Michel de Montaigne

I finished The Modern Mind a couple of days ago. I have to admit that I noticed a progressive weakening of my interest as the book--and the century--went on; I'm not quite as captivated by the developments of the last quarter of the 20th century as I am by what happened in earlier three-quarters. Now I've moved on to the Essays of Michel de Montaigne, a book that's been on my "to read" list since I read Jane Kramer's article about him in the New Yorker last year, which begins thusly:

"Every French schoolchild learns the date: February 28, 1571, the day that the educated nobleman Michel de Montaigne retired from court and public duties, retreated into the tower of his family castle, near Bordeaux, shut the door, and began to write. It was his thirty-eighth birthday. His plan was to spend the second half of his life looking at himself. Montaigne’s pursuit of the character he called Myself lasted for twenty years and produced more than a thousand pages of observation and revision that he called “essais.” His first two books of essays appeared in 1580. By the time he published a third book, in 1588, everyone in France with a philosophic bent and a classical education had read the first two. His books were utterly original. They were not confessional nor were they autobiographical. They made no claim to composing the narrative of a life, only of the shifting preoccupations of their protagonist in an ongoing conversation with the Greek and Roman writers on his library shelves—and, of course, with himself. His belief that the self, far from settling the question “Who am I?,” kept leaping ahead of its last convictions was so radical that some describe Montaigne as “the first modern man.”

Montaigne's tone is candid in a way that I've never encountered in 16th-century literature. Actually, I can't think of anything that's quite this accessible until the 19th century (not that I'm anything like an expert). It's the kind of authorial tone that immediately puts you at your ease with the writer; he's not preaching, he's not arguing, he's just trying to work out his thoughts on a particular topic. He doesn't pull any punches, either; for example, despite his high connections to the court, he's clear about his distaste for court life and its ridiculous ceremonial: "...in my home I have cut out all formalities. Does anyone take offense? What of it? It is better than I offend him once than myself all the time--that would amount to servitude for life! What is the use in fleeing from the slavery of the Court if we then go and drag it back to our lairs?"

He's also quite humorous, and capable of talking about sex in a manner that is both frank and wry--again, something I haven't seen before in Renaissance literature. In one of his essays, he muses for a while about the various psychosomatic causes of impotence, and then launches into a mock-legal defense of the penis:

"We are right to note the licence and disobedience of this member which thrusts itself forward so inopportunely when we do not want it to, and which so inopportunely lets us down when we most need it; so imperiously contests for authority with our will: it stubbornly and proudly refuses all our incitements, mental and manual. Yet if this member were arraigned for rebelliousness, found guilty because of it and then retained me to plead its cause, I would doubtless cast suspicion on our members for having deliberately brought a trumped-up charge, plotting to arm everybody against it and maliciously accusing it alone of a defect common to them all."

One of his more well-known essays is "On the Cannibals," in which he discusses the practice in Brazil of killing and eating prisoners of war. His enthusiastic description of how close these "primitives" are to nature in some ways anticipates the 18th-century concept of the "noble savage," yet he also realizes that we have no absolute standard by which to judge the customs of others: "I find that there is nothing savage or barbarous about those peoples [he's not referring to the cannibals just yet], but that every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to; it is indeed the case that we have no other criterion of truth or right-reason than the example and form of the opinions and customs of our own country. There we always find the perfect religion, the perfect polity, the most developed and perfect way of doing anything!"

Later he observes, strikingly, that Europeans have no right to decide who is and who is not barbaric: "It does not sadden me that we should note the horrific barbarity in a practice such as theirs; what does sadden me is that, while judging correctly of their wrongdoings we should be so blind to our own...we can indeed call those folk barbarians by the rules of reason but not in comparison with ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarism." Montaigne was writing from direct experience of the French Wars of Religion, which saw atrocities committed by both the Catholic and Huguenot forces. Torture, he says, is one crime that makes his "civilized" nation no better than the barbarians, a contention no less applicable today.

So far I'm really enjoying the book, as you may be able to tell. It's huge--1200 pages--but the nice thing about the essays is that they're mostly fairly short, and you don't feel constrained to read them all in order, or even to read all of them! It's also offering me a different perspective on the 16th century, which I'm used to looking at from the lens of Italy. I'll admit that my knowledge of the history and politics of late 16th-century France has mostly been shaped by one of Judith Merkle Riley's historical fiction novels, The Master of All Desires (to be fair, Riley is a PhD, albeit one of political science, not history). So it's good to get some exposure to the transalpine Renaissance culture!

One last funny bit, quoted by Montaigne:

Socrates was told that some man had not been improved by travel. "I am sure he was not," he said. "He went with himself!"