Read the extracts from Leo Strauss's “Pursuit and the Art of Writing” and answer the questions: a) how does the author interpret the phrase “writing between the lines”? b) what, according to the texts below, is the trigger, the source of “writing between the lines”? c) based on Leo Strauss's text, indicate the minimum number of actors necessary to create the communication process.

А. “Actually, it is the expression 'writing between the lines' that marks the subject of this article. For literature, the result of [political] persecution is this: under its influence, rebel writers develop a certain technique of writing - the technique of veiling their own ideas. The phrase “writing between the lines” is purely metaphorical. Any attempt to avoid metaphors by explaining its meaning will lead us to a veritable terra incognita - a field whose vastness is still unknown to scholars and requires an even more important and extremely intriguing study. And it is no exaggeration to say that the only proper way to prepare for it is for the beginning researcher to read the works of the rhetors of Antiquity.”

Б. “We see, therefore, how persecution promotes the development of a specific writing technique [between the lines], and, as a consequence, a special kind of literature where the author's position on all key issues is presented in an exceptionally veiled manner. Usually such texts are not addressed to all readers, but only to trustworthy and educated ones. Such literature has all the advantages of personal communication, but does not have its main disadvantage - because personal communication would be limited only to the circle of the author's acquaintances. At the same time, it has all the advantages of public communication, avoiding the main disadvantage - the death penalty for its spokesman. How, then, can a thinker publicly address a minority while miraculously remaining mute to the majority of readers? The axiom that makes such written expression possible is this: most non-thinking readers are superficial; only thoughtful readers are attentive. An author who wishes to appeal exclusively to the thoughtful must do nothing more than write in such a manner that only a very attentive reader can grasp the meaning in the book. But, it may be objected to us, there are such intelligent and attentive readers who cannot be trusted and who, having discovered the author's intent, will expose him to the authorities. What can we object to? “If Socrates had been wrong when he said that 'virtue is knowledge,' and thinking people are by nature trustworthy and not evil - this kind of literature would be impossible. However, Socrates was right.”

В. “Another axiom (though it is true exactly as long as the pursuit does not exceed the bounds of legislative procedures) is this: as a rule, an attentive author of average intelligence is still more intelligent than even the most intelligent censor. And it is the censor who has to prove that the author is the bearer or exponent of heretical views. To do this, he must prove that the textual inaccuracies in the work are not accidental, that the author used ambiguous expressions intentionally and deliberately incorrectly formulated this or that sentence. That is, the censor must prove not only that the author is clever and is generally a good writer (for a person who makes intentional errors in writing must have a good command of the art of writing to do so), but also that he was at his usual level of ability when he wrote the lines incriminated. And how can this be proved-if even Homer occasionally fell into a slumber?”

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Question

Read the extracts from Leo Strauss's “Pursuit and the Art of Writing” and answer the questions: a) how does the author interpret the phrase “writing between the lines”? b) what, according to the texts below, is the trigger, the source of “writing between the lines”? c) based on Leo Strauss's text, indicate the minimum number of actors necessary to create the communication process.

А. “Actually, it is the expression 'writing between the lines' that marks the subject of this article. For literature, the result of [political] persecution is this: under its influence, rebel writers develop a certain technique of writing - the technique of veiling their own ideas. The phrase “writing between the lines” is purely metaphorical. Any attempt to avoid metaphors by explaining its meaning will lead us to a veritable terra incognita - a field whose vastness is still unknown to scholars and requires an even more important and extremely intriguing study. And it is no exaggeration to say that the only proper way to prepare for it is for the beginning researcher to read the works of the rhetors of Antiquity.”

Б. “We see, therefore, how persecution promotes the development of a specific writing technique [between the lines], and, as a consequence, a special kind of literature where the author's position on all key issues is presented in an exceptionally veiled manner. Usually such texts are not addressed to all readers, but only to trustworthy and educated ones. Such literature has all the advantages of personal communication, but does not have its main disadvantage - because personal communication would be limited only to the circle of the author's acquaintances. At the same time, it has all the advantages of public communication, avoiding the main disadvantage - the death penalty for its spokesman. How, then, can a thinker publicly address a minority while miraculously remaining mute to the majority of readers? The axiom that makes such written expression possible is this: most non-thinking readers are superficial; only thoughtful readers are attentive. An author who wishes to appeal exclusively to the thoughtful must do nothing more than write in such a manner that only a very attentive reader can grasp the meaning in the book. But, it may be objected to us, there are such intelligent and attentive readers who cannot be trusted and who, having discovered the author's intent, will expose him to the authorities. What can we object to? “If Socrates had been wrong when he said that 'virtue is knowledge,' and thinking people are by nature trustworthy and not evil - this kind of literature would be impossible. However, Socrates was right.”

В. “Another axiom (though it is true exactly as long as the pursuit does not exceed the bounds of legislative procedures) is this: as a rule, an attentive author of average intelligence is still more intelligent than even the most intelligent censor. And it is the censor who has to prove that the author is the bearer or exponent of heretical views. To do this, he must prove that the textual inaccuracies in the work are not accidental, that the author used ambiguous expressions intentionally and deliberately incorrectly formulated this or that sentence. That is, the censor must prove not only that the author is clever and is generally a good writer (for a person who makes intentional errors in writing must have a good command of the art of writing to do so), but also that he was at his usual level of ability when he wrote the lines incriminated. And how can this be proved-if even Homer occasionally fell into a slumber?”

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

One cannot simply skim over the surface of Leo Strauss's thoughts on the concept of “writing between the lines” without delving into the depths of his discourse. The phrase itself holds a certain mystique, a certain allure that beckons the reader to ponder its meaning beyond the literal interpretation. It is like a hidden treasure waiting to be unearthed by those brave enough to venture into the terra incognita of scholarly exploration. Strauss suggests that the technique of veiling one's ideas through writing emerges as a response to political persecution, creating a subtle yet powerful form of communication. This technique, as Strauss describes it, is not meant for the masses but rather for the discerning and educated few who possess the intellectual capacity to decipher the hidden messages within the text.

The trigger for this form of writing, according to Strauss, lies in the necessity for thinkers to communicate their ideas without falling prey to the oppressive forces of censorship. By writing between the lines, authors are able to express their thoughts in a way that is both elusive and profound, appealing to a select audience while remaining elusive to the prying eyes of those who seek to suppress dissenting voices. It is a delicate dance between art and intellect, a balancing act that requires both skill and cunning to navigate successfully.

In exploring the communication process as outlined by Leo Strauss, we are confronted with the idea that only a minimum number of actors are necessary to create a meaningful exchange of ideas. The author, in this case, plays a pivotal role in crafting a text that is both elusive and thought-provoking, while the perceptive reader serves as the interpreter, unraveling the layers of meaning hidden within the words. It is a symbiotic relationship between writer and reader, a dance of intellect and insight that transcends the boundaries of ordinary communication. In this sense, writing between the lines becomes not just a technique but a form of artistry, a way of conveying profound truths in a world where silence speaks louder than words. As Nietzsche once said, "When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." And so it is with writing between the lines - for those who dare to tread where others fear to go, the rewards are bountiful and the wisdom profound.