctrine that while probably theistic was at-odds with the religious thinking of the time and thus had to be hidden, but more importantly he did not this doctrine to be something that can be revealed to one who was unworthy.

My favorite thing about this book is that it is a self-demonstrating example. The author claims at the beginning of the book that he in fact disapproves of the practice of esoteric writing and would never engage in it himself, a dead give-away that he is in fact going to engage in esoteric writing. He adopts the posture of a modernist all throughout the text. But his critique of modernity and of cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism are too impossibly good for him to really be a true believer in these socio-political projects. His arguments in favor of what he ostensibly believes are so weak and halfhearted that it is obvious that they are insincere. He brilliantly uses one of the esoteric techniques of writing he describes in the book: Claiming to disagree with something while making very strong arguments in favor of it, and then attacking those arguments with weak arguments. That way you can advance your counter-cultural ideas whilst also defending yourself.

Highly, highly recommended for anyone who reads the Classics, and since everyone should read the Classics, what I mean to say is that everyone should read this book.

[حسين إسماعيل]

ليس من النادر أن أقرأ كتابًا كنت أؤجله فترة من الزمن فأكتشف إنه أحد الكتب التي أتمنى لو وقعت عليها قبل سنين. يبدو حينها كتابًا منشودًا، كتابًا ي��يب على كل الأسئلة التي تدور بمخيلتي. لكن معضلةً معينة تقابل هذه الأمنية: لو قرأته في السابق لما كنت قد أدركته لهذا الحد، ولعلي لم أكن لأقدّره حق تقديره كما أعتقد أنني أفعل الآن.
أزعم أن كتاب آرثر ميلزر المعنون بـ "الفلسفة ما بين السطور: التاريخ المفقود للكتابة الباطنية" أحد هذه الكتب، أو هكذا بدا بالنسبة لي. كما يشير العنوان، يتطرق ميلزر إلى ما يسميه الكتابة الفلسفية الباطنية، وهي الفلسفة التي تتوارى بشكل عام وراء ظاهر النص المكتوب. تتعدد أسباب ودوافع هذا النوع من الكتابة، لكن يمكن القول أنه دائمًا ما يُبنى على طرحٍ مزدوج. يوظف الفيلسوف مختلف الأساليب والأدوات لطرح أفكاره وآرائه الحقيقة بشكل خفيّ لا يتوصل إليه إلا القارئ الجاد والسائر على درب التفلسف، إذ أن هذا القارئ هو القادر على تمييز ظاهر النص من باطنه. فكل الكتب صماء، وظاهر النص يقول الشيء ذاته لجميع الناس. إذن، لتخصيص فئةٍ معينةٍ بالخطاب الفلسفي، لا بد من مواراته خلف السطور. ولئلا يستهجن القارئ هذا المبدأ النخبوي بتخصيص الفلسفة لفئة معينة، فلا بد من ذكر أمرين: أولًا، تُبنى هذه النخبوية على فكرة أن الفلسفة غير قابلة للتعليم، بل هي أمر لا بد أن ينبع من الذات. ثانيًا، التباين بين طبقات المجتمع المختلفة تاريخيًا كان أكبر مما يمكن أن نتصوره بمفاهيمنا الحديثة؛ فمن الممكن أن يكون لكل فئة أرستقراطية عاداتهم وقيمهم الخاصة التي لا تشاركهم فيها الطبقات الأرستقراطية الأخرى.
يقول ميلزر أن الكتابة الفلسفية الباطنية ظلت متواجدةً بشكلٍ جليٍّ حتى بدايات ما يسمى بالعصر الحديث في تاريخ الفلسفة الغربية، إذ بعدها حدث تحوّلٌ في مفهوم الفلسفة وعلاقتها المجتمع فباتت الكتابة الباطنية (وبذلك القراءة الباطنية أيضًا) منسيّة. ولذا، لفهم الفلسفة الكلاسيكية، لا بد من الأخذ بعين الاعتبار جوهرها المختلف عن فلسفتنا.
قبل التفصل في محتوى الكتاب، أجد نفسي ملزمًا لاستعراض الأسباب التي دفعتني لقراءة الكتاب والكتابة عنه، ولو بشكل وجيز. لطالما وجدتني مهتمًا بالفلسفة. وكأي مهتم بها، لم أكن أعلم من أين أبدأ. لا أزعم أنني توصلت إلى جواب قطعي حيال البدء بنصوص دون أخرى، ولكن أظنني كوّنت بعض الأسس أو القواعد التي أحاول ألا أحيل عنها. فعلى سبيل المثال، أؤمن بضرورة قراءة الفلسفة من منابعها؛ إذا أردت فهم فلسفة أو فيلسوف ما، فسأسعى أن أتوجه لأمهات الكتب مباشرة. ما كوّن هذه القاعدة لدي هو أنني كلما قرأت لفيلسوفٍ ما، وجدتني غالبًا أفهم طرحه بشكل مختلف عما كنت قد قرأت عنه. تكَرُّر هذا الشيء مع عدة فلاسفةٍ دفعني في نهاية المطاف لتجنب أي استنتاجات مسبقةٍ تحكم قراءتي للنص.
بالإضافة لذلك، كنت منهمكًا في التأمل حول علاقة الفلسفة بغيرها من المجالات، وهو التقسيم الذي صرت أرى اعتباطيته كضرر لا بد لي من تجاوزه. في هذا السياق، يتطلب الإلمام بالفلسفة إلمامًا بغيرها؛ مهما اتسع فضاء الفلسفة، لا يمكن عزلها عن غيرها من المجالات (كما أنه لا يمكن عزل بقية المجالات عنها).
يتطرق كتاب ميلزر لهذه الأفكار وغيرها في طرح يحاول تفسيرها ضمن إطار متسق. فبعد تقديم فكرة مبدئية في مقدمة الكتاب عن الكتابة والقراءة الباطنيتين، يقسم مليزر الكتاب لثلاثة أجزاء رئيسية لشرح علاقة الفلسفة الباطنية بظواهر من قبيل التحول في مفهوم الفلسفة بين العصر الحديث والعصور الكلاسيكية، وعلاقة الفلسفة بالمجتمع، والأشكال التاريخية المختلفة للفلسفة الباطنية، بالإضافة لاستعراض الأضرار الناتجة عن إهمال القراءة الباطنية المتأنية للنصوص الفلسفية. فالجزء الأول مثلًا يحاول إثبات وجود فكرة الفلسفة الباطنية كجزء لا يتجزأ من الفلسفة والتأريخ الفكري بشكل عام، حيث يستعرض ميلزر أدلة وجودها منذ فجر التاريخ حتى بدايات العصر الحديث، كما يناقش أهميتها بالنسبة لمختلف الفلاسفة. أما الجزء الثاني فيتطرق للأشكال التاريخية المختلفة للفلسفة الباطنية، وهي مرتبطة رأسًا بالأسباب والدوافع التي أوجدتها في المقام الأول. هناك أولًا الباطنية الحمائية، إن صح التعبير، وهي التي تنطلق من فكرة أن الفلسفة ضارة بالمجتمع، وعليه فإن حماية المجتمع تقتضي مواراة الفلسفة أو إبقاءها بعيدًا عن أعين العامة. هناك أيضًا الباطنية الدفاعية، وهي تنطلق من مبدأ أن على الفيلسوف دفع الضرر الناتج عن محاكمة السلطات والمجتمع لأفكاره الفلسفية، مما يعني ضرورة صياغتها بشكل لا يتسبب بالهجوم على ذات الفيلسوف. ثالثًا، هناك الباطنية التعليمية، وهي التي تتعلق بالغاية من الكتابة الفلسفية في المقام الأول (باعتبار أنها قد تتسبب بالضرر للمجتمع أو الفيلسوف). على ضوء الباطنية التعليمية، ترتكز ضرورة الكتابة الباطنية على تمييز الفلاسفة المحتملين من غيرهم من الناس عبر مواراة الجوهر الفلسفي خلف ظاهر لا يثير إشكال العامة. أما الشكل الرابع والأخير فهو الباطنية السياسية، وهو مبنيّ على أساس التوظيف السياسي للفلسفة بغرض إحداث تغيير في المجتمع.
من الضروري الإشارة هنا إلى أحد التقسيمات الرئيسية في طرح ميلزر. ما يميز الفلسفة الحديثة عن الكلاسيكية بالنسبة إليه هو الاختلاف الجذري في علاقة الفلسفة بالمجتمع. ففيما تلعب الفلسفة في عصرنا دورًا رئيسيًا في عقلنة المجتمع والتحسين من جودة الحياة ككل، كانت عبر التاريخ في شقاق تام مع الحياة الاجتماعية. بعبارة أخرى، جوهر الحياة الفلسفية منافٍ للحياة الاجتماعية. يشير ميلزر إلى ارتكاز الباطنية الدفاعية والحمائية والتعليمية على أنه من غير الممكن التوفيق بين الحياة الفلسفية والحياة الاجتماعية؛ لطالما وقفت حياة التأمل والنزعة لتجاوز الأوهام الحياتيّة ضد الحياة العملية التي تستلزم بعض الأسس والأوهام لتعمل كما يجب.
على ضوء هذا التمييز، يقول ميلزر أن الأشكال الثلاثة الأولى للفلسفة الباطنية قد تواجدت في العصور الكلاسيكية بشكل رئيسي. أما الشكل الرابع، وهو الباطنية السياسية، فوجوده مقتصرٌ على العصر الحديث. فبحسبما يطرح ميلزر، يُبنى هذا الشكل على إمكانية الارتقاء بالمجتمع ككل عن طريق نشر الفلسفة وما إلى ذلك؛ تتواجد الحياتان الفلسفية والاجتماعية في وفاق تام، وكلٌّ يستعين بالآخر.
يتطرق ميلزر بطبيعة الحال للصراعات التي جرت بين الفلسفة والدين مثلًا (أو العقل والوحي) وغيرها من الصراعات الرئيسية في عصر التنوير وما تلاه، سوى أنه يقلل بطريقة غير مباشرة من الخلاف بين تلك التيارات بحكم أنها تنطلق من نظرة توفيقية على الأغلب. بعبارة أخرى، برغم الشقاق الظاهر بين التيارات المتقابلة إلا أنها تمتلك الجذر نفسه، واختلافها يكمن فيمن يعتلي الآخر وحسب.
بالإضافة لذلك، يستعرض ميلزر شكل مفصل الإشكاليات التي تطرحها كل من الفلسفتان الأصولية والتاريخانية، مشيرًا في الآن نفسه لضرورة تجاوزهما عبر إعادة الحياة للقراءة الباطنية للفلسفة. ولعل نقده للتاريخانية هو الأشد من بين الاثنين، إذ أنه يرى خطر توغل النسبوية الثقافية والرفض المطلق لأي خطاب متسامٍ على جوهر الفلسفة كما تواجد في العصور السابقة. فبما أن التاريخانية نشأت كردة فعل على فلسفة الحداثة ومنطلقاتها التي تأسست في عصر التنوير، يشدد الكاتب على أهمية العودة بمفهوم الفلسفة لما قبل عصر التنوير، متبنيًا وجهة نظر المفكر السياسي ليو شتراوس.
لا شك وأن تناول كل نقاطه على حدة يتطلب سطورًا عديدة، وهذا ما لا أريد القيام به هنا. ما أظنه جديرًا بالإشارة في الختام هو أن الكتاب يستهدف بشكل رئيسي الجمهور الغربي. هذا الاستهداف مبني على افتراض الكاتب أن الظروف التاريخية للمجتمعات الغربية (وخصوصًا الدول الديموقراطية-الليبرالية) جعلتها تنزع إلى تهميش الكتابة الفلسفة الباطنية بوصفها نخبوية، مستبدلًا إياها بفلسفة اجتماعية تحاول مخاطبة الجميع وإعطائهم حرية التعبير من أجل الارتقاء بالمجتمع ككل. هذا لا يعني أنها لا تتواجد في عصرنا، بل أؤمن أن الكاتب نفسه يتناول هذا الأمور باطنيًا. ففحوى طرحه في هذا الأمر يشير إلى أن الكتابة الباطنية تتواجد طالما شعرت جماعة ما بأنها مضطهدة (وهذا موجود في كل مكان وزمان).

[Mohamed al-Jamri · Rating 3 out of 5]

من منا لم يسمع عن المعنى الظاهر والباطن، والتفسير الباطني للقرآن؟ ظاهرة وجود معاني باطنية لبعض النصوص واضحة عندنا، وكانت منتشرة بكثرة بين الفلاسفة، ولكنها اضمحلت مع انتصار الحركات السياسية الليبرالية في أوروبا والغرب، حيث انتصرت قيم حرية التعبير والنشر.

أدى هذا، بالإضافة لأسباب أخرى، لاختفاء ظاهرة الكتابة الباطنية، أو ما بين السطور حسب تعبير الكاتب، ومع الوقت تم نسيان وجود هذه الظاهرة وقراءة النصوص القديمة قراءة ظاهرية بحتة. إن إعادة الاعتبار للقراءة الباطنية لنصوص أبرز الفلاسفة -كما دعا له الفيلسوف ليو شتراوس من قبل- كفيل بعمل تغيير جذري لفهمنا لكل تاريخ الفلسفة

ولكن لماذا عمد كثير من المفكرين عبر التاريخ لإخفاء أفكارهم الحقيقية، وإظهار اعتقادات تكون مطابقة لمجتمعاتهم؟ لماذا تعمدوا أن تكون كتاباتهم صعبة الفهم وألا تظهر مقاصدهم إلا بتورية وبقراءة متأنية بين السطور؟ وكيف تمكنوا من إخفاء أفكارهم في نصوص منشورة للجميع؟

في هذا الكتاب يؤصل الكاتب آرثر ميلزر لهذه الظاهر عبر التاريخ ومن ثم يتقصى الأسباب المختلفة لها. وفي الحقيقة يبالغ الكاتب في إثبات وجود الكتابات الباطنية، فنجده يستشهد بعدد كبير من الفلاسفة الذين ذكروا صراحة وجودها وتحليلهم للمعاني الباطنية لغيرهم. يبدو أن سبب المبالغة هو الرفض الشديد الذي تلقاه هذه الفكرة في الأكاديميا الغربية

يرى الكاتب أن أربعة أسباب دفعت لاستخدام التورية؛ الأول واضح وهو حماية النفس، فبعض الأمور يؤدي التصريح بها للصدام مع السلطة أو المجتمع، وإن أصبحت من المسلمات في عصر لاحق. قصة إعدام سقراط مثال بارز، وهناك الكثير ممن أبعد أو نفي أو سجن بسبب ما كتب

السبب الثاني قد يبدو غريبًا لنا اليوم. إنه الخوف على المجتمع من بعض الحقائق الخطيرة أو الصادمة. تصوّر الكثير من الفلاسفة أن بعض الأفكار قد تؤدي لهدم بنية المجتمع، مثل عدم وجود سبب للتمييز بين البشر، في حين أن المجتمع به الحر والعبد، الحاكم والمحكوم، أصحاب المهن السهلة والمربحة وأصحاب المهن الخطيرة والضارة بصاحبها الخ. فحماية للمجتمع من هذه الأفكار، لم يتم التصريح بها

السبب الثالث هو تعليم تلاميذ الفلاسفة. إن عدم التصريح بفكرة ما سيدفع التلاميذ ليقوموا بقراءة النص بشكل دقيق، وسيصلون للمعنى المطلوب عن طريق إعمال عقولهم بشكل دقيق، وهو هدف الفلسفة، فليس هدفها نقل المعرفة بشكل مباشر، بل إعمال العقل للوصول للحقيقة

السبب الرابع يخص الفلاسفة المتأخرين فقط، وهم الثوريون الذين هدفوا لتغيير أنظمة الحكم إبان عصر التنوير في أوروبا. عمد هؤلاء إلى استخدام أسلوب الكتابة الباطنية لنشر أفكارهم الثورية، وفي نفس الوقت أدانوا أسلوب التورية ودعوا لحرية التعبير وللكتابة الصريحة الواضحة. إن استخدامهم للكتابة الباطنية كان يهدف لانهاء الحاجة لاستخدامها في المستقبل.

لا يذكر الكاتب أمثلة كثيرة لكتابات باطنية، ولكن أحد الأمثلة المذكورة هي لمكيافيلي وهو أحد الكتاب الذين اشتهر استخدامهم للتورية. يذكر مكيافيلي في كتاب الأمير قصة داوود وجالوت التي وردت في الكتاب المقدس، ولكنه يرتكب خطأً، فيذكر أن داوود بالإضافة للمقلاع كان يحمل سكينًا. وهذا ليس خطأً بسيطًا، فالكتاب المقدس يذكر صراحة أن داوود ذهب بلا سلاح، بل وأنه عندما واجه عدوه ذكر أن يذهب له ومعه الله فقط. مثل هذا الخطأ الكبير المتعمد هو من الوسائل التي استخدمها الفلاسفة للتورية، فمكيافيلي كما يبدو يريد الدعوة للاتكال على النفس. هذه إحدى طرق التورية ويذكر الكاتب طرقًا أخرى مثيرة للاهتمام.

فكرة الكتاب ممتازة وقوية، ولكن عابه الحجم الكبير واستخدام أسلوب أكاديمي قريب للجفاف بسبب محاولة الكاتب إثبات وجهة نظره بصورة لا لبس فيها. في الغالب لو لم يكن مسموعُا لما أتممته.

[Pat Rolston · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book and I experienced it in audio format. I write this more as a recommendation for the format given my initial doubts due to the challenging material. The premise is that our great philosophers wrote in an esoteric manner forcing a deep parsing of the content for hidden meaning. The subject I found extremely fascinating and writing quality superb. It actually turned out to be an excellent audio book that is well executed. It is also far less intimidating intellectually as the author goes to great lengths to explain and analogise his theories. If anything the explanations and examples are occasionally overdone. This is well worth the time and do enjoy the audio version of a great book.

[Jimmy Liu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Before this book, I sometimes wondered if I should have majored in philosophy in college. Now, I am deeply grateful that I didn't.

[Ari · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read through the first sections with excitement, then stalled out in the middle, which was long and abstract, and then enjoyed the last two chapters.

The basic claim is that many pre-modern philosophers often wrote things they didn't really believe, and left hints to indicate this. A close and careful reading can then uncover these hidden messages. This may sound like a bold, perhaps nutty claim, but Melzer presents it in a way that makes it seem not only erasable, but obvious. The first half of the book lays out the evidence for esoteric writing.

1) It is routine to read literature this way. Nobody would be surprised to hear that a novel or a movie might have contrasting messages on the surface and underneath. We understand that J. D. Salinger might have intended childish and adult readers to perceive Holden Caulfield in very different ways. It should not shock us that Plato uses the character of Socrates in the Republic in similar ways.

2) There is immense amount of documentary evidence that this sort of thing is going on, and that it was widely known to be going on, until the last 150 years. Often, ancient and medieval writers will expressly talk about the pitfalls of writing and the need for concealment and obscurity. Particularly in the early modern period, 1650 - 1800, we have extremely good documentary evidence that writers tried to cover over heterodox or alarming thoughts, while professing to be good conformists. They said this, explicitly, in their private letters to each other.

3) Modern writers in un-free states do this. We have ample testimony from east-bloc writers that they would piously assert the ruling dogma while leaving hints for a clever reader that this was not their real view. It turns out that it's not that hard to construct a text that speaks to a careful reader, but where a lazy censor will notice nothing amiss, and even a careful censor won't be confident in their conclusion.

In the middle of the book, Melzer describes why writers might choose to communicate esoterically (beyond the obvious answer of "to avoid persecution." The conclusion discusses the broader philosophical significance of esoteric writing, drawing heavily on Leo Strauss but explaining things more gently and clearly than Strauss typically does.

If you are curious about Strauss, I would read this book first since it fills in the gaps in Strauss's elliptic sentences with gentle, clear and well-footnoted prose.

[Eric Chevlen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Were I to write here about this book, to tell you about its thesis and style, I would simply be repeating what other reviewers (easily accessed) have already done. It is not likely that I would do that better than they have. Rather, I'll tell you about the experience, for me, of reading this book.

It was breathtaking!

Melzer methodically reveals the tacit unfounded presuppositions underlying the modern understanding of classical philosophy. More, he demonstrates persuasively that many of those presuppositions are in flagrant contradiction to the evidence of the texts themselves. Finally, he analyzes how and why it is that these errors arose. Basing much of his discussion on the works of Leo Strauss, he calls into question the modern foundational notions of (philosophical) progress, historicism, and cultural relativity.

Alternatively, were I to express my experience poetically, I would simply be re-writing "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer."

The title of this book is so arcane that many potential readers will be put off by that alone. The title is not misleading; it perfectly describes the subject matter of the book. But the reaction that many have—and I was one of them—to that title is terribly misleading. This is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

This took so long time for me to finish. It's really a series of related essays on the topic, with a certain amount of referential overlap that was more obvious to me when I got to the end. The final section on Rationality vs Historicism is quite dry and the arguments given are abstract and not grounded in many examples. I did enjoy learning about the history of esoteric writing.

[Glaux]

This book concerns more than just esoteric writing. It's a useful (though not impartial) introduction to the thought of Leo Strauss. And although there may be other more suitable references for those looking into Straussianism (or are there?), Chapters 3 and 10 of Melzer's book will probably become my go-to reference for very clear and fairly thorough expositions of the Straussian positions on theory v. praxis, ancient v. modern, and especially Strauss' defense of reason in the face of a) postmodernism and b) a version of philosophy that has been infiltrated by religious and mystical notions.

Chapters 2 and 9 notwithstanding, the book dwells more on the theoretical and historical causes of esoteric writing than practical instruction in esoteric reading or sustained interpretation of esoteric passages. The author's thesis is likely unpopular, and so he naturally needed to devote more space than most both to prophylactic rejoinders and the elaborate construction of a historical (?) backdrop before which esotericism begins to look plausible as a historical phenomenon. Nevertheless, exempla are rare and detailed exempla are wholly absent. This leaves me a bit disappointed, although the author may have revealed just enough about how to read esoterically if he's correct that the skill can be learned but not taught.

Each reader will have to decide for him/herself to what degree Melzer's argument is convincing and meaningful. I'm philosophically disposed to agree with Melzer and am therefore not an ideal judge. But that won't stop me from offering a broad opinion: the more convincing the argument gets, the less meaningful it seems to become. How pure a version of esotericism is Melzer dealing with here? He seems to confuse esoteric writing with difficult and technical writing in his Ch. 1 case for the esoteric habits of Aristotle and then with transparent figures of speech in a Ch. 5 discussion of contemporary culture that ranges from "gay vague" to the lyrics of the decidedly non-esoteric folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary. If esoteric writing is the unexceptional stuff of advertisements and pop-folk lyricists, is it really something philosophy students should concern themselves with?

In short, some of M's arguments are stronger than others, and some applications of his theory are more natural, others more forced. I hope it's clear that I'm not making any deep objections, but pointing out that more clarity or explicitness in defining key terms (or really just "key term") would have helped M stay focused on the areas and authors where his analyses seem most apposite and potent (Plato, Maimonides, Diderot).

I have more to say and may edit this later to include it. For now, one final word of praise for excellent bibliography and endnotes.

[0:50 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kind of a game-changer of a book: raises the stakes for anyone involved in any sort of intellectual life. The dimension of esoteric writing is simultaneously both enthralling and frustrating, and it is understandable that it is not much talked about. I suppose there must exist some type of agreed limit as to how far interpretative and textual difficulties can be taken, and the undeniable reality of esoteric writing would just make everything that much more complicated. Melzer has his own limits too, refusing to extend his scepticism regarding the apparent given text all the way to textual history and the issue of forgery, which conveniently allows us to believe that it is only in our modern age that we have entered some kind of "post-truth".

But so far as the texts are treated conventionally, the question of their esotericism still pertains to their meaning, and can't really be ignored in light of the evidence and even in the light of common sense of what we know about history. Curiously enough, the hard-nosed postmodern or Marxist or the like, though not postmodern neo-marxist, has to live with a glaring blindspot with regards to this issue: while he would relish in his cynicism upon performing some exercise of reduction of an idea to some historical contingency of his preference, he takes on the role of a naïf with respect to the issue of esotericism, as if the writers who communicated these ideas could not engage in multilevel writing, especially in times when their ideas didn't enjoy universal acceptability. To create the convenient historicist narratives, either dialectical or postmodern, the writer has to treat the authors of the text rather superficially as sorts of embodiments of plain-sight historical processes and such table-talk can hardly access the types of intricacies these people could put into their texts, often by their own admission and often necessitated by the very historical context the historicist is supposed to venerate.

Funnily enough, the esotericist model pushes the demand for the historical contingency of ideas so far that it discovers the necessity of esotericism at the end and with it the omnipresence of authorial intention haunting the work. Melzer makes a case that authors, especially classic ones, should be given their due: we should, when possible, assume that every part of the work is intended. He opposes the laziness of the degradation of authorial intention, and I tend to agree that overly text-oriented approach has the danger of allowing anachronistic and nonsensical misinterpretations by making it impossible to read anything between the lines except based on one's own vulgar-modern prejudices about some neatly completed historical trajectory, a lie repeated so many times people have simply had to start believing in it.

However, this approach is obviously problematic given the looming catastrophe of textual issues: people debate about the authenticity of Aristotle's Categories but if you really think about it, we can't *really* be sure that the text we have is something that Plato sat down to write in Ancient Greece, as Melzer expresses it in the book. So here Melzer, and Strauss, themselves run up into problems in discovering the omniscient figure of an author at the end of their admirable project of taking the historical contingency so far as to result in a conclusion untenable for it. I mean: whose intentions are we really looking at with these texts? I guess you could try to make some argument for the transcendental necessity for always presuming the author's identity, but that turns to religion. Actually this kind of reminds me of Godfrey Higgins' biting remarks on Kabbalah being far from a delicate mystery, but rather an idle amusement to create order out of a disorder of cobbled-together Oriental myths constitute the Bible. If textual history is not regarded with constant skepticism and an openness towards some degree of fictionalism, there is a danger of falling into something like that. Ultimately: are we supposed to just try to create syntheses based on an uncritical veneration of Greeks and the Jews, the endless cliché of Athens and Jerusalem, and ignore the much vaster tradition that both of these are based on?

One possibility of salvation here could be to make use of the concept of mnemohistory as advanced by scholars such as Jan Assmann. It basically means that we would not be studying ancient texts as representations of real intentions but rather studying how they have been remembered in history. Even from this modest perspective, the esotericist critique makes sense: these figures have been remembered in a fundamentally incoherent way. They've been remembered as objects of cynical reduction and yet this historical reduction did not manage to account for esotericism and the new pathways it would open towards interpretation. Of course, this all has more to do with authors of the Classical era rather than the Early Moderns, although even then it came as a surprise to me that luminaries such as Voltaire published all their works anonymously. With regards to early modern esotericism, I myself think their esotericism might be partially bait because it is self-admitted more often than in the Classical cases. Considering that their goal was to change society in an activist manner, the esotericism of the text becomes not just a means of pedagogy but also of manipulation: and what better way to manipulate people than to make them feel like they've been let in on a secret, even though there could be much bigger secrets in the background: like, for example, that maybe the original esotericism never died but became more and more intense. I've thought this sometimes, in a rather anti-intellectual manner, about many abstruse philosophers: isn't it so that when you manage to understand what they say, you feel an elation comparable to solving a puzzle or something. The only thing is, understanding didn't result in anything, you didn't "solve" the text or reach a truth, you just deciphered it. But what if this type of association creates actual belief through mere comprehension? What a trick that would be: "cave within a cave", as Strauss said, indeed..

Anyway, despite some complaints like this, there was much I enjoyed and it definitely deserves a 5 star rating from me: at least it's one scepticism-level above the mainstream Continental narratives. Or, honestly speaking: it was a perfect kind of non-fiction book for me now, very well written and clear and not a brutal beatdown like that damn Godfrey Higgins book.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

It takes time to discover the potential of a good book. It takes more than one reading and some contemplation to properly absorb it's message. Sadly, readers quickly consume and then set aside their good books in order that they may immediately tuck into the next round of new releases.

I feel this may be the case with ArthurMelzer's "Philosophy Between the Lines". The uniqueness of Melzer's contribution was immediately apparent. However it is a call to better understand our shared philosophical legacy, and a story of that scope can't really be closed until the reader knows whether or not the book has actually helped them achieve a better understand of that legacy. That takes time.

That's why I've refrained from saying much about Melzer's book until now. "Philosophy Between the Lines" has proven to be a valuable desk companion. It would be easy to say Melzer pushes the reader into a paranoid view of literature. A view of political literature that hinges on the discovery of arcane symbology and esoteric messages will, I feel, be frustratingly unproductive. I see Melzer's book rather as a much needed approach to understanding political thought more akin to a literary source criticism; a practical addition to the scholar's toolbox.

Melzer has inspired me to return to other works of political thought in a more deliberate fashion. As an example, I am beginning to better understand the extent of Rousseau's reliance on classical sources. I'm sure scholars have already fleshed out this aspect of Rousseau yet it is highly satisfying to discover it for oneself.

[Mike Schellman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm still chewing on some of the things said in this book. First thing, it should be stated up front that this is not a book about mystical or occult literature. It is a book about a style of writing that presents two faces to its readers. An exoteric face that, for affirms the social norms of the day, and a second level where the author shares his true criticisms, ideals, and proposals. I think the author does a good job of proving that philosophical esotericism was a real thing - mainly by sharing statements from philosophers themselves who openly state what they are doing. He also does a good job of introducing the reader to some of the techniques of esoteric writing and pointing to some of the key figures which one may want to read to learn more about the practice. His discussion of motives is also interesting - especially the pedagogical motive - drawing on historic thinkers criticism of how the kind of straight forward, direct communication we have come to prize makes us assume we actually know a lot when we have simply been told a lot. In other words, we become book smart - having never really done anything to earn the things we fill our heads with. Lots of stuff to think about - and definitely worth another, closer read.

[Brian Hanson · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's an African proverb cited in this book: when you are approached by a man in authority, bow low and fart quietly. Figuratively speaking this is what the writers covered by Melzer's research have been up to: bowing to conventional (or enforced) wisdom in their "exoteric" writings, while saying how they really feel in their secret, esoteric work. A protégé of the conservative, Chicago school thinker, Leo Strauss, who also studied these matters, Melzer defends his old teacher against an academia that has long sought to dismiss the reality of such writings. It is important to Melzer, as it was to Strauss, to insist on esoteric writing, in order to argue that thinkers in history were never as shaped by prevailing orthodoxies as their public writings and utterances may make them appear to be. They often deviated from the "party line", and expressed this in the only way they could, through secret compositions. So you cannot judge a person only on the strength of their public expressions, nor can you insist that every individual in an historic era was inevitably shaped by prevailing cultural forces. A persuasive work.

[Beukenick · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a strange book. I can't read it seriously, because I constantly felt being lied to. The author writes against writing, arguing that arguments are not what they seem. Of course, some 'smart' readers can reach the esoteric intentions of a text and the author clearly places himself in that category. Even more strange, he constantly wonders why nobody argues against the claim that texts can have esoteric meanings, as if that is an argument for it. So if nobody argues against the fact a swimming pool orbits earth, it must be the case?

[Moin Uddin]

An amazing anthology of the history of esoteric writing. Two catch words, subversive and sublime. Philosophers, from Plato to Machiavelli, adopted esoteric ways of writing to conceal the subversion or to elaborate on the sublime facts.

The craft of esoteric writing reached to the pinnacle in the period of the highest censorship. Esoteric writing emerged as a craft. The author has dispelled the myth that there are any hidden secret codes in esoteric writings. An interesting account why Russian literature became so powerful is because of its censorship.

Recommended reading.

[Zeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Attempts a few too many things. The first section is a useful history of the practise of esotericism - where it’s found, when, and a couple of examples. The second is definitely thought-provoking in explaining why esotericism might be used. But the last section attempts to synthesise a few too many elements together, and it’s hard to see why I wouldn’t just read Strauss in that section (noting I haven’t read Strauss before).

[Michael Michailidis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening

The basic prejudice of our times is that we have no prejudice. And that is why we fail to understand how much of our “common sent se” is neither common nor does it make sense. It was rather the invention of this “Illuminati” who created the modern world as a project against the Christian order of Europe. The key to discovering these secrets lies in the lost art that this book uncovers.

[Fraser Kinnear · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is much more focused on trying to convince readers that we should accept or even expect philosophers to write esoterically. It spends surprising little time exploring what was the esoteric interpretation for various authors. Plato is perhaps the main exception, as we do learn about alternative interpretations to the Republic.

[N Pavlov · Rating 3 out of 5]

The general idea is intresting and is properly backed up but I felt that the author started to repeat himself after the first chapter and just went on and on to make this point over and over again. I had a hard time finishing this.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am convinced. I also appreciate that this book itself is written esoterically. Of course the problem which is considered in the book is that my understanding of the true meaning might be contrary to the author's intention.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh. I see.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good to know 👍🏻

[Maxwell Foley · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little drawn-out and repetitive, but contains insights not easy to come by. The book primarily is about esoteric writing, but to me it felt as if it was more about the appropriate relationship of philosophy to life and society at large. Melzer re-imagines the ancient philosophers as something more like contemplative sages or spiritual gurus than as activists or scholars - lacking any specific doctrine, they mainly seek to cultivate wisdom in individual students by, through an intense process of learning and questioning, leading them out of a cave of received prejudices to a love of the truth. Melzer explains how our society's loss of this idea of philosophy directly ties into our loss of the art of esoteric writing.

[Steven Pennebaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've ever read. Clear, smart, thoughtful, thorough and taught me a bunch of things I did not know. Made me think differently.

The concluding chapter's enthusiastic recapitulation of Strauss' anti-historicist project was bizarre enough to make one suspect that it was itself an example of esoteric writing, but even with that caveat it was genuinely enjoyable going through that chapter's arguments.

[Wayne Hsieh · Rating 5 out of 5]

An accessible introduction to Leo Strauss’ interpretation of the history of political philosophy. Its treatment of esotericism has special relevance today, although how we’d apply premodern notions of elite high culture to the present is an open question.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing" is a book written by Arthur M. Melzer and first published in 2014. Melzer is a political philosopher and a professor at Michigan State University, and the book is a study of the use of esoteric writing in the history of philosophy.

In the book, Melzer argues that many philosophers throughout history have used a form of writing that is intended to be read "between the lines," with hidden meanings and subtext that are not immediately apparent to the casual reader. He explores the history and practice of esoteric writing, focusing on the work of Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Nietzsche, among others.

Melzer suggests that esoteric writing is a means of communication that allows philosophers to express ideas that are controversial or subversive, while avoiding censorship or persecution. He also argues that the use of esoteric writing has often been misunderstood by scholars and has been wrongly dismissed as mere obfuscation or intellectual play.

Overall, "Philosophy Between the Lines" is a fascinating exploration of the use of esoteric writing in the history of philosophy. The book is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the history of ideas, the evolution of philosophical thought, and the art of effective communication.

GPT

[Tony Gualtieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, ostensibly about a recherche aspect of pre-Enlightenment rhetoric, is in fact a repository of philosophical speculation. While the subject is the use of disguised meaning in historical texts, the various reasons for employing esoteric subterfuge lead to intriguing digressions on such topics as the modern insistence that theory be consistent with practice, the impact of globalization on speculative thought, and the rise of historicism in recent interpretations of the intellectual past. If for nothing else, it rehabilitates Leo Strauss as something more than a political crank. I loved this book!

[Jordan · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars
By no means an easy read, but well researched and thought provoking. The author makes a compelling case for his conclusions. Conclusions which the “prephilosophic” world readily seems to confirm.

I was particularly struck by the author’s explanation for the true message of Plato’s republic and the evidence for it; and the origins and insidious nature of what he refers to as “modern historicism”.

It seems natural to wonder whether or not a book on esoteric writing is written esoterically, and at many times I suspected that it was. A “close reading” would likely offer additional reward.