Philosophy Between the Lines, or Through Dubious Signs?

Arthur Melzer's Philosophy Between the Lines is a much better account of esotericism than anything that Leo Strauss wrote. But although Melzer uncovers many examples of writers who make claims about other writers' esotericism, he provides fewer examples of actual esotericism than he thinks, and his evidence is sometimes tenuous. More important, perhaps, is Melzer's valuable evidence about particular esoteric techniques. But there are some curious silences here: he does not support Strauss' claims that esoteric writers used the techniques of numbers and density. How much of Strauss' esoteric interpretation rests on alleged techniques for which there is no historical basis? And Melzer's evidence about the alleged technique of centers involves a misreading of Cicero. I also raise questions about Melzer's distinctions between esoteric and non-esoteric, and between esoteric and literal. Moreover, his treatment of Strauss' critics sidesteps their key objections-objections that remain unanswered. Despite these problems, Melzer's analysis of esotericism is a great advance on Strauss' analysis: this book is a major contribution.