Montaigne's Essays, one at a time.
Charlas75 Books Challenge for 2011
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1sibylline
Janet and I are going to be reading Montaigne's essays in a leisurely manner. I will be reading in French mainly, but all commentary will be in English -- although, I expect there will be some comparisons of the original French to the choices made by the translator. Janet will be using the Gutenberg copy (tr. Cotton) or her own book and she will tell us who that translator is. Anyone who would like to join us is welcome! The first essay is called "Par divers moyens en arrive a pareille fin" loosely - "By various means one arrives at the same end".
I fell in love w/Montaigne because some of the essays are so accessible, so spot on and delightful. I love the essay form and when younger wrote them like mad and read them voraciously -- and everyone was always pointing a finger back to Montaigne, so eventually I sampled him (in English first) and realized what all the fuss was about. But I've read no more than twenty or so out of this huge body of work. Always wanted to read more.
I fell in love w/Montaigne because some of the essays are so accessible, so spot on and delightful. I love the essay form and when younger wrote them like mad and read them voraciously -- and everyone was always pointing a finger back to Montaigne, so eventually I sampled him (in English first) and realized what all the fuss was about. But I've read no more than twenty or so out of this huge body of work. Always wanted to read more.
2Smiler69
Well, I'm impressed that you're going with the original French text Lucy, because even I am too lazy to try to decipher that and have gotten my hands on a "translated" version, i.e. into modern French. I found book I in various dowloadable formats right here if you're interested, or at least a bit curious. The first essay title is translated to "Par divers moyens on arrive au même résultat", which lacks the charm of the original as you've transcribed it above, to be sure. I think your interpretation is probably correct, though my own interpretation is that there are more ways than one to do any one thing.
I don't know about you, but I'm overbooked this month (as per usual). What did you have in mind as far as pacing? I'm thinking of just reading one essay per day, but not more than that (one per week maybe? though it would take a lifetime to get through them all at that rate...)
I don't know about you, but I'm overbooked this month (as per usual). What did you have in mind as far as pacing? I'm thinking of just reading one essay per day, but not more than that (one per week maybe? though it would take a lifetime to get through them all at that rate...)
3sibylline
I was, for the time being, thinking no more than one every other day - a day to read and a day to comment? January and February tend to have more room in them for reading, so maybe we could do more. Anyhow I see this is as one of those projects where the process matters more than finishing.
In the end I read first the French and then the English, out of fear I had misunderstood. Except for a few words here and there though, I had the gist -- as I'm not going to do a huge analysis of every word, that should suffice although out of curiosity I'm going to download your modern translation too.
This morning I woke up thinking about it -- what evokes mercy in a warrior? That seems to be the real question. And the answer, briefly? Everyone, according to their character, responds differently. Many warriors, with their code of honor, are moved by bravery, however, so it is worth trying it. I LOVED the Guelph women carrying out their men on their shoulders. I think we visited, somewhere in Umbria or Tuscany the city where that actually happened, or did I read about it in an Umberto Eco book? Or all of the above? It's wonderfully humorous!
Worth noting: no mention of Christian mercies -- this is an entirely practical inquiry, pointedly not metaphysical or spiritual? What thinkest others?
Also worth noting is that the title seems more ironic than literal, now that I've read the essay. Alexander was enraged by courage, another general by courage, yet others appear indifferent..... what is he really saying?
What M. is famous for, of course, is being the 'father' of the modern essay - so the other question would be what is interesting about the structure, if anything? What makes it modern? Of course, I have little to compare it to, some of Greeks and many Romans wrote short pieces on various topics, I've read scattered stuff - but someone more knowledgeable than I would have to comment. What I can do is say that M. opens with a premise -- that there is nothing to be lost by exhibiting courage when you have lost the battle. He then goes on to give four or five examples of what happened when courage was exhibited by the defeated. Next, at about the mid-way point, he pauses to reflect on what exactly moved these military commanders, the quote at the heart of the matter? Man (in good earnest) is a marvellous vain, fickle, and unstable subject, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgment.
He illustrates this point with the example of Alexander on whom bravery was not only lost but possibly triggered worse vengeance -- which would imply something like only a 20% chance that the method would backfire totally? I would give the courage option no more than 20% of succeeding either, but you never know! He concludes darkly with the mention Gaza razed, the men all dead and 30,000 of the surviving elderly, women and children marched off into slavery.
Another question is why open with this essay? Essay 1 of Book 1. Perhaps to make the simple point in the sentence quoted above?
Practical matter: Should we simply proceed through the book 'in order'? Would anyone like to pick and choose? We could also do something like first read the 1st essay in each 'Book'. I don't know how the books differ, but even if we persist for, say, a year, we may never finish and it might be simple a way of roaming through the whole oeuvre?
In the end I read first the French and then the English, out of fear I had misunderstood. Except for a few words here and there though, I had the gist -- as I'm not going to do a huge analysis of every word, that should suffice although out of curiosity I'm going to download your modern translation too.
This morning I woke up thinking about it -- what evokes mercy in a warrior? That seems to be the real question. And the answer, briefly? Everyone, according to their character, responds differently. Many warriors, with their code of honor, are moved by bravery, however, so it is worth trying it. I LOVED the Guelph women carrying out their men on their shoulders. I think we visited, somewhere in Umbria or Tuscany the city where that actually happened, or did I read about it in an Umberto Eco book? Or all of the above? It's wonderfully humorous!
Worth noting: no mention of Christian mercies -- this is an entirely practical inquiry, pointedly not metaphysical or spiritual? What thinkest others?
Also worth noting is that the title seems more ironic than literal, now that I've read the essay. Alexander was enraged by courage, another general by courage, yet others appear indifferent..... what is he really saying?
What M. is famous for, of course, is being the 'father' of the modern essay - so the other question would be what is interesting about the structure, if anything? What makes it modern? Of course, I have little to compare it to, some of Greeks and many Romans wrote short pieces on various topics, I've read scattered stuff - but someone more knowledgeable than I would have to comment. What I can do is say that M. opens with a premise -- that there is nothing to be lost by exhibiting courage when you have lost the battle. He then goes on to give four or five examples of what happened when courage was exhibited by the defeated. Next, at about the mid-way point, he pauses to reflect on what exactly moved these military commanders, the quote at the heart of the matter? Man (in good earnest) is a marvellous vain, fickle, and unstable subject, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgment.
He illustrates this point with the example of Alexander on whom bravery was not only lost but possibly triggered worse vengeance -- which would imply something like only a 20% chance that the method would backfire totally? I would give the courage option no more than 20% of succeeding either, but you never know! He concludes darkly with the mention Gaza razed, the men all dead and 30,000 of the surviving elderly, women and children marched off into slavery.
Another question is why open with this essay? Essay 1 of Book 1. Perhaps to make the simple point in the sentence quoted above?
Practical matter: Should we simply proceed through the book 'in order'? Would anyone like to pick and choose? We could also do something like first read the 1st essay in each 'Book'. I don't know how the books differ, but even if we persist for, say, a year, we may never finish and it might be simple a way of roaming through the whole oeuvre?
4JanetinLondon
Hi. I read the Cotton translation on Gutenberg, then went to the library and got the more modern M.A. Screech translation (because the one I bought recently, by J. M. Cohen, which is meant to be the "best", didn't include this one). I have to say, the modern one was much more accessible, without losing the formal quality of the language, so it's worth spending some money to get one of the modern ones if you are going to read these.
This was my first Montaigne essay, and I can see I will have to teach myself how to respond to them. I thought about this one a lot, but could only respond in a sort of essay style myself. I also see I picked up on totally different points from sibyx. Anyway, here is what I wrote:
That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End
At first I thought the thesis of this essay was simple enough – there’s more than one way to achieve the same outcome. What’s more, studying history doesn’t necessarily help us decide which route to adopt. But before he even starts to explore this in more detail, Montaigne throws in a second, related idea – not only can more than one route achieve the same end, but a given route might not achieve the expected end every time. This is scary, because it means that no matter how much knowledge we accumulate, we still can’t be sure we are making the best choices. Montaigne puts this down to the ultimate arbitrariness and inconsistency of human nature and behaviour. To me, this quote sums up his key point:
“Man is indeed an object miraculously vain, various and wavering. It is difficult to found a judgement on him which is steady and uniform.” (Screech)
There’s also the suggestion, or maybe it’s just my response, that we are helpless in the face of arbitrary power partly because it is arbitrary, and unknowable.
I’m not sure whether Montaigne is saying it therefore doesn’t matter what choices you make, or whether he says you should use other criteria, such as your own values, to decide what to do. It’s interesting that although he says that if he were in the position of power, either the submissive approach or the valorous one would work on him, he doesn’t say what approach he would adopt if he were in the position of weakness. He also doesn’t consider how your behaviour might be determined by your objectives – are you trying to save yourself or others, achieve fame and glory (or anyway avoid criticism for cowardice), or “die a good death”? Although he claims to always just be “exploring ideas”, he clearly does make some value judgments of his own – the submission route is “weak”, and suited only to women, children and “the common sort of people”.
I don’t think that Montaigne claims that knowledge is useless per se, only that its real value is in helping you think about the issues raised, with the aim of improving your understanding of yourself, as the basis on which to make decisions. I also think he is missing a trick in terms of the usefulness of knowledge. While his examples overall can’t provide a general guide as to which route to adopt, in any specific case they might – if you think your tormentor is more like Edward, you might expect valor to impress him, but if you think he is Alexander, you might not. More knowledge of your enemy would clearly be a good thing.
My final thoughts were about the extent to which these concepts apply to power relations not just between states at war, but between individuals, and between individuals and states. For example, can we understand by rational study how best to act when we are on trial, or threatened by a mugger or a bully, or taking part in political protests? Or, even in these situations, would knowing the “facts” of what had happened in other cases be useful mainly in helping us think about ourselves and how we want to act, not about what is the best way to act?
Anyway, I was truly excited at how what seemed a simple little essay highlighting a few historical examples could lead to such a lot of ideas. I’m looking forward to reading more of these essays, but I’m also a little scared of how much hard thinking I have ahead of me – I’m certainly glad we’re sharing! As for speed, I'd be in favor of one a week, with comments on a Saturday. I have a lot of hospital dates coming up, and this won't be the easiest thing for me to manage there.
ETA: I don't mind what order we read them in. There doesn't seem to be a completely agreed one? Maybe we could start with the most commonly translated or taught ones (e.g., those in Screech's and Cohen's selections, those taught in university Philosophy or English courses - I have the University of London list as a an example) and then broaden out from there? If you want to adopt this route, I could look at the two modern versions and see which they have in common, plus the Uof L list. Meanwhile, you should choose one for next week.
This was my first Montaigne essay, and I can see I will have to teach myself how to respond to them. I thought about this one a lot, but could only respond in a sort of essay style myself. I also see I picked up on totally different points from sibyx. Anyway, here is what I wrote:
That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End
At first I thought the thesis of this essay was simple enough – there’s more than one way to achieve the same outcome. What’s more, studying history doesn’t necessarily help us decide which route to adopt. But before he even starts to explore this in more detail, Montaigne throws in a second, related idea – not only can more than one route achieve the same end, but a given route might not achieve the expected end every time. This is scary, because it means that no matter how much knowledge we accumulate, we still can’t be sure we are making the best choices. Montaigne puts this down to the ultimate arbitrariness and inconsistency of human nature and behaviour. To me, this quote sums up his key point:
“Man is indeed an object miraculously vain, various and wavering. It is difficult to found a judgement on him which is steady and uniform.” (Screech)
There’s also the suggestion, or maybe it’s just my response, that we are helpless in the face of arbitrary power partly because it is arbitrary, and unknowable.
I’m not sure whether Montaigne is saying it therefore doesn’t matter what choices you make, or whether he says you should use other criteria, such as your own values, to decide what to do. It’s interesting that although he says that if he were in the position of power, either the submissive approach or the valorous one would work on him, he doesn’t say what approach he would adopt if he were in the position of weakness. He also doesn’t consider how your behaviour might be determined by your objectives – are you trying to save yourself or others, achieve fame and glory (or anyway avoid criticism for cowardice), or “die a good death”? Although he claims to always just be “exploring ideas”, he clearly does make some value judgments of his own – the submission route is “weak”, and suited only to women, children and “the common sort of people”.
I don’t think that Montaigne claims that knowledge is useless per se, only that its real value is in helping you think about the issues raised, with the aim of improving your understanding of yourself, as the basis on which to make decisions. I also think he is missing a trick in terms of the usefulness of knowledge. While his examples overall can’t provide a general guide as to which route to adopt, in any specific case they might – if you think your tormentor is more like Edward, you might expect valor to impress him, but if you think he is Alexander, you might not. More knowledge of your enemy would clearly be a good thing.
My final thoughts were about the extent to which these concepts apply to power relations not just between states at war, but between individuals, and between individuals and states. For example, can we understand by rational study how best to act when we are on trial, or threatened by a mugger or a bully, or taking part in political protests? Or, even in these situations, would knowing the “facts” of what had happened in other cases be useful mainly in helping us think about ourselves and how we want to act, not about what is the best way to act?
Anyway, I was truly excited at how what seemed a simple little essay highlighting a few historical examples could lead to such a lot of ideas. I’m looking forward to reading more of these essays, but I’m also a little scared of how much hard thinking I have ahead of me – I’m certainly glad we’re sharing! As for speed, I'd be in favor of one a week, with comments on a Saturday. I have a lot of hospital dates coming up, and this won't be the easiest thing for me to manage there.
ETA: I don't mind what order we read them in. There doesn't seem to be a completely agreed one? Maybe we could start with the most commonly translated or taught ones (e.g., those in Screech's and Cohen's selections, those taught in university Philosophy or English courses - I have the University of London list as a an example) and then broaden out from there? If you want to adopt this route, I could look at the two modern versions and see which they have in common, plus the Uof L list. Meanwhile, you should choose one for next week.
5sibylline
Oh I think my take away was similar to yours -- you took the ideas much much further. This is the Montaigne effect, you start in and can't stop! He's like the dinner party guest who gets everybody talking!
I think, overall, he is careful in this essay to present some vivid historical examples - and I would say that he, overall, approves of the valiant death in the hopeless case -- that even though all those 'weak ones' left in chains, their men died honorably. Plus, as Montaigne seems to use so much Greek and Roman stuff and I have just come off reading Pagans and Christians the implication though unstated, is that honor trumps all other behavior.
Certainly we chose the same sentence as the core point -
In French that sentence is: Certes c'est un sujet merveilleusement vain, divers et ondoyant, que l'homme: il est malaisé d'y fonder jugement constant et uniforme.'
In the modern French version it is this: Certes, c’est un sujet extraordinairement vain, divers, et ondoyant, que l’homme : il est malaisé de fonder à son égard un jugement constant et uniforme.
In the older English version it is this "Man (in good earnest) is a marvellous vain, fickle, and unstable subject, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgment.
One a week is what I was thinking originally. So by all means!
Let us indeed choose from the ones most often read and pondered, so you will let us know which one that will be?
The 'wavering' is an excellent choice in the newer translation. But so many choices seem arbitrary -- why change 'merveilleusement' to 'extraordinairement' and why change 'subject' to 'object'??
I think it is most interesting that this essay ends so open-endedly. Significant I mean.
I think, overall, he is careful in this essay to present some vivid historical examples - and I would say that he, overall, approves of the valiant death in the hopeless case -- that even though all those 'weak ones' left in chains, their men died honorably. Plus, as Montaigne seems to use so much Greek and Roman stuff and I have just come off reading Pagans and Christians the implication though unstated, is that honor trumps all other behavior.
Certainly we chose the same sentence as the core point -
In French that sentence is: Certes c'est un sujet merveilleusement vain, divers et ondoyant, que l'homme: il est malaisé d'y fonder jugement constant et uniforme.'
In the modern French version it is this: Certes, c’est un sujet extraordinairement vain, divers, et ondoyant, que l’homme : il est malaisé de fonder à son égard un jugement constant et uniforme.
In the older English version it is this "Man (in good earnest) is a marvellous vain, fickle, and unstable subject, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgment.
One a week is what I was thinking originally. So by all means!
Let us indeed choose from the ones most often read and pondered, so you will let us know which one that will be?
The 'wavering' is an excellent choice in the newer translation. But so many choices seem arbitrary -- why change 'merveilleusement' to 'extraordinairement' and why change 'subject' to 'object'??
I think it is most interesting that this essay ends so open-endedly. Significant I mean.
6JanetinLondon
Okay, so it's not what you do (achieve) it's how you do it that's important. That fits with what I know so far of his general view, that all this philosophy is a search for the self, and yes, I can see that his steeping in the Classics would have meant he thought honor was the most important attribute. But partly, I think, this focus on being rather than doing gives him an easy way out when he starts arguing that people should just keep out of politics and public life in general, and "cultivate their gardens" (at least this is what I think he argues later), which is fine for him, a rich guy with no need to work for a living and enough friends to keep out of trouble no matter who is in power.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if he argues the same line every time, since his key message seems to be that people (including, or maybe especially, himself) are fickle and unpredicatable.
As for the wording changes, did the meaning of "merveilleusement" change over time as the English did, so that "marvellous" has a more positive connotation than it did, rather than just meaning "amazing" or "very"? And maybe Screech changed "subject" to "object" to emphasize that Montaigne is aiming to study man?
I'm on the wrong computer at the moment (lists of which essays are used where is on the other one), but tomorrow I'll have a look and confirm which essays are in both Screech and Cohen and the UCL list, as a starting point. Within those, I guess we could work in order (Gutenberg/Cotton does list an order of all of them, maybe the same as your version). Then later, if we still have the will, we can go back and fill in the gaps.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if he argues the same line every time, since his key message seems to be that people (including, or maybe especially, himself) are fickle and unpredicatable.
As for the wording changes, did the meaning of "merveilleusement" change over time as the English did, so that "marvellous" has a more positive connotation than it did, rather than just meaning "amazing" or "very"? And maybe Screech changed "subject" to "object" to emphasize that Montaigne is aiming to study man?
I'm on the wrong computer at the moment (lists of which essays are used where is on the other one), but tomorrow I'll have a look and confirm which essays are in both Screech and Cohen and the UCL list, as a starting point. Within those, I guess we could work in order (Gutenberg/Cotton does list an order of all of them, maybe the same as your version). Then later, if we still have the will, we can go back and fill in the gaps.
7sibylline
Good thinking on 'merveilleusement' -- our French expert can comment on that, but it makes sense.
Oh I think Screech did just that --changing subject to object bothers me a bit -- but perhaps our in house French expert can help us with that too.
Good thing I can barely read Latin or I would have been such a pain during the Aeneid adventure!
Oh I think Screech did just that --changing subject to object bothers me a bit -- but perhaps our in house French expert can help us with that too.
Good thing I can barely read Latin or I would have been such a pain during the Aeneid adventure!
8Smiler69
Oh, Oops! Am I said French Expert? I'm afraid I'm already behind on my reading! Bad, I know. I need to read this first essay asap. Maybe tonight, though it's already quite late. I started reading your first comment Lucy, but stopped midway because I want to come to the text with no preconceived notions. So I shall be back to comment soon. And I'm curious about this discussion about 'merveilleusement'. I'll have to see what context it's used in before I can add my two cents worth there.
9JanetinLondon
Okay, I have compared the selections made by M.A. Screech and J.M. Cohen, checked the list of recommended essays for first year English students at University College London, and looked at Sarah Bakewell's website, where I found she listed 7 in particular, which I guess are the subjects of the essays she wrote in the Guardian at some point. Based on all of that, plus a few that just sounded interesting, I suggest we start with the following, although we can always add or delete, of course! I also suggest we read them in order, because it seems he moved from a more "how to behave" approach (the whole "honor is important" thing) to a more "this is what men are like" approach.
I am using the numbering used by Screech and by Cohen - the older Cotton list is slightly different in Book I. My titles are idiosyncratic - whichever list I copied it off I am using, so they are not all from the same source. The ones in bold seem the most famous, or widely mentioned.
Book I:
1- That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End (done)
3 - Our Feelings Reach Out Beyond Us
8 - On Idleness
16 - On punishing cowardice
20 - To philosophize is to learn how to die
26 - On the education of children
27 - That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity
28 - Of friendship
31 - On cannibals
36 - On the custom of wearing clothes
37 (Cotton's numbering) - How we cry and laugh for the same thing
Book II:
8 - On the affection of fathers for their children
11 - On cruelty
14 - How our mind hinders itself
32 - In defence of Seneca and Plutarch
Book III:
2 - On repentance
3- On three kinds of social intercourse
4 - Of diversion
6 - On vehicles (or coaches)
13 - On experience
Also, here are some websites I came across which might be useful (in addition, of course, to all the ones selling essays for students!):
www.sarahbakewell.com
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe
plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne
essays.quotifdiana.org/montaigne
mymontaigneproject.org (someone named Dan Conley who I think has written an essay on each Montaigne essay - have not read any of them, so they might be terrible, but could be interesting)
I am using the numbering used by Screech and by Cohen - the older Cotton list is slightly different in Book I. My titles are idiosyncratic - whichever list I copied it off I am using, so they are not all from the same source. The ones in bold seem the most famous, or widely mentioned.
Book I:
1- That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End (done)
3 - Our Feelings Reach Out Beyond Us
8 - On Idleness
16 - On punishing cowardice
20 - To philosophize is to learn how to die
26 - On the education of children
27 - That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity
28 - Of friendship
31 - On cannibals
36 - On the custom of wearing clothes
37 (Cotton's numbering) - How we cry and laugh for the same thing
Book II:
8 - On the affection of fathers for their children
11 - On cruelty
14 - How our mind hinders itself
32 - In defence of Seneca and Plutarch
Book III:
2 - On repentance
3- On three kinds of social intercourse
4 - Of diversion
6 - On vehicles (or coaches)
13 - On experience
Also, here are some websites I came across which might be useful (in addition, of course, to all the ones selling essays for students!):
www.sarahbakewell.com
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe
plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne
essays.quotifdiana.org/montaigne
mymontaigneproject.org (someone named Dan Conley who I think has written an essay on each Montaigne essay - have not read any of them, so they might be terrible, but could be interesting)
10JanetinLondon
Okay, I have compared the selections made by M.A. Screech and J.M. Cohen, checked the list of recommended essays for first year English students at University College London, and looked at Sarah Bakewell's website, where I found she listed 7 in particular, which I guess are the subjects of the essays she wrote in the Guardian at some point. Based on all of that, plus a few that just sounded interesting, I suggest we start with the following, although we can always add or delete, of course! I also suggest we read them in order, because it seems he moved from a more "how to behave" approach (the whole "honor is important" thing) to a more "this is what men are like" approach.
I am using the numbering used by Screech and by Cohen - the older Cotton list is slightly different in Book I. My titles are idiosyncratic - whichever list I copied it off I am using, so they are not all from the same source. The ones in bold seem the most famous, or widely mentioned.
Book I:
1- That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End (done)
3 - Our Feelings Reach Out Beyond Us (done)
8 - On Idleness (done)
16 - On punishing cowardice
20 - To philosophize is to learn how to die
26 - On the education of children
27 - That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity
28 - Of friendship
31 - On cannibals
36 - On the custom of wearing clothes
37 (Cotton's numbering) - How we cry and laugh for the same thing
Book II:
8 - On the affection of fathers for their children
11 - On cruelty
14 - How our mind hinders itself
32 - In defence of Seneca and Plutarch
Book III:
2 - On repentance
3- On three kinds of social intercourse
4 - Of diversion
6 - On vehicles (or coaches)
13 - On experience
Also, here are some websites I came across which might be useful (in addition, of course, to all the ones selling essays for students!):
www.sarahbakewell.com
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe
plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne
essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne
www.mymontaigneproject.org (someone named Dan Conley who I think has written an essay on each Montaigne essay - have not read any of them, so they might be terrible, but could be interesting)
I am using the numbering used by Screech and by Cohen - the older Cotton list is slightly different in Book I. My titles are idiosyncratic - whichever list I copied it off I am using, so they are not all from the same source. The ones in bold seem the most famous, or widely mentioned.
Book I:
1- That Men by Various Ways Arrive at the Same End (done)
3 - Our Feelings Reach Out Beyond Us (done)
8 - On Idleness (done)
16 - On punishing cowardice
20 - To philosophize is to learn how to die
26 - On the education of children
27 - That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity
28 - Of friendship
31 - On cannibals
36 - On the custom of wearing clothes
37 (Cotton's numbering) - How we cry and laugh for the same thing
Book II:
8 - On the affection of fathers for their children
11 - On cruelty
14 - How our mind hinders itself
32 - In defence of Seneca and Plutarch
Book III:
2 - On repentance
3- On three kinds of social intercourse
4 - Of diversion
6 - On vehicles (or coaches)
13 - On experience
Also, here are some websites I came across which might be useful (in addition, of course, to all the ones selling essays for students!):
www.sarahbakewell.com
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe
plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne
essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne
www.mymontaigneproject.org (someone named Dan Conley who I think has written an essay on each Montaigne essay - have not read any of them, so they might be terrible, but could be interesting)
11sibylline
Thank you Janet, I know how much time that represents.
I did also notice there is a bio of Montaigne kicking around -- just came out in pbk, I think How to Live: A Life of Michel de Montaigne or something like that - although the touchstones don't seem to think that's right. I'm going to go and see if I can find it and see what the verdict on it is.
#3 will be our next? I love the title!
I remember the second one somewhat from some other attempted reading - in contrast to the first one it ends with a personal declaration of how he tries to be rational and hold his feelings in check.
I did also notice there is a bio of Montaigne kicking around -- just came out in pbk, I think How to Live: A Life of Michel de Montaigne or something like that - although the touchstones don't seem to think that's right. I'm going to go and see if I can find it and see what the verdict on it is.
#3 will be our next? I love the title!
I remember the second one somewhat from some other attempted reading - in contrast to the first one it ends with a personal declaration of how he tries to be rational and hold his feelings in check.
12JanetinLondon
I think that biography is the Sarah Bakewell book? If yes, I read it and it was really good, and it is what got me interested in the essays.
Yes, #3 next. But if you think we shouldn't skip #2 I'm happy to read that one first, instead.
Yes, #3 next. But if you think we shouldn't skip #2 I'm happy to read that one first, instead.
13sibylline
No, let's go to 3! I think I should hurry and get the Bakewell into my booklist for Santa.
15JanetinLondon
I/3 That Our Affections Carry Themselves Beyond Us
I have to admit I found it hard to understand this one at first. I still have to learn how to tell when Montaigne is illustrating points of view he says “people” hold, which seems to mean he doesn’t agree, as opposed to stating what he himself believes, or illustrating views he does agree with. I know that new paragraphs often indicate changes in the line of argument, but it’s still hard to follow. Good brain exercise, though. Also, I only had the Cotton translation for this one, and it is definitely harder to follow the older language.
I eventually decided it was about what constitutes the impact a man has in the world, first during his life and secondly after his death, and how much attention one should give to the different aspects. I think where he comes out is that a living person impacts on others by their physical actions in the present, and also by their reputation, but that after death only the latter is of any importance. Well, it seems obvious as I type it, but it didn’t feel obvious coming round to seeing it in the essay. For him, this implies that one should care about one’s reputation, and consider the future, not just live in the present. He comments on Rousseau, Seneca, Cicero and Epicurus as apparently supporting the view that one should think only about the present and not worry too much about the future, since we can’t know what will happen after we’re dead anyway. I think he rejects this position.
Then he moves on to encouraging rulers to think about their reputations (honor, etc.) if they want to be admired after their deaths as opposed to just being respected on account of their office. He discusses the importance of supporting rulers no matter what, which I imagine is a product of the chaotic times he was living in (he reminds me of Hobbes, but Hobbes comes a bit later). And, this being so, I can see that he would want rulers to think of posterity, as a sort of curb on their worst instincts (unless, of course, they wanted to be remembered for their ruthlessness or whatever). He doesn’t seem to distinguish between rulers and ordinary people – would the same principles necessarily apply?
The next bit is really interesting, where he says that people shouldn’t care about what happens to their bodies after they die. He hates the vanity implicit in planning one’s own funeral, believing that funerals are to solace the living (is he thinking of some real examples in his time?) And he supports the Athenian generals who chose to press on chasing their enemies rather than stop to bury their dead, even though Athenian society condemned them for it. He does go on to give examples of where rulers’ bodies did have an impact after their lives, being used as talismen in battle, for example, although I don’t think he supports this concept.
So, the upshot is that rather than just thinking about our day-to-day lives we (or at least, rulers?) should think of the future, too, and particularly of what people will be thinking of us after we’re dead. And, we shouldn’t care what happens to our bodies after we die. The first part of this seems to fit naturally with Montaigne’s background and education, but his attitude towards dead bodies really surprised me, given that he is both a Classicist and a staunch Roman Catholic. I wonder what his earliest readers made of it? Or maybe he was just stirring up controversy for the sake of it?
Finally, since Montaigne is always saying that his subject is himself, I tried to list out the things he tells us directly about himself, or about his beliefs, in this essay:
- He believes people should care about their reputations, and should think of the future, not just the present.
- He believes in obeying rulers, even bad ones, but doesn’t think they are automatically entitled to admiration.
- He believes in following customs (for example when he talks about his own funeral).
- He is shy about his body (as per his comments on keeping his bodily functions private).
- He dislikes vanity.
Maybe there are other points I missed. As for myself, I tried to think how I felt about these things, but it was difficult. I think I agree with him, at least to an extent, except for the second point,and possibly the third, not sure.
I’ll be interested to see the extent to which he contradicts any of these later, as his views develop. For example, I’m pretty sure that as he gets older he starts to shift towards a “living for the present” attitude, or am I just confusing that with advocating withdrawal from the world?
I’m really looking forward to reading what you thought, Sib, and to moving on to the next one - On Idleness, which sounds a bit easier, at least from the title.
I have to admit I found it hard to understand this one at first. I still have to learn how to tell when Montaigne is illustrating points of view he says “people” hold, which seems to mean he doesn’t agree, as opposed to stating what he himself believes, or illustrating views he does agree with. I know that new paragraphs often indicate changes in the line of argument, but it’s still hard to follow. Good brain exercise, though. Also, I only had the Cotton translation for this one, and it is definitely harder to follow the older language.
I eventually decided it was about what constitutes the impact a man has in the world, first during his life and secondly after his death, and how much attention one should give to the different aspects. I think where he comes out is that a living person impacts on others by their physical actions in the present, and also by their reputation, but that after death only the latter is of any importance. Well, it seems obvious as I type it, but it didn’t feel obvious coming round to seeing it in the essay. For him, this implies that one should care about one’s reputation, and consider the future, not just live in the present. He comments on Rousseau, Seneca, Cicero and Epicurus as apparently supporting the view that one should think only about the present and not worry too much about the future, since we can’t know what will happen after we’re dead anyway. I think he rejects this position.
Then he moves on to encouraging rulers to think about their reputations (honor, etc.) if they want to be admired after their deaths as opposed to just being respected on account of their office. He discusses the importance of supporting rulers no matter what, which I imagine is a product of the chaotic times he was living in (he reminds me of Hobbes, but Hobbes comes a bit later). And, this being so, I can see that he would want rulers to think of posterity, as a sort of curb on their worst instincts (unless, of course, they wanted to be remembered for their ruthlessness or whatever). He doesn’t seem to distinguish between rulers and ordinary people – would the same principles necessarily apply?
The next bit is really interesting, where he says that people shouldn’t care about what happens to their bodies after they die. He hates the vanity implicit in planning one’s own funeral, believing that funerals are to solace the living (is he thinking of some real examples in his time?) And he supports the Athenian generals who chose to press on chasing their enemies rather than stop to bury their dead, even though Athenian society condemned them for it. He does go on to give examples of where rulers’ bodies did have an impact after their lives, being used as talismen in battle, for example, although I don’t think he supports this concept.
So, the upshot is that rather than just thinking about our day-to-day lives we (or at least, rulers?) should think of the future, too, and particularly of what people will be thinking of us after we’re dead. And, we shouldn’t care what happens to our bodies after we die. The first part of this seems to fit naturally with Montaigne’s background and education, but his attitude towards dead bodies really surprised me, given that he is both a Classicist and a staunch Roman Catholic. I wonder what his earliest readers made of it? Or maybe he was just stirring up controversy for the sake of it?
Finally, since Montaigne is always saying that his subject is himself, I tried to list out the things he tells us directly about himself, or about his beliefs, in this essay:
- He believes people should care about their reputations, and should think of the future, not just the present.
- He believes in obeying rulers, even bad ones, but doesn’t think they are automatically entitled to admiration.
- He believes in following customs (for example when he talks about his own funeral).
- He is shy about his body (as per his comments on keeping his bodily functions private).
- He dislikes vanity.
Maybe there are other points I missed. As for myself, I tried to think how I felt about these things, but it was difficult. I think I agree with him, at least to an extent, except for the second point,and possibly the third, not sure.
I’ll be interested to see the extent to which he contradicts any of these later, as his views develop. For example, I’m pretty sure that as he gets older he starts to shift towards a “living for the present” attitude, or am I just confusing that with advocating withdrawal from the world?
I’m really looking forward to reading what you thought, Sib, and to moving on to the next one - On Idleness, which sounds a bit easier, at least from the title.
16sibylline
I had a surprisingly busy day (doing I can hardly say what, only that here it is 10 p.m. and I have read the essay, but am not ready to write). I like your comments and am going to let both those and the essay boil around in my head for the night! It was not a 'tightly composed' kind of essay, more exploratory somehow? As if he is trying to figure out what he does believe?
17sibylline
Let me muddle along here - first outlining my own 'take' and then responding to Janet.
I'll note however that the word 'Affection' in the title relates more to the way we use the word nowadays in psychology -- 'affect' -- your manner, the way you manifest yourself -- in the modern french version the title is changed to 'Nos facons d'etre nous survivent'. As before, I've consulted the old french, new french, and the Cotton in English which I use for any quotes as well.
M makes the point au debut , that he questions this idea of living only for the present', for it seems to him that we all live in the future 'fears, desires, hopes' etc. he quotes Plato, "Do thine own work, and know thyself' -- it seems to cover all bases, he implies, present and future.
Then, as ever he moves on to an examination of various leaders, military and political -- in his usual style, presenting cases on 'both sides' of this question which appears, a bit confusingly to have two elements, how to dispose of the dead and funeral rites. Anecdotes, both personal and historical of valor, of occult belief in some cultures of carrying about the bones of a dead warrior to battle, a joke about an Emperor's excessive modesty in death, and the vanity of witnessing yr. own funeral arrangements before death.....
From a religious angle, and I guess M's own historical context, it is interesting that he takes this stand so strongly -- of the irrelevance of the body after death, I mean -- being part of a heavily Catholic world, but perhaps you know more about him, Janet, from having read the bio.
The tag at the ending, was interesting, the almost alchemical transmutation of one living thing to another -- leaves the door open to all sort of further query.
I saw the emphasis of the essay being in examining how death of the body has been approached in the past, plus M's own ideas. The first point, about reputation, is relevant in that the public figure with so much power over others, needs to bear in mind, that all the power concentrated in their living self dissipates and only the fact of whether they ruled successfully and humanely will last after they die. But the bulk of the essay seemed to me to have a most literal purpose, to examine various attitudes about the disposal/arrangement of the body after death. What makes the essay so interesting is, once again, M's unerring ability to focus on what is most unknowable, what tickles and torments our minds and how strange it is that in the moment of death, everything changes and you are left, as I think the last P. is meant to convey, with an alchemical mystery.
I'll note however that the word 'Affection' in the title relates more to the way we use the word nowadays in psychology -- 'affect' -- your manner, the way you manifest yourself -- in the modern french version the title is changed to 'Nos facons d'etre nous survivent'. As before, I've consulted the old french, new french, and the Cotton in English which I use for any quotes as well.
M makes the point au debut , that he questions this idea of living only for the present', for it seems to him that we all live in the future 'fears, desires, hopes' etc. he quotes Plato, "Do thine own work, and know thyself' -- it seems to cover all bases, he implies, present and future.
Then, as ever he moves on to an examination of various leaders, military and political -- in his usual style, presenting cases on 'both sides' of this question which appears, a bit confusingly to have two elements, how to dispose of the dead and funeral rites. Anecdotes, both personal and historical of valor, of occult belief in some cultures of carrying about the bones of a dead warrior to battle, a joke about an Emperor's excessive modesty in death, and the vanity of witnessing yr. own funeral arrangements before death.....
From a religious angle, and I guess M's own historical context, it is interesting that he takes this stand so strongly -- of the irrelevance of the body after death, I mean -- being part of a heavily Catholic world, but perhaps you know more about him, Janet, from having read the bio.
The tag at the ending, was interesting, the almost alchemical transmutation of one living thing to another -- leaves the door open to all sort of further query.
I saw the emphasis of the essay being in examining how death of the body has been approached in the past, plus M's own ideas. The first point, about reputation, is relevant in that the public figure with so much power over others, needs to bear in mind, that all the power concentrated in their living self dissipates and only the fact of whether they ruled successfully and humanely will last after they die. But the bulk of the essay seemed to me to have a most literal purpose, to examine various attitudes about the disposal/arrangement of the body after death. What makes the essay so interesting is, once again, M's unerring ability to focus on what is most unknowable, what tickles and torments our minds and how strange it is that in the moment of death, everything changes and you are left, as I think the last P. is meant to convey, with an alchemical mystery.
19helensq
May I join you?
You have inspired me to look at Montiagne for the first time. I've downloaded both the modern French version and the Cotton English translation, so a chance to brush up my French as well. I'm not sure I will have any great insights to offer but will enjoy the journey.
On Idleness is a good start for me - echoes my own experience that I relax best by keeping busy.
You have inspired me to look at Montiagne for the first time. I've downloaded both the modern French version and the Cotton English translation, so a chance to brush up my French as well. I'm not sure I will have any great insights to offer but will enjoy the journey.
On Idleness is a good start for me - echoes my own experience that I relax best by keeping busy.
21JanetinLondon
Welcome from me, too!
22sibylline
Reading over my 'take' yesterday, I feel I must have had my head in cotton wool or something..... but, really, I just didn't 'take' to that essay really, couldn't get excited about it. M. does make a might big assumption (and I'm sure this never ceases throughout) that the 'great men' of the world are the prime examples of anything and everything. It's a shame really, because it obscures two things -- the structuring of his essays and two that his themes have such wider possibilities in exegesis (sorry to use that word, but it's the most apt).
23JanetinLondon
I agree - that essay wasn't really very interesting or even well structured. Probably that's why it isn't in the two selections I am working from! On the other hand (see, he is having an effect!), he does say they are all just his random thoughts, not necessarily sticking to one point, nor meant to do more than illustrate his thoughts.
I also agree about the "great men" point. I'm a little surprised by it, too, since he is supposedly looking to understand himself - maybe he just identifies with those great men rather than with ordinary men. Or maybe it's just a result of the fact that he quotes historical examples most of the time, and not much history writing included ordinary people in those days. I hope he matures fast, though - I don't think I'd like the Montaigne we have met so far.
I also agree about the "great men" point. I'm a little surprised by it, too, since he is supposedly looking to understand himself - maybe he just identifies with those great men rather than with ordinary men. Or maybe it's just a result of the fact that he quotes historical examples most of the time, and not much history writing included ordinary people in those days. I hope he matures fast, though - I don't think I'd like the Montaigne we have met so far.
25JanetinLondon
Book I Chapter 8 - On Idleness
Well, at least this one was short and easy to follow. I read both the Screech and the Cohen translations, but it was so short and simple that I really didn’t need to read both. I just don’t get the point of it, but I guess I still have to get used to his approach. So, as far as I can tell, Montaigne thought that when he retired to his estate he would just sit around thinking great thoughts, without needing any particular effort or structure. Instead, he finds himself thinking random and even (horror of horrors) trivial thoughts. He decides to keep track of these random thoughts in order to analyze them later. Why? Maybe he thinks the recording process itself makes the trivial significant (plenty of people have thought that – he would have fit right in with the Facebook and Twitter crowd), but I think he might be more egotistical than that – he can’t really believe his thoughts are trivial, so he thinks if he writes them down he might see their significance. He is so “up himself”, as my kids would say.
The more interesting thing in this essay is the two examples he starts with, illustrating the negative effects of unstructured idleness. I imagine they reflect views typical of that society, and surely Montaigne’s views. Untamed nature is wasteful and even dangerous, and man must master it – fallow fields grow weeds and should be sown with useful plants. Man also must master woman, and in particular in terms of reproduction, women on their own might produce “inanimate and shapeless lumps of flesh”, so men must ensure they are “kept busy by a semen other than their own in order to produce good natural offspring” (quotes from Screech translation). Luckily Screech explains that second one – apparently in Montaigne’s time people already understood the role of semen in reproduction, but science had not yet discovered the concept or role of the egg. Instead, they believed that women produced their own, inferior (of course), semen, and on its own this could sometimes produce failed foetuses. (I am wondering if this was considered the result of sex with men, and whether some kinds of sex were more likely to produce “good” results?)
This to me is a fascinating example of how throughout history dominant groups (in this case men) interpreted events in order to support their dominance. It couldn’t possibly be men’s fault if some pregnancies failed, could it? I wonder how many blind alleys science went up because of this kind of thinking? (I don’t mean misunderstanding the science, I mean being unable to conceive of an explanation for something which threatened the dominant group.)
I can’t say this essay opened my mind very much philosophically, but it was interesting historically, as well as in showing more of Montaigne’s thinking, which perhaps will be useful later on.
Next up is Book I Chapter 16 – On Punishing Cowardice. This one is even shorter, so we should be able to get back on course for one a week, even with Christmas. I will be reading the Screech translation for this one.
Well, at least this one was short and easy to follow. I read both the Screech and the Cohen translations, but it was so short and simple that I really didn’t need to read both. I just don’t get the point of it, but I guess I still have to get used to his approach. So, as far as I can tell, Montaigne thought that when he retired to his estate he would just sit around thinking great thoughts, without needing any particular effort or structure. Instead, he finds himself thinking random and even (horror of horrors) trivial thoughts. He decides to keep track of these random thoughts in order to analyze them later. Why? Maybe he thinks the recording process itself makes the trivial significant (plenty of people have thought that – he would have fit right in with the Facebook and Twitter crowd), but I think he might be more egotistical than that – he can’t really believe his thoughts are trivial, so he thinks if he writes them down he might see their significance. He is so “up himself”, as my kids would say.
The more interesting thing in this essay is the two examples he starts with, illustrating the negative effects of unstructured idleness. I imagine they reflect views typical of that society, and surely Montaigne’s views. Untamed nature is wasteful and even dangerous, and man must master it – fallow fields grow weeds and should be sown with useful plants. Man also must master woman, and in particular in terms of reproduction, women on their own might produce “inanimate and shapeless lumps of flesh”, so men must ensure they are “kept busy by a semen other than their own in order to produce good natural offspring” (quotes from Screech translation). Luckily Screech explains that second one – apparently in Montaigne’s time people already understood the role of semen in reproduction, but science had not yet discovered the concept or role of the egg. Instead, they believed that women produced their own, inferior (of course), semen, and on its own this could sometimes produce failed foetuses. (I am wondering if this was considered the result of sex with men, and whether some kinds of sex were more likely to produce “good” results?)
This to me is a fascinating example of how throughout history dominant groups (in this case men) interpreted events in order to support their dominance. It couldn’t possibly be men’s fault if some pregnancies failed, could it? I wonder how many blind alleys science went up because of this kind of thinking? (I don’t mean misunderstanding the science, I mean being unable to conceive of an explanation for something which threatened the dominant group.)
I can’t say this essay opened my mind very much philosophically, but it was interesting historically, as well as in showing more of Montaigne’s thinking, which perhaps will be useful later on.
Next up is Book I Chapter 16 – On Punishing Cowardice. This one is even shorter, so we should be able to get back on course for one a week, even with Christmas. I will be reading the Screech translation for this one.
26sibylline
Alas I am so Idle I haven't yet read the essay -- we have guests up the yin yang today...... HOWEVER I loved your comments and can't wait to read it. You were tart and very funny!
In some research I did on midwifery -- in the mid-19th century doctors thought they didn't have to wash their hands because they were gentlemen and gentlemen couldn't possibly have germs they would transmit to anyone. Even as the first research was showing what a huge difference just washing your hands all the time made to infections, they excepted themselves for quite some time. Midwives, women, and every other sort of lesser male, of course, were automatically dirty-handed. When you think of the lives lost by such arrogance!
In some research I did on midwifery -- in the mid-19th century doctors thought they didn't have to wash their hands because they were gentlemen and gentlemen couldn't possibly have germs they would transmit to anyone. Even as the first research was showing what a huge difference just washing your hands all the time made to infections, they excepted themselves for quite some time. Midwives, women, and every other sort of lesser male, of course, were automatically dirty-handed. When you think of the lives lost by such arrogance!
27JanetinLondon
Interesting. I have to say, that attitude amongst doctors isn't totally gone. Several times during my various hospital stays last year I was temporarily considered potentially infectious whilst they awaited results from some or other. This meant that anyone who came in my room, even just to leave me food, had to wear a disposable mask, gloves and apron. The nurses were extremely scrupulous about this, as were the food servers, cleaners, etc. The doctors, not so much. It was if they knew, or at least believed, the precautions were over the top, but necessary to make sure there were no blurry lines. I guess they did know when which precautions would really matter (if they weren't touching me, just talking to me, for example, it might have been okay, I don't know.)
28sibylline
I've read this twice and I lay in bed this morning composing a very silly limerick about it because frankly, I have nothing to say that you didn't already say -- and you were quite generous.
There was a seigneur named Montaigne
Of whose wisdom he wished to maintain.
To the pays he retired
Where his wisdom expired
And only his ego remained.
What was I supposed to read for today? We've had a boatload of rellies here, no time for seriosu thinking. But let's resume next Saturday?
Should we update this to 2012 somehow?????
There was a seigneur named Montaigne
Of whose wisdom he wished to maintain.
To the pays he retired
Where his wisdom expired
And only his ego remained.
What was I supposed to read for today? We've had a boatload of rellies here, no time for seriosu thinking. But let's resume next Saturday?
Should we update this to 2012 somehow?????
29gennyt
Belatedly enjoying your discussions of Montaign (and the limerick!) though so far I am not wanting to rush out and read him myself!
Have you continued this in 2012 - I'm so behind on the threads there, I may have missed it if so.
Have you continued this in 2012 - I'm so behind on the threads there, I may have missed it if so.
30sibylline
I am stopping in here to explain why this read stopped abruptly -- Janet and I were reading the essays, one a week together...... I began to worry when she was late posting (she was much more prompt than me!) and sadly my worst fears were confirmed today. Janet passed away on the 4th of January. I'm going to put Sieur Montaigne back on the shelf, don't have the heart for it for now.
