Ke Zhao

Leo Strauss’s way of reading of Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise got changed after his rediscovery of exotericism. As early as in the comment article on Hermann Cohen’s analysis of Spinoza’s Bible science, Strauss put forward that the Treatise should not be understood on the basis of our readers’ own presupposes of Spinoza’s personal motives. Later, in Spinoza’s Critique of Religion (1930), Strauss indeed read the Treatise literally, trying to understand it on the basis of Spinoza’s explicit statements. After the rediscovery of exotericism in 1930s, however, Strauss’s way of reading got changed. Strauss became very alert to Spinoza’s way of writing. Strauss found that Spinoza spoke with a view to the capacity of the vulgar and practiced exoteric writing. Some of Spinoza’s explicit statements were addressed to the non-philosophic majority and were not Spinoza’s true teachings. Based on this, Strauss regarded not all of Spinoza’s explicit statements, but those most opposed to what Spinoza considered the vulgar view, as well as those with an implication of a heterodox character, as expressing Spinoza’s true views. Strauss shows that “be alert to the art of writing” means two things. First, understand the author’s explicit statements. And second, try to find whether there are teachings that are different from or even opposed to the explicit statements. Keywords: Leo Strauss, exotericism, Spinoza, theologico-political treatise