ESTUDIOS Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía e-ISSN 1988-2564 https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/ashf.69785 After Socrates. Leo Strauss and the Esoteric Irony1 Cristina Basili2 Recibido: 12/05/2017 / Aceptado: 08/06/2020 Abstract. Throughout the philosophical tradition, Socratic irony has represented an enigma that all interpreters of the Platonic dialogues have had to face from different points of view. In this article I aim to present the peculiar Straussian reading of Socratic irony. According to Leo Strauss, Socratic irony is a key element of Plato’s political philosophy, linked to the «logographic necessity» that rules his texts. I will therefore examine the genesis and the main features of Straussian hermeneutics. I will end the article by highlighting the relevance of the esoteric interpretation of Platonic thought as a conceptual tool that responds to the crisis of modern political philosophy. Keywords: Irony, Plato, Republic, Socrates, Strauss. [es] Siguiendo a Sócrates: Leo Strauss y la ironía esotérica Resumen. A lo largo de la tradición filosófica la ironía de Sócrates ha representado un enigma con el que han tenido que confrontarse, desde distintos puntos de vista, todos los intérpretes de los diálogos platónicos. En este artículo presentaremos la original lectura straussiana de la ironía socrática. Según Leo Strauss, la ironía de Sócrates es un elemento clave de la filosofía política de Platón, vinculado con la «necesidad logográfica» que gobierna sus textos. Examinaremos, por tanto, la génesis y los rasgos principales de la hermenéutica straussiana y, finalmente, destacaremos la relevancia de la interpretación esotérica del pensamiento platónico en tanto que herramienta conceptual para responder a la crisis de la filosofía política moderna. Palabras clave: Ironía, Platón, República, Sócrates, Strauss. Sumary. 1. Introduction; 2. Socratic Irony: An Esoteric Reading; 3. Philosophy and Persecution; 4. Platonic Political Philosophy; 5. References. Cómo citar: Basili, C. (2020): After Socrates. Leo Strauss and the Esoteric Irony, en Revista Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 37 (3), 473-481. 1. Introduction is it addressed and what is its role in the work of Plato? The question of whether Socrates is ironic as a character Socratic irony remains a fascinating enigma for Platonic is different from the question of whether Plato is ironic scholars. For centuries readers and interpreters of the di- as an author. Nevertheless, both problems raise a funda- alogues have faced the difficulties related to understand- mental question concerning the meaning of Plato’s phi- ing this central element of Socrates’s character. Socrates losophy.3 Leo Strauss ventured an answer to this ques- was certainly ironic when speaking with certain others. tion stating that the content of the dialogues cannot be However, what exactly does his irony mean, to whom separated from the understanding of the dialogic form 1 This work was supported by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities of the Spanish Government under the Grant Juan de la Cier- va-formación (2017) thanks to which I have joined the Research Group “Historia y ontología del presente: la perspectiva hispana” (GIPEL) of the Complutense University of Madrid, directed by Prof. José Luis Villacañas Berlanga. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid. [email protected]. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5497-7966. 3 For an account on Socratic irony throughout the philosophical tradition, see: LANE, Melissa. «Reconsidering Socratic Irony». In: MORRISON, Don- ald R. (ed). The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 237-259. Lane stresses how the problem of Socratic irony is essentially related to the reception of Plato’s work. She also argues that there is no textual basis for a systematic imputation of Socratic irony in the dialogues; this assertion should lead to the reconsideration of the traditions that posit the philosophical significance of irony. According to other authors, irony is inherent in Socratic philosophy, see NEHAMAS, Alexander. The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998 and VLASTOS, Gregory. Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. For a recent work on irony that also engages with the readings of both Nehamas and Vlastos in order to achieve a broader understanding of the philosophical relevance of irony, see BERNSTEIN, Richard J. Ironic Life. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016. On the concept of irony, see JANKÉLÉVITCH, Vladimir. L’ironie, Paris: Flammarion, 1964. An. Sem. His. Filos. 37(3) 2020: 473-481 473 474 Basili, C. An. Sem. His. Filos. 37 (3), 2020: 473-481 as such.4 This perspective entails an exegetical approach meneutic excess» based on disregarding the textual evi- based on the attention to the literary aspects of the texts. dence, on the suspicion towards the utopian nature of the In this sense, a proper understanding of Plato’s work texts and on a radical critique of the connection between requires an enquiry into the role of irony as an essen- philosophy and politics.10 Yet, I will argue that a correct tial piece of the dramatic structure of the writings. For understanding of Strauss’s arguments would lead to an Strauss, solving the enigma of Socrates’s smile thus im- original reading of Plato’s philosophy. Strauss’s attempt plies first taking a stance on the enigma of the Platonic to separate Plato from Platonism open up a perspective dialogue itself.5 that could help to overcome the traditional alternative Scholars publishing in recent years have tended to between the dogmatic or skeptical approach to the dia- reconsider the relevance of the dialogic form for under- logues.11 Nevertheless, the significance of Strauss’s re- standing Plato’s philosophy.6 Nevertheless, the Straussi- covery of Plato’s political philosophy cannot be reduced an approach has not yet received proper recognition. In to the field of ancient studies; its ultimate aim is to re- fact, Strauss deserves praise for having introduced the habilitate a philosophical question on human affairs in problems related to the dramatic structure of the Platon- contemporary times. ic texts into the debate, creating an important school of To this end, I will first present the meaning of Socrat- readers that has contrasted with the predominant analyti- ic irony in Strauss’s reading of Plato. I will show how cal approach in the United States.7 Yet, despite the recent Strauss’s conception of irony is essentially related to the interest in Strauss’s reading of Plato,8 scholars of ancient notion of «logographic necessity» as both a composi- philosophy have generally shown a certain amount of tional and hermeneutic principle. The link between iro- resistance and even disdain towards his results. In fact, ny and «logographic necessity» lies in Strauss’s under- while the importance of Strauss’s work in the field of standing of Platonic esotericism. Strauss places himself contemporary political philosophy is broadly recog- in the Schleiermachean tradition of reading Plato –based nized, this is not the case for his studies on classical phi- on the identity of form and content– but he corrects this losophy. This could be due to various reasons that range tradition by proposing a political interpretation of eso- from the ideological stance against the members belong- tericism that he takes from his reading of medieval Jew- ing to the so-called Straussian School to the existence of ish and Arab philosophers. This analysis makes it pos- solid barriers between disciplines that Strauss aimed to sible to come closer to the philosophical implications of bring down.9 However, most of the criticisms rest on the Strauss’s turn towards a Platonic political philosophy. reluctance to accept Strauss’s esoteric assumptions. The I will show that this is his way to respond to the crisis core of Strauss’s dialogic approach in fact aims to recov- of Western civilization, a crisis essentially related to the er the esoteric meaning of the texts. From this point of loss of the authentic relationship between philosophy view, Socratic irony would be part of a comprehensive and politics inaugurated by modern political theory. In strategy of dissimulation, eventually leading to an ironic the final section, I seek to unite the interpretive princi- reading of the dialogues themselves. This view has been ple of esotericism with the question of the relationship criticized by Platonic scholars as the outcome of «her- between philosophy and politics, all under the umbrella of irony. There, I aim to show that Strauss’s account of Socratic irony as esotericism has not only literary conse- 4 STRAUSS, Leo. The City and Man. Chicago & London: The Universi- quences, but also esotericism has a deep meaning for the ty of Chicago Press, 1978, 52. 5 Ibidem, 55. contemporary renewal of political philosophy. 6 See PRESS, Gerald A. «The State of the Question in the Study of Plato», The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 34, 4, 1996, 513-515 and PRESS , Gerald A. «The State of the Question in the Study of Plato: 20 Year Update», The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 56, 1, 2018, 9-35. 2. Socratic Irony: An Esoteric Reading 7 On this subject, see TRABATTONI, Franco. Attualità di Platone. Studi sui rapporti fra Platone e Rorty, Heidegger, Gadamer, Derrida, Cas- Strauss presents his hermeneutic approach to the Pla- sirer, Strauss, Nussbaum e Paci. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2009, 436- 440. For an account on the Straussian legacy, see: ZUCKERT, Michael. tonic dialogues mostly in his commentary on Plato’s «Straussians». In: SMITH, Steven B. (ed.). The Cambridge Compan- Republic, in the middle of his book The City and Man, ion to Leo Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, published in 1964.12 Strauss first assumes that Socrates 263-286. 8 Among the recent reconsiderations of Strauss’s work on Plato, see: LASTRA, Antonio, MONSERRAT MOLAS, Josep (eds.).