Monday Morning Montaigne: An Apology for Raymond Sebond, Take 3

I made it through the longest portion of the Apology, dear readers! And while it was as depressing and sermonistically strident as the preceding 60 pages, some light popped up at the end of the tunnel!

This segment of the Apology — go back to previous installments of this series (1 and 2) for the background on this part of Montaigne’s essays — is titled by our translator as Man has no knowledge (pages 449-508 in this edition) and examines the failures and inconsistencies of philosophy to explain, um, anything. M. focuses on the Greeks, which makes given the state of philosophy at the time he was writing. He breaks out three schools of “wise men,” since his project is to show that the learning of man is worthless. Or, as he puts it:

To really learned men has happened what happens to ears of wheat: they rise high and lofty, heads erect and proud, as long as they are empty; but when they are full and swollen with grain in their ripeness, they begin to grow humble and lower their horns. Similarly, men who have tried everything and sounded everything, having found in that pile of knowledge and store of so many various things nothing solid and firm, and nothing but vanity, have renounced their presumption and recognized their natural condition.

Back to the three schools. We have:

  1. “Peripatetics, Epicureans and Stoics . . . [who] established the sciences we have, and treated them as certain knowledge,
  2. “the Academics . . . [who] despaired of their quest and judged that truth could not be conceived by our powers,
  3. “[Pyrrhonians and] Skeptics . . . [who] say that they are still in search of the truth . . . [and] judge that those who think they have found it are infinitely mistaken.”

M. starts out by denying skeptics their skepticism, concluding that their radical doubt is too aware of itself to truly be doubt. He also contends that their doubt is purely for argument: “They use their reason to inquire and debate, but not to conclude and choose.” To M., the doubts of the skeptics are about the branches, and not the root.

Throughout the section, the core of his argument remains that the nature of the infinite is so far beyond our senses that our reason can’t hope to grasp it. It’s only our faith that brings us close, while reason’s presumption separates us from that higher self: “All that we undertake without his assistance, all that we see without the lamp of his grace, is only vanity and folly.”

M. contends that, if forced to bestow a material body on the divine, he would have worshiped the sun, since “[besides] its grandeur and beauty, it is the part of this machine that we find farthest from us, and therefore so little known that [its ancient worshipers] were to be pardoned for regarding it with wonder and reverence.” He later remarks that it’s such folly to personify the diving that he’d prefer to worship a god patterned after a serpent, dog, or ox.

This point follows an entertaining segment where M. lists no fewer than 25 philosophers and each one’s view on God and the divine (some of which have multiple views on such). The point, of course, is that these were the greatest minds of their time, and they couldn’t settle on an idea of the divine.

From there, he lambastes them for coming no closer to an understanding of man. If anything, he opines, shouldn’t we have knowledge of ourselves?

It’s a long and exhausting chapter, especially when M. turns his attention to Aristotle. I was inclined to think he wrote that section in a particularly boring style to mimic Aristotle’s notes, but that may’ve just been my own wandering attention. By the time I reached its conclusion, I wondered why he needed to go on at such length, to dismiss so many targets, unless his commission was paying by the word.

* * *

I found myself greatly relieved at the conclusion, not only because It’s Finally Over, but also because it leads into a two-page passage that the translator titles Warning to the Princess (the Apology being written for Princess Margaret of Valois). In this brief segment, it’s as if the mask falls from M. He admits that the Apology is “so long a work contrary to my custom” and proceeds to distill his message:

People are right to give the tightest possible barriers to the human mind. In study, as in everything else, its steps must be counted and regulated for it; the limits of the chase must be artificially determined for it. They bridle and bind it with religions, laws, customs, science, precepts, mortal and immortal punishments and rewards; and still we see that by its whirling and its incohesiveness it escapes all these bonds. It is an empty body, with nothing by which it can be seized and directed; a varying and formless body, which can be neither tied nor grasped.

Indeed there are few souls so orderly, so strong and wellborn, that they can be trusted with their own guidance, and that can sail with moderation and without temerity, in the freedom of their judgments, beyond the common opinions. It is more expedient to place them in tutelage.

The mind is a dangerous blade, even to its possessor, for anyone who does not know how to wield it with order and discretion.

It’s not a sentiment I necessarily agree with, but I’m happy that M. is able to cut it down to a few paragraphs this way. Still, there are another 46 pages ahead comprising five more sections, so I’m afraid it’ll be another week before I can build up some enthusiasm for this project.

What it is: 9/1/08

What I’m reading: Montaigne’s essays, Berlin: City of Stones, and The Great Outdoor Fight.

What I’m listening to: The first Scissor Sisters album.

What I’m watching: Started up the fifth season of The Wire. Not liking it so much after two episodes, because a lot of the characters are speechifying, rather than talking. And only eight left!

What I’m drinking: Rosenblum 2007 Appellation viognier.

What Rufus is up to: His first hike! And a BBQ party where he was awfully well behaved (except for his chow-hounding)!

What I’m happy about: I got to see some longtime friends on Sunday and got to see one of my work-pals get hitched on Saturday. And I don’t have to go to work today!

What I’m sad about: That two people at the party I attended on Sunday talked about how it was “poetic justice” that Hurricane Gustav might wallop New Orleans & environs at the same time as the Republican Convention.

What I’m pondering: How this is any different from evangelicals contending that Hurricane Katrina was God’s revenge on homosexuals, Southern Decadence, etc. They’re all douchebags who ignore human suffering in favor of making their narrow political point.

The Deadliest Pick

I don’t venture into politics too often on this blog, but here’s my prediction for the Sarah Palin effect: it backfires on McCain because women will actually want to vote against her the more their husbands point out how hot she is.

Dog days

Next month will be pretty hectic and I have a ton of vacation time piled up. So, since we’re not going anywhere for Labor Day weekend, and my Friday office hours are only 8am-1pm, I decided to take today off from work.

It’s been a pretty lazy day, except for going out to buy a new dishwasher and reading a dense section of Montaigne. Now (3pm) I’m just about ready for a new adventure, so I’m going to pack Rufus in the car, head out to one of the Ramapo Lake trails to see how the boy likes walking in the woods!

* * *

UPDATE: And we’re back! I took Rufus on the Macevoy trail, a half-mile stretch leading from a parking area off Skyline Drive up to the Ramapo Lake. I took my family — my brother, sister-in-law, their kids, Dad and his girlfriend — up there on July 4 last year. We had to take our time; in fact, Dad barely made it, but I was proud of him for surviving the trek.

Rufus, on the other hand, tried to make a sprint out of it, as is his wont. There’s no talking him out of that sorta thing. He made some friends on the way up, as is also his wont. A couple was walking down the trail, and the guy took Rufus’ friendliness as an opportunity to explain to his girlfriend why they need to get a big dog, not a little one like she wants. Ru did his best to sway her by leaning heavily against her. Unfortunately, I think he swayed her body more than her opinion, but she continued to coo over our boy.

I brought along two bottles of water, as well as one of his bowls, since he refuses to drink from the bottle/bowl I was considerate enough to buy for him. It’s not too hot today — around 78 — but he tends to hurry, and to stop and sniff at everydarnthing around, so by the time we reached the lake, he was panting a bit. At that point, a woman walked by with a beagle-ish dog, but she said it was pretty hyper and angry since getting into a doggie-altercation last month, and she was afraid he’d get Rufus upset. My boy was too tired to even disagree.

I got him to stand still long enough for some pix, and even got him to drink some water (after dropping half a dog-treat in the bowl), but I could see that he wasn’t happy to be out in the sun at that point. The trek back was a little more hazardous than the way in, because so much of it was downhill on rocks, but Rufus was a trooper. He tends to stay in front of me when we walk, but he paused in front of less certain paths, and waited for me to go by and show him where to step.

On the way we got back to the car, we encountered a family of incredible nordicity. I thought they’d escaped from the nearby Ikea, but it turned out that they were visiting family in the area. The parents and their 3 small kids all fawned over our boy, who wasn’t so exhausted as to reject the attention.

Back in the car, he was a panting wreck. But it’s only a 7- or 8-minute drive home, and he’s now sacked out comfortably on his bed, having drunk half a bowl of water. I walked in to see the Yankees beat the Red Sox in the bottom of the ninth. For what that’s worth.

So that’s my day off: some reading, some napping, some appliance shopping, some Yankees, and Rufus on a hiking trail. (UPDATE: and a cigar out on the deck, as I watch the sun go down.)

Click through the pic for the rest of the photoset!

“Oh, look at me! I’m doing my little French-maid-ears trick!”

Sunshine

What’s in the Arts+ section of The Official Newspaper of Gil Roth today?

  1. a review of two biographies of Han van Meegeren, the famous Dutch forger of paintings,
  2. a review of Richard Todd’s essays on authenticity (nice complement/contrast to the forgery review),
  3. a review of a biography of Jacob Riis, the man who chronicled the horrors of tenement life in late 19th century Manhattan,
  4. a review of a book on the New Urban Renewal and today’s gentrification,
  5. Otto Penzler’s review of Anton Chekhov’s crime fiction.

Sometimes I think their editors say to each other, “Remember that thing Gil was muttering to himself about in 1997, when he thought no one was listening? We should assign an article on that topic!”

Don’t hide my rawhide!

For more than five months, Rufus has been a pretty awesome dog. Sure, he has little eccentricities, but they’re nothing compared to mine, even if I don’t treat my stuffed animals as badly as he treats his.

Anyway, last night, we gave him a new rawhide. Over the next hour, he proceeded to devour it on his livingroom bed. I noticed that he’d gnawed it down to one knot, so I tried to get it away from him. He barked at me, for the first time.

Desperate times required the desperate measure of shaking a bag of doggie-treats in another room. He spit out the rawhide and ran out to get his treat. I used it to get him downstairs and outside for his evening pee break, while Amy hid the rest of the rawhide in the kitchen.

Once we got back upstairs, Rufus was like a junkie missing his fix. He started turning things over in the living room, trying to find his rawhide. Originally, Amy hid it under some blankets on the ottoman near his bed. He buried his nose under the blankets, shoving and snuffing. He stormed up and down the hall, pawed at his bed, and otherwise evinced a panic I’d never seen in him before.

I got him another treat, and he settled down, heartbroken.

An hour or so later, we got ready for bed, and he proceeded to do something he hadn’t tried (with me around) since he joined our home in March:

That’s right: he ran into the bedroom, strode right up on our bed, stretched out, and refused to leave, snarling at me when I grabbed his collar to get him off. What else could I do? I got my camera, let him pout a minute while I took some pix, and then said, “OFF!” while giving him a good yank of the collar. He curled up on his bed, point made.

Kids. I tellya.

Life’s work

Earlier this year, I had variations of the following e-mail exchange with several NYC literary figures I know:

GIL: Just wondering: do you know Robert Caro?

AUTHOR/WRITER: By acquaintance. Why?

GIL: Would you say he’s in good health?

A/W: Not sure. What’s up? Have you heard something?

GIL: No. It’s just that, well, I loved his biography of Robert Moses, so I grabbed the first three volumes of his biography of Lyndon Johnson. But I know he’s getting up there in years and I’m afraid to start reading it until I know that he’s going to be around to finish the fourth volume.

A/W: . . . You’re a cold person.

GIL: Yeah, but do you think he’s going to finish the biography?

A/W: . . . Good question.

Caro’s own site doesn’t give info about how he’s doing and I’ve been afraid to contact his agent with such a crass question, so I’ve held off on starting the series. The first three books add up to around 2,250 pages, and winds up in 1960, as he becomes vice president under JFK. I confess that I didn’t understand Caro’s desire to devote the half his life (figuring that he started around 1976 or so) to this biography; I don’t know enough about LBJ’s presidency or his character. He’s sort of a void for me, falling between the mythologies of JFK and Nixon.

But, given Caro’s enormous achievement with The Power Broker, I picked up the first volume of the LBJ bio secondhand last summer and read the first 40 pages (introduction and first chapter) one afternoon. I was blown away by the combination of Caro’s wonderful narrative prose and his ability to convey exactly how LBJ epitomizes American politics. On top of that, LBJ’s character and his seeming desire to cover up and rewrite his past made him a fascinating literary character (to me, but I still like Thomas Pynchon’s novels). By the time I’d wrapped up those 40 pages, I knew that Caro had made a perfect choice of subject, and was looking forward to reading the whole series.

Still, I’d seen Caro in Ric Burns’ New York documentary and, while he didn’t look frail, I feared that I’d be taking a risk in diving into the biography, only to see it cut prematurely.

So I was happy to read that there was a Caro-related party this summer as part of the Authors’ Night  benefit for the East Hampton Library (and you scoff at my devotion to Page Six!). I found out about it too late to break out my seersucker suit and crash the event, but I took it as a good sign that Caro was part of the social scene.

Yesterday, I got even more of a boost when I followed an Andrew Sullivan link to a George Packer piece in The New Yorker, where he discusses the importance of LBJ:

Whenever Democrats gather to celebrate the party, they invoke the names of their luminaries past. The list used to begin with Jefferson and Jackson. More recently, it’s been shortened to F.D.R., Truman, and J.F.K. The one Democrat with a legitimate claim to greatness who can’t be named is Lyndon Johnson. The other day I asked Robert Caro, Johnson’s Pulitzer-Prize-winning biographer and hardly a hagiographer of the man, whether he thought Johnson should be mentioned in Denver. “It would be only just to Johnson,” Caro said. “If the Democratic Party was going to honestly acknowledge how it came to the point in its history that it was about to nominate a black American for President, no speech would not mention Lyndon Johnson.” Caro is now at work on the fourth volume of his epic biography, about Johnson’s White House years. “I am writing right now about how he won for black Americans the right to vote. I am turning from what happened forty-three years ago to what I am reading in my daily newspaper—and the thrill that goes up and down my spine when I realize the historical significance of this moment is only equaled by my anger that they are not giving Johnson credit for it.”

Looks like I have a new reading project set once this Montaigne project is over!