“FROM MOSES TO MOSES” 177
still perplexed, at least concerning the soul and its states. Maimonides’
Treatise on Resurrection testifi es to his awareness of this continuing per-
plexity, as well as to his bitter disappointment.^83
It has been argued that Maimonides’ bitter tone in the Treatise on Res-
urrection results from his resentment at having had to retract his opin-
ions.^84 On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that he re-
tracts nothing. Whereas, at fi rst sight, Joseph’s epistle seems to present a
more “philosophic” and less traditional position than the Treatise on
Resurrection, in fact the opposite is true. Joseph’s Silencing Epistle is
written in an emotional outburst, and is a one- dimensional composition;
it says exactly what it purports to be saying. Maimonides’ Treatise on
Resurrection, on the other hand, reiterates the opinions of the Guide and
is written in the same esoteric manner.
Leo Strauss has described the Treatise on Resurrection as “the most
authentic commentary on the Guide.”^85 This description follows from
Strauss’s general approach. Assuming a sharp dichotomy between what
philosophers like Maimonides believed and what they could explicitly
say, Strauss sees the esoteric discourse as a characteristic trait of Maimo-
nides’ writings. Strauss’s insights were im mensely useful in understand-
ing medieval philosophy, and for a time were also widely accepted. The
pendulum of scholarly fashion, however, now swings in the other direc-
tion.^86 This is due partly to the fact that Strauss’s ideas were overused by
Strauss himself, partly to their abuse by Strauss’s disciples in the nonaca-
demic world. Be that as it may, many readers today wince at the very
suggestion of esoteric writing, and insist that, rather than scrutinize ev-
erything Maimonides says in search of its opposite meaning, we should
listen to what he actually says. To be sure, one should not treat Maimo-
nides as a disciple of Strauss; and indeed, one should listen to what Mai-
monides says in his own voice. This, however, includes Maimonides’
repeated and unambiguous announcements that he intends to speak in
an esoteric way.
Maimonides’ esotericism is not a rigid, crafty, and manipulative po litical
device. Rather, it refl ects an unusual personality’s awareness of his distinc-
tiveness. It also refl ects his sensitivity to the complex, rich, and multilayered
(^83) The uncommonly frustrated and bitter tone of the treatise has already been noted by
scholars. See, for instance, D. Hartmann, in Halkin and Hartmann, Crisis and Leadership,
248 and 263.
(^84) See Hartmann, in ibid., 246– 47.
(^85) Persecution and the Art of Writing, 73.
(^86) See, for instance, note 104, below; and see Seeskin, Searching for a Distant God: The
Legacy of Maimonides, 177– 88; Ravitzky, “Maimonides: Esotericism and Educational Phi-
losophy,” in Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, 305; Guidi, “L’obscurité
intentionnelle du philosophe.”