Author: Gil

I’m back! As with other forms of exercise, it was difficult for me to return to Montaigne’s essays after putting them off for a while. As Bizarro Aristotle says, “You make the excuses, and the excuses make you.”

What better essay to mark my return to this project than one entitled  Of books? In this one, M. discusses what books mean to him and why he reads. With his typical disingenuousness, he begins, “I have no doubt that I often happen to speak of things that are better treated by masters of the craft, and more truthfully.” He blames himself and not the books, claiming, “If I am a man of some reading, I am a man of no retentiveness.”

He proceeds to write about particular histories and memoirs that mean a lot to him, but I’m taking this opportunity to discuss another aspect of the essays, namely their strange relationship to art.

That’s because M. makes a digression to cover “books that are simply entertaining.” He finds Rabelais and Boccaccio “worth reading for amusement,” then writes, “As for the Amadises and writings of that sort, they did not have the authority to detain even my childhood.”

I was struck by the irony of that comment, since “writings of that sort” inspired Cervantes to write Don Quixote. In fact, this brings me to one of the complaints I have toward M.’s writings; his lack of interest in fiction or poetry. Now, I know that the novel wasn’t All That during his life (1533-1592), so I’ll let him off the hook with regards to the former.

Regarding verse, M. takes the opportunity to praise Virgil, Lucretius, Catullus, Horace and Lucan, but chiefly for the beauty and grace of their writing. Throughout the essays — at least, in the first 375 pages — the ancient poets get used as “color commentary,” a line or stanza here or there to illustrate a point M. has made, not as the center of an argument or a passage from which to learn. It’s clear that he knows his poetry, but it’s not clear that he gained much from it, beyond rhetoric and a sort of “beauty for beauty’s sake.”

Don’t get me wrong; I understand that the project in which he’s engaged is learning “how to die well and live well,” and that he finds essays, philosophy and histories much more useful to that process. Praising the work of historians, M. comments:

[M]an in general, the knowledge of whom I seek, appears in them [histories] more alive and entire than in any other place — the diversity and truth of his inner qualities in the mass and in detail, the variety of the ways he is put together, and the accidents that threaten him.

It’s a pity that he died before Cervantes and Shakespeare got their groove on, even though there’s a strong possibility he’d have missed the point of their work, too, given his dismissal of “Amadises” and his criticism of writers who rely on ancient plots. My reason for this crops up a page or so later, when M. dismisses long-windedness in the works of Cicero. He writes,

For me, who ask only to become wiser, not more learned or eloquent, these logical and Aristotelian arrangements are not to the point. I want a man to begin with the conclusion. I understand well enough what death and pleasure are; let him not waste his time anatomizing them. I look for good solid reasons from the start, which will instruct me in how to sustain their attack.

I’m all for a cut-to-the-chase mentality, but I think the same things he complains about in Cicero may also render M. unable to grasp the life-changing-ness of art.

Since it’s almost Monday Afternoon Montaigne, I guess I’ll have to let this go for the moment.