What do you think?
Rate this book
How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer
How to get on well with people, how to deal with violence, how to adjust to losing someone you love--such questions arise in most people's lives. They are all versions of a bigger question: how do you live? How do you do the good or honourable thing, while flourishing and feeling happy?
This question obsessed Renaissance writers, none more than Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533-92), perhaps the first truly modern individual. A nobleman, public official, and wine-grower, he wrote free-roaming explorations of his thought and experience, unlike anything written before. He called them 'essays', meaning 'attempts' or 'tries'. Into them he put whatever was in his head: his tastes in wine and food, his childhood memories, the way his dog's ears twitched when dreaming, as well as the appalling events of the religious civil wars raging around him. The Essays was an instant bestseller, and more than four hundred years later, Montaigne's honesty and charm still draw people to him. Readers come to him in search of companionship, wisdom and entertainment--and in search of themselves.
This book, a spirited and singular biography (and the first full life of Montaigne in English for nearly fifty years), relates the story of his life by way of the questions he posed and the answers he explored. It traces his bizarre upbringing (made to speak only Latin), youthful career and sexual adventures, travels, and friendships with the scholar and poet Etienne de La Boétie and with his adopted 'daughter', Marie de Gournay. And as we read, we also meet his readers--who for centuries have found in Montaigne an inexhaustible source of answers to the haunting question, 'how to live?'
This question obsessed Renaissance writers, none more than Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533-92), perhaps the first truly modern individual. A nobleman, public official, and wine-grower, he wrote free-roaming explorations of his thought and experience, unlike anything written before. He called them 'essays', meaning 'attempts' or 'tries'. Into them he put whatever was in his head: his tastes in wine and food, his childhood memories, the way his dog's ears twitched when dreaming, as well as the appalling events of the religious civil wars raging around him. The Essays was an instant bestseller, and more than four hundred years later, Montaigne's honesty and charm still draw people to him. Readers come to him in search of companionship, wisdom and entertainment--and in search of themselves.
This book, a spirited and singular biography (and the first full life of Montaigne in English for nearly fifty years), relates the story of his life by way of the questions he posed and the answers he explored. It traces his bizarre upbringing (made to speak only Latin), youthful career and sexual adventures, travels, and friendships with the scholar and poet Etienne de La Boétie and with his adopted 'daughter', Marie de Gournay. And as we read, we also meet his readers--who for centuries have found in Montaigne an inexhaustible source of answers to the haunting question, 'how to live?'
387 pages, Hardcover
First published February 16, 2010
About the author
Sarah Bakewell
12 books840 followersSarah Bakewell was a bookseller and a curator of early printed books at the Wellcome Library before publishing her highly acclaimed biographies The Smart, The English Dane, and the best-selling How to Live: A Life of Montaigne, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award for Biography. In addition to writing, she now teaches in the Masters of Studies in Creative Writing at Kellogg College, University of Oxford. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,190 reviews
December 5, 2019
This is an excellent book. I enjoyed Michel de Montaigne's Complete Essays immensely when I read them some years ago. Yet one leaves the Essays, or at least I did, with little understanding of how Montaigne's thought fits into an overall historical context. Like most people today I was not trained in the "good letters." Moreover, I do not possess the capacity for fielding more that a few abstractions at a time. So the great philosophers have always been rather opaque to me. Montaigne, by contrast, was the first thinker I could read. Montaigne was the first philosopher I came across--if I may be so bold--who could write. He was no friend to heaped abstractions, so the Essays tend to be rich in clarity. Yet the Essays make no attempt to teach us the classics, nor should they. That's why this book by Sarah Bakewell is so useful.
She shows us not only how the Essays arose in the context of Montaigne's intellectual life and times, but also how they are linked to works of the great philosophers, and how they have been received over the intervening 500 years. Montaigne was essentially, Bakewell points out, a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. She's careful to tell us what makes this particular strain of Skepticism unique. Very interesting. But then she goes on to speak of why Montaigne's Essays were so troublesome to Descartes and downright infuriating for Pascal, who apparently found them irrefutable and, thus, maddening. There's an enlightening bit about how Rousseau criticized Montaigne one the one hand while ripping him off with the other. Thus Bakewell renders a service for which I am inordinately grateful. I think this book would serve just as nicely as an introduction to the Essays as it has for me served as a much needed, clarifying afterword. Highly recommended.
She shows us not only how the Essays arose in the context of Montaigne's intellectual life and times, but also how they are linked to works of the great philosophers, and how they have been received over the intervening 500 years. Montaigne was essentially, Bakewell points out, a Pyrrhonian Skeptic. She's careful to tell us what makes this particular strain of Skepticism unique. Very interesting. But then she goes on to speak of why Montaigne's Essays were so troublesome to Descartes and downright infuriating for Pascal, who apparently found them irrefutable and, thus, maddening. There's an enlightening bit about how Rousseau criticized Montaigne one the one hand while ripping him off with the other. Thus Bakewell renders a service for which I am inordinately grateful. I think this book would serve just as nicely as an introduction to the Essays as it has for me served as a much needed, clarifying afterword. Highly recommended.
September 15, 2020
This was supposed to be boring. It's about Michel de Montaigne, after all. Michel de Who? You know, the dude who wrote yet another one of those classics we use as doorstops, in this case, The Complete Essays.
So why did I read it? One, I got an ARC, which never hurts. Two, I kept running into hosanna after hosanna in the press. And STILL I went into it with low expectations. It sure looked like the type of book where you enter at your own risk and exit at everyone else's risk (make way!).
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sarah Bakewell's book has a unique design, for starters. The title comes at you in waves, like baroque riffs in a Bach piece, as the heading in every chapter. Each "How to Live?" is followed by a different answer. Thus you get topics like "Don't Worry About Death," "Guard Your Humanity," and "Reflect on Everything; Regret Nothing." From there, Bakewell explores not only Montaigne's thoughts on these ideas as reflected in the essays, but on a wide array of other topics.
For me, that was the book's winning ingredient. It was as much about the world around Montaigne as it was about him. It wasn't afraid to go backwards (e.g. to ancient Greece to talk about the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Skeptics) and it wasn't afraid to spring forward (e.g. to Rousseau and Voltaire and even 21st-century blogs on the Internet). For Montaigne was an Everyman if ever there was one, and his self-obsession made a thoroughly modern man, one we can recognize for selfish reasons. Why? He did not speak in abstracts; he spoke in concrete terms using himself as the medium.
In terms of history, you'll come out of this book well-versed in the Renaissance, the Catholic v. Protestant Wars in 16th-century France, and the epic battle of wits between the likes of Henri III and Henry di Navarre. In terms of literature, you'll read about the battles among Montaigne's French and British translators. And in terms of naughty, you'll learn what Montaigne thought about topics as varied as sex with handicapped women and young boys' fascination with pornographic graffiti (all of which landed him on the Catholic Church's index of banned books for a couple hundred years).
After sampling HOW TO LIVE, you may be up for the ESSAYS themselves. Conversely, you may feel, like me, that you know enough to be dangerous and move on to other things. Still, you won't regret the trip. Personally, I never thought a 16th-century man of leisure could do anything but bore. Turns out, I was wrong. He can entertain from the grave and, thanks to Bakewell, Montaigne does just that.
So why did I read it? One, I got an ARC, which never hurts. Two, I kept running into hosanna after hosanna in the press. And STILL I went into it with low expectations. It sure looked like the type of book where you enter at your own risk and exit at everyone else's risk (make way!).
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sarah Bakewell's book has a unique design, for starters. The title comes at you in waves, like baroque riffs in a Bach piece, as the heading in every chapter. Each "How to Live?" is followed by a different answer. Thus you get topics like "Don't Worry About Death," "Guard Your Humanity," and "Reflect on Everything; Regret Nothing." From there, Bakewell explores not only Montaigne's thoughts on these ideas as reflected in the essays, but on a wide array of other topics.
For me, that was the book's winning ingredient. It was as much about the world around Montaigne as it was about him. It wasn't afraid to go backwards (e.g. to ancient Greece to talk about the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Skeptics) and it wasn't afraid to spring forward (e.g. to Rousseau and Voltaire and even 21st-century blogs on the Internet). For Montaigne was an Everyman if ever there was one, and his self-obsession made a thoroughly modern man, one we can recognize for selfish reasons. Why? He did not speak in abstracts; he spoke in concrete terms using himself as the medium.
In terms of history, you'll come out of this book well-versed in the Renaissance, the Catholic v. Protestant Wars in 16th-century France, and the epic battle of wits between the likes of Henri III and Henry di Navarre. In terms of literature, you'll read about the battles among Montaigne's French and British translators. And in terms of naughty, you'll learn what Montaigne thought about topics as varied as sex with handicapped women and young boys' fascination with pornographic graffiti (all of which landed him on the Catholic Church's index of banned books for a couple hundred years).
After sampling HOW TO LIVE, you may be up for the ESSAYS themselves. Conversely, you may feel, like me, that you know enough to be dangerous and move on to other things. Still, you won't regret the trip. Personally, I never thought a 16th-century man of leisure could do anything but bore. Turns out, I was wrong. He can entertain from the grave and, thanks to Bakewell, Montaigne does just that.
January 25, 2013
Oh, fuck it. I just spent forty minutes writing up what was going to be my best review ever, and lost it by accidentally flipping to Wikipedia. Here's the dim reflection of what might have been ....
I have been trying to read Montaigne's essays for about 12 years now. Montaigne entered my consciousness in my first year at university, when I somehow picked up the notion that every well-rounded reader should be acquainted with his writing.
However, my every attempt to grapple with the Essays has thus far left me flummoxed by the As and Bs and Cs that are scattered through the sentences, the snippets of Latin and French, and the roundabouts and whirligigs of the language. While every commentator dwells upon Montaigne's personal appeal to the reader (a dangerous seduction for those who find his writing seditious; a sense of self-identification for those who don't) I couldn't find my entry point.
Sarah Bakewell has given it to me. She notes at the end of this book that it was five years in the making, and I don't doubt that at all. Not only must the research and reading required been prodigious, but that crafting of research into the eventual structure of the book must have been a painstaking process (unless Bakewell is touched by a genius for textual visualisation).
A little background. Michel Montaigne (1533-1592) was a landowner, writer, politician and diplomat who live in the Aquitaine region of France, near Bordeaux (his father was a winemaker, and the label still exists). Montaigne lived through a period of French history characterised by religious conflict and civil war, but also an intellectual context that mirrored that of the Italian Renaissance, with great love and respect for Greek and Roman culture and philosophy.
During his life, Montaigne was perhaps better known for his influence as a politician and go-between in royal matters, but he was also known for his Essays; short pieces of that reflect from his own point of view on various topics. The word 'Essay' here comes from the French, essai, for attempt or trial - Montaigne's pieces were the first example of a new genre: short, subjective takes on a chosen topic.
Bakewell's book, as the title declares, takes the overarching question asked in Montaigne's essays - How to live? - and offers twenty answers drawn from the texts. Both the structure and the answers - Use little tricks; Read a lot, forget most of what you read, and be slow-witted; Don't worry about death; Reflect on everything, regret nothing; Be ordinary and imperfect - can sound glib. But both, when ventured into, prove to be rich, engrossing, pragmatic, and humane.
Bakewell manages to move roughly chronologically through Montaigne's life, setting his writing within his biography, his personal relationships, his work as a public servant, and his historical context. She shows us the prevailing intellectual modes of the day, and does an especially good job of explaining how Montaigne's writing has been received and perceived, used and abused up to the present day; from his contemporaries, who admired his application of Stoic philosophy and collation of extracts of classic texts, to Descartes and Pascal, who were horrified and transfixed by his Scepticism, to the 17th century libertins who celebrated his free thinking, four centuries of English readers and interpreters, who took some pleasure in adopting this son of France who was cast out from his native literary tradition and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books for 180 years, the modernist writers who wanted to replicate the immediacy of his writing, the sense of being fully-grounded in the present, and in today's world, the proliferation in the late 20th-early 21st century of the public-private personal essay in the form of the blog.
Each chapter, then, does not simply recap what Montaigne says about reading and remembering what you read, or marriage and how to raise children, or friendship, or how to prepare oneself for one's death. And it would not be that simple, as Montaigne's writing is not that simple. It would be easy to recast his writing as self-help speak: to achieve goal X, apply methods Y and Z. But that wouldn't be true to Montaigne's own approach, which was circular, occasionally contradictory, always exploratory, never authoritative, and often ended with a Gallic shrug, a wry smile, and whatever the French is for 'Eh, what do I know?'.
Underpinning Montaigne's essays - and his entire approach to life - are three schools of classic philosophy. My favourite chapter of Bakewell's book - 'Use little tricks' - lays out this territory, but to give a rough summary ...
Stoicism taught Montaigne to face up to the life unflinchingly. Scepticism taught him question everything to never take anything for granted, to always seek other perspectives, and to avoid making or building off assumptions. And Epicureanism taught him to focus on the pleasure available in life whilst living in these ways.
All three schools, despite their different approaches, share one goal: to achieve 'eudaimonia', a way of living that is translated as happiness, or human florishing. This means living well, without fear, with the ability to enjoy every moment, by being a good person. The best way to achieve eudaimonia is through 'ataraxia' or becoming free of anxiety; of (consciously) developing the ability to move through life on an even keel. To do this, one must overcome two major hurdles: controlling one's emotions, and paying attention to the present. All three schools taught ways - little tricks - of achieving these ends. None offer an answer to the question 'How to live?'; none say that if you do X and obey Y you will be happy. Instead, all three offer a method, thought experiments and mental tricks that will help you calm yourself and bring yourself into the moment. From there, it is up to you. As Montaigne himself wrote: 'Life should be an aim unto itself, a purpose unto itself'.
So Montaigne's essays show him attempting to live out these precepts, to apply them to moments like the death of a friend, the fear of armed bandits, the passing of a kidney stone, playing with one's cat (somehow, in a way I still don't fully understand, Montaigne's sudden switch of perspective, from seeing his cat as something he played with to himself as a toy for his cat, got him blacklisted by Descartes and led to his posthumous falling-out with the Catholic church).
Bakewell's book is utterly beguiling, which makes me think Montaigne must be too. So I am going to tackle the essays again, this time feeling a little more prepared, knowing what to look for, and ready to be surprised.
I have been trying to read Montaigne's essays for about 12 years now. Montaigne entered my consciousness in my first year at university, when I somehow picked up the notion that every well-rounded reader should be acquainted with his writing.
However, my every attempt to grapple with the Essays has thus far left me flummoxed by the As and Bs and Cs that are scattered through the sentences, the snippets of Latin and French, and the roundabouts and whirligigs of the language. While every commentator dwells upon Montaigne's personal appeal to the reader (a dangerous seduction for those who find his writing seditious; a sense of self-identification for those who don't) I couldn't find my entry point.
Sarah Bakewell has given it to me. She notes at the end of this book that it was five years in the making, and I don't doubt that at all. Not only must the research and reading required been prodigious, but that crafting of research into the eventual structure of the book must have been a painstaking process (unless Bakewell is touched by a genius for textual visualisation).
A little background. Michel Montaigne (1533-1592) was a landowner, writer, politician and diplomat who live in the Aquitaine region of France, near Bordeaux (his father was a winemaker, and the label still exists). Montaigne lived through a period of French history characterised by religious conflict and civil war, but also an intellectual context that mirrored that of the Italian Renaissance, with great love and respect for Greek and Roman culture and philosophy.
During his life, Montaigne was perhaps better known for his influence as a politician and go-between in royal matters, but he was also known for his Essays; short pieces of that reflect from his own point of view on various topics. The word 'Essay' here comes from the French, essai, for attempt or trial - Montaigne's pieces were the first example of a new genre: short, subjective takes on a chosen topic.
Bakewell's book, as the title declares, takes the overarching question asked in Montaigne's essays - How to live? - and offers twenty answers drawn from the texts. Both the structure and the answers - Use little tricks; Read a lot, forget most of what you read, and be slow-witted; Don't worry about death; Reflect on everything, regret nothing; Be ordinary and imperfect - can sound glib. But both, when ventured into, prove to be rich, engrossing, pragmatic, and humane.
Bakewell manages to move roughly chronologically through Montaigne's life, setting his writing within his biography, his personal relationships, his work as a public servant, and his historical context. She shows us the prevailing intellectual modes of the day, and does an especially good job of explaining how Montaigne's writing has been received and perceived, used and abused up to the present day; from his contemporaries, who admired his application of Stoic philosophy and collation of extracts of classic texts, to Descartes and Pascal, who were horrified and transfixed by his Scepticism, to the 17th century libertins who celebrated his free thinking, four centuries of English readers and interpreters, who took some pleasure in adopting this son of France who was cast out from his native literary tradition and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books for 180 years, the modernist writers who wanted to replicate the immediacy of his writing, the sense of being fully-grounded in the present, and in today's world, the proliferation in the late 20th-early 21st century of the public-private personal essay in the form of the blog.
Each chapter, then, does not simply recap what Montaigne says about reading and remembering what you read, or marriage and how to raise children, or friendship, or how to prepare oneself for one's death. And it would not be that simple, as Montaigne's writing is not that simple. It would be easy to recast his writing as self-help speak: to achieve goal X, apply methods Y and Z. But that wouldn't be true to Montaigne's own approach, which was circular, occasionally contradictory, always exploratory, never authoritative, and often ended with a Gallic shrug, a wry smile, and whatever the French is for 'Eh, what do I know?'.
Underpinning Montaigne's essays - and his entire approach to life - are three schools of classic philosophy. My favourite chapter of Bakewell's book - 'Use little tricks' - lays out this territory, but to give a rough summary ...
Stoicism taught Montaigne to face up to the life unflinchingly. Scepticism taught him question everything to never take anything for granted, to always seek other perspectives, and to avoid making or building off assumptions. And Epicureanism taught him to focus on the pleasure available in life whilst living in these ways.
All three schools, despite their different approaches, share one goal: to achieve 'eudaimonia', a way of living that is translated as happiness, or human florishing. This means living well, without fear, with the ability to enjoy every moment, by being a good person. The best way to achieve eudaimonia is through 'ataraxia' or becoming free of anxiety; of (consciously) developing the ability to move through life on an even keel. To do this, one must overcome two major hurdles: controlling one's emotions, and paying attention to the present. All three schools taught ways - little tricks - of achieving these ends. None offer an answer to the question 'How to live?'; none say that if you do X and obey Y you will be happy. Instead, all three offer a method, thought experiments and mental tricks that will help you calm yourself and bring yourself into the moment. From there, it is up to you. As Montaigne himself wrote: 'Life should be an aim unto itself, a purpose unto itself'.
So Montaigne's essays show him attempting to live out these precepts, to apply them to moments like the death of a friend, the fear of armed bandits, the passing of a kidney stone, playing with one's cat (somehow, in a way I still don't fully understand, Montaigne's sudden switch of perspective, from seeing his cat as something he played with to himself as a toy for his cat, got him blacklisted by Descartes and led to his posthumous falling-out with the Catholic church).
Bakewell's book is utterly beguiling, which makes me think Montaigne must be too. So I am going to tackle the essays again, this time feeling a little more prepared, knowing what to look for, and ready to be surprised.
Read
November 5, 2019A cleverly digressive account of Montaigne, less a biography, more of an attempt to tell stories of Montaigne's life in the style of his essays, taking in his historical context and the ongoing reception of the man and his works all branching out from the question "how to live" - and in order to offer maximum value to the reader Bakewell offers not a single miserly answer, but a full twenty answers - one for almost everybody, all gleaned from Montaigne. in short nomen est omen and Sarah has baked well mixing diverse ingredients into something both substantial, but also light and flavoursome.
On the one hand the information about the civil wars, Montaigne's work as Mayor of Bordeaux, his connections with Catherine de Medici (Queen Mother & sometimes regent
to Francis II, Charles IX and Henri III, as well as general political heavy weight), and Henri of Navarre (the future Henri IV) added to understanding the essays and Montaigne, on the other hand pointing out that since his mother's family came from Spain that they were probably Jewish refugees - I felt added nothing since this was something that Montaigne was apparently unaware of, likewise the lower class origins of his father's family although in this case, he was apparently aware but colluded in the family fiction of being long standing nobles, rather than tradesmen who bought an estate who then withdrew from trade and sold wine from their estate instead and started to wear swords (selling the produce of your lands did not count as trade), as successful entrepreneurs generally desire to do .
It was with Bakewell's discussion of Montaigne's reception that I felt her book was at its strongest as the reactions to Montaigne threw his life and times into sharp relief. Descartes didn't like Montaigne, but his own cognito ergo sum looks like a poor foundation for a system of philosophy after Montaignes's confession of the variability of his own nature, and the tendency towards change in the world, plus his openness to his own nature and therefore that nature as a whole is something contingent, formed by his place, time, gender and species. Descartes is in the opposite position to Montaigne, he is desperate for some kind of anchor point in the universe of mutability and metamorphosis that Montaigne revelled in. Pascal also disliked Montaigne, as Montaigne wore his religion too lightly for Pascal's taste, on the other hand wearing your religion lightly in the middle of a series of religious civil wars that did not end until after Montaigne's death might be regarded as a fine example of virtue. With Montaigne in English we got into Foucault's pendulum territory with Ignatius Donnelly who believed that references to Bacon and Francis in the English translation meant that Francis Bacon had written the essays and had them translated into French, for bonus points he then believed that every mention of mountains in Shakespeare was thus proof that Francis Bacon had also authored all of Shakespeare's plays, curiously Francis Bacon's brother had visited Montaigne and Shakespeare may well have had access to the translation of Montaigne before it came out in print - connections there may well have been even if you don't believe that Montaigne, Shakespeare and Francis Bacon were all the same person.
Montaigne, delightfully, never regarded his own essays as complete, but added to the essays with each edition which means that there is an archaeology of the essays, with fancy editions marking the accretions from A through to D. This based on the discovery in Bordeaux of a late edition covered in Montaigne's annotations with over a 1,000 differences between it and the last edition produced by Marie de Gournay - a woman who taught herself Latin by comparing original texts with translations into French, later she was one of the founders of the Académie française, though since she was a woman, she wasn't allowed to attend, which must have been galling. She and Montaigne had an intense friendship which he wrote about in his essays, Bakewell describes her as his adopted daughter .
The publisher describes this as a book from their "Shelf help" series, but I am not sure if it can have much interest beyond readers of Montaigne, still it serves to remind me that I still haven't read a complete edition of the essays, which is something, anyway a thoroughly enjoyable book even if only for being full of quotations from Montaigne.
On the one hand the information about the civil wars, Montaigne's work as Mayor of Bordeaux, his connections with Catherine de Medici (Queen Mother & sometimes regent
to Francis II, Charles IX and Henri III, as well as general political heavy weight), and Henri of Navarre (the future Henri IV) added to understanding the essays and Montaigne, on the other hand pointing out that since his mother's family came from Spain that they were probably Jewish refugees - I felt added nothing since this was something that Montaigne was apparently unaware of, likewise the lower class origins of his father's family although in this case, he was apparently aware but colluded in the family fiction of being long standing nobles, rather than tradesmen who bought an estate who then withdrew from trade and sold wine from their estate instead and started to wear swords (selling the produce of your lands did not count as trade), as successful entrepreneurs generally desire to do .
It was with Bakewell's discussion of Montaigne's reception that I felt her book was at its strongest as the reactions to Montaigne threw his life and times into sharp relief. Descartes didn't like Montaigne, but his own cognito ergo sum looks like a poor foundation for a system of philosophy after Montaignes's confession of the variability of his own nature, and the tendency towards change in the world, plus his openness to his own nature and therefore that nature as a whole is something contingent, formed by his place, time, gender and species. Descartes is in the opposite position to Montaigne, he is desperate for some kind of anchor point in the universe of mutability and metamorphosis that Montaigne revelled in. Pascal also disliked Montaigne, as Montaigne wore his religion too lightly for Pascal's taste, on the other hand wearing your religion lightly in the middle of a series of religious civil wars that did not end until after Montaigne's death might be regarded as a fine example of virtue. With Montaigne in English we got into Foucault's pendulum territory with Ignatius Donnelly who believed that references to Bacon and Francis in the English translation meant that Francis Bacon had written the essays and had them translated into French, for bonus points he then believed that every mention of mountains in Shakespeare was thus proof that Francis Bacon had also authored all of Shakespeare's plays, curiously Francis Bacon's brother had visited Montaigne and Shakespeare may well have had access to the translation of Montaigne before it came out in print - connections there may well have been even if you don't believe that Montaigne, Shakespeare and Francis Bacon were all the same person.
Montaigne, delightfully, never regarded his own essays as complete, but added to the essays with each edition which means that there is an archaeology of the essays, with fancy editions marking the accretions from A through to D. This based on the discovery in Bordeaux of a late edition covered in Montaigne's annotations with over a 1,000 differences between it and the last edition produced by Marie de Gournay - a woman who taught herself Latin by comparing original texts with translations into French, later she was one of the founders of the Académie française, though since she was a woman, she wasn't allowed to attend, which must have been galling. She and Montaigne had an intense friendship which he wrote about in his essays, Bakewell describes her as his adopted daughter .
The publisher describes this as a book from their "Shelf help" series, but I am not sure if it can have much interest beyond readers of Montaigne, still it serves to remind me that I still haven't read a complete edition of the essays, which is something, anyway a thoroughly enjoyable book even if only for being full of quotations from Montaigne.
July 25, 2020
من أجمل قراءات العام.
February 20, 2012
On reading about Montaigne while sitting on trains
Most mornings I step onto the last carriage of the train and wander down the aisle to the small seat at the very back. This space is separated from the rest of the passengers by a half-wall and a dirty, square window. Unlike the other seats, there is a small bench where I can my rest belongings and, on rare mornings like this one, tap away on a rickety netbook.
My wife and a couple of friends inhale several books a week before diligently hammering out thoughtful responses. I admire and envy their passion for the written word and it makes me happy to read their thoughts, especially when they write about a book that I have a vague aspiration to read (but will likely never quite find the time for). When I started catching the train I believed that all this would change. I would join their scholarly ranks. While I did not expect to keep up, I at least expected to read a book every week or two. This has not transpired.
Goodreads has made me realise that I am not very good at reviewing books. I read a book and it fills me with ideas. I go out into the world and I bump into things that I reinterpret in response to the text. Yet, when I sit at a screen, staring at the flashing cursor, my words melt away into nothingness. Or sometimes every idea is in my head all at once and I don't know which bit to begin with, so I grab onto one fragment, wrestle with it for a while, realise it's not actually very interesting or, even worse, that giving it special place in the review promotes it to a false level of importance, before moving onto the next slice of my reaction. Or sometimes I can see the perfect response shimmering on my mind's horizon, and I start typing, confident that I will reach it, but each sentence is never quite what I mean and no matter how much I type I never get any closer to expressing what I think.
A few weeks ago over a curry, I asked one of these friends how he manages to write so many damn reviews. He said something along the lines of, "I've given up worrying about it. I just give my honest response to the book." I think he meant this to sound encouraging. Instead it nudged me deeper into self-doubt.
"Does that mean I don't have an honest response to books? That can't be right. Perhaps I have an honest response but I am out of touch with it? Am I weirdly repressed? Why is this so hard?"
Doubt, self-reflection, reflected self, and more doubt.
The netbook closes and opens again. A work day has flown by in a whirlwind of heat, taxis and email. It's early evening and I am typing in a suit-filled bar on Featherston Street, waiting for a landscape of geographers (or whatever that plural is) to arrive so we can reminisce about old times and fading youth. I sit alone, drinking beer and hoping that it will help me get to the point. Unlikely.
So, Montaigne. Reading about Montaigne while sitting on the train was a revelation. When I read on public transport, I generally spend as much time staring out the window as reading a book. Usually I feel a little guilty about this. Somehow, it felt appropriate with this book.
I leave the bar after a couple of pints and I am bathed in warm late summer sun. I board the train. The fellow in front of me is listening to headphones, head bowed, smelling faintly of whiskey. Across the aisle a businessman frowns over his library book. A middle-aged woman in neon-green sunglasses plays solitaire on her iPad, softly singing to herself. Strange, wonderful strangers. The morning journey plays out in reverse with a different cast and a lighter tone.
Every day, variations on the same dream. I have no more words.
Most mornings I step onto the last carriage of the train and wander down the aisle to the small seat at the very back. This space is separated from the rest of the passengers by a half-wall and a dirty, square window. Unlike the other seats, there is a small bench where I can my rest belongings and, on rare mornings like this one, tap away on a rickety netbook.
My wife and a couple of friends inhale several books a week before diligently hammering out thoughtful responses. I admire and envy their passion for the written word and it makes me happy to read their thoughts, especially when they write about a book that I have a vague aspiration to read (but will likely never quite find the time for). When I started catching the train I believed that all this would change. I would join their scholarly ranks. While I did not expect to keep up, I at least expected to read a book every week or two. This has not transpired.
Goodreads has made me realise that I am not very good at reviewing books. I read a book and it fills me with ideas. I go out into the world and I bump into things that I reinterpret in response to the text. Yet, when I sit at a screen, staring at the flashing cursor, my words melt away into nothingness. Or sometimes every idea is in my head all at once and I don't know which bit to begin with, so I grab onto one fragment, wrestle with it for a while, realise it's not actually very interesting or, even worse, that giving it special place in the review promotes it to a false level of importance, before moving onto the next slice of my reaction. Or sometimes I can see the perfect response shimmering on my mind's horizon, and I start typing, confident that I will reach it, but each sentence is never quite what I mean and no matter how much I type I never get any closer to expressing what I think.
A few weeks ago over a curry, I asked one of these friends how he manages to write so many damn reviews. He said something along the lines of, "I've given up worrying about it. I just give my honest response to the book." I think he meant this to sound encouraging. Instead it nudged me deeper into self-doubt.
"Does that mean I don't have an honest response to books? That can't be right. Perhaps I have an honest response but I am out of touch with it? Am I weirdly repressed? Why is this so hard?"
Doubt, self-reflection, reflected self, and more doubt.
The netbook closes and opens again. A work day has flown by in a whirlwind of heat, taxis and email. It's early evening and I am typing in a suit-filled bar on Featherston Street, waiting for a landscape of geographers (or whatever that plural is) to arrive so we can reminisce about old times and fading youth. I sit alone, drinking beer and hoping that it will help me get to the point. Unlikely.
So, Montaigne. Reading about Montaigne while sitting on the train was a revelation. When I read on public transport, I generally spend as much time staring out the window as reading a book. Usually I feel a little guilty about this. Somehow, it felt appropriate with this book.
I leave the bar after a couple of pints and I am bathed in warm late summer sun. I board the train. The fellow in front of me is listening to headphones, head bowed, smelling faintly of whiskey. Across the aisle a businessman frowns over his library book. A middle-aged woman in neon-green sunglasses plays solitaire on her iPad, softly singing to herself. Strange, wonderful strangers. The morning journey plays out in reverse with a different cast and a lighter tone.
Every day, variations on the same dream. I have no more words.
February 7, 2017
It had the perfect commercial combination: startling originality and easy classification.
With the state of the world—especially of the United States—growing more unsettling and absurd by the day, I felt a need to return to Montaigne, the sanest man in history. Luckily, I had Bakewell’s book tucked away in the event of any crisis of this kind; and I’m happy to report it did take the edge off.
How to Live is a beguiling mixture. While purportedly a biography of Montaigne, it is also, as many reviewers have noted, a biography of Montaigne’s Essays, tracking how they have been reread and reinterpreted in the centuries since their publication. This double-biography is structured as a series of answers to the question: How to live? In the hands of a less able writer, this organizational principle could easily have become a cheap, tacky gimmick; but Bakewell’s skill and taste allow the book to transcend biography into philosophy—or, at the very least, into self-help.
Bakewell herself is hardly a Montaignesque writer. Her prose is disciplined and controlled; and though she must weave philosophy, history, literary criticism, and biography into a coherent narrative, she keeps her material on a tight rein. While Montaigne serves as the “massive gravitational core” of his own essays, holding all the disparate topics together by the force of his personality, Bakewell herself is mostly absent from these pages. Instead, she gives us a loving portrait of Montaigne—the man, his times, and his book. And this was especially interesting for me, since Montaigne, despite writing reams about himself, never manages to give his readers a coherent picture of his life or his society. Bakewell’s book is thus most recommended as a compliment to Montaigne’s Essays, providing a background for Montaigne’s rambles.
Montaigne himself was interesting enough. Best-selling author; modern-day sage; dissatisfied lawyer; literary executor for his deceased friend, Étienne de la Boétie; translator of the obscure theologian, Raymond Sebond; and the reluctant mayor of Bordeaux: Montaigne wore many hats, and most of them well. He even played an important role in the negotiations and maneuverings that took place after the death of Henri III over the question of succession. Today, however, Montaigne is remembered more for his painful descriptions of his kidney stones than his political accomplishments.
The career of Montaigne’s reception was, for me, even more interesting than the story of his life. At first, he was interpreted as a later-day Stoic sage, a Seneca for the sixteenth century. In the next generation, both Pascal and Descartes didn’t like him, the former because Montaigne was too cheerful, the latter because he was too comfortable with uncertainty. The philosophes were fond of Montaigne’s secularism, though they had a very different conception of good prose. Rousseau and the romantics liked Montaigne for his praise of naturalness, his fondness for exotic customs, and his exploration of his own personality. Later, more puritanical generations chided Montaigne for his open attitude towards sex and his detached attitude toward society. Nowadays Montaigne is seen as a prophet of the postmodern, with his emphasis on shifting perspectives and the subjectivism of truth.
As far as Montaigne’s pieces of advice go, I’m happy to report that I was already putting most of them into practice. I don’t worry too much about death (no. 1), I like to travel (no. 14), and, to the best of my knowledge, I have been born (no. 3). I am particularly adept at number 4, “Read a lot, forget most of what you read, and be slow-witted,” though I’m still working on number 13, “Do something no one has done before.” Well, as much as I’d like to be original, I’m happy following in Montaigne’s footsteps; indeed, I agree with Bakewell in thinking that Montaigne’s example is more useful now than ever. I will let her have the final word:
The twenty-first century has everything to gain from a Montaignean sense of life, and, in its most troubled moments so far, it has been sorely in need of a Montaignean politics. It could use his sense of moderation, his love of sociability and courtesy, his suspension of judgment, and his subtle understanding of the psychological mechanisms involved in confrontation and conflict. It needs his conviction that no vision of heaven, no imagined Apocalypse, and no perfectionist fantasy can ever outweigh the tiniest of selves in the real world.
January 30, 2022
Montaigne’nin (1533-1592) “Denemeler”ini lise yıllarında tek cilt olarak okumuştum, sanırım ödev olarak, aklımda çok birşey kalmamış, sonra gençlik yıllarımda iki cilt halinde tekrar okumuştum ve çok etkilenmiştim. Şimdi 4 ciltlik nerdeyse eksiksiz ve sansürsüz son düzenlemesini okumaya karar verdim. Sarah Bakewell’in bu kitabı yapacağım uzun soluklu okumaya hazırlık niteliğinde.
Öncelikle “Denemeler”in 16. yüzyılda, daha önce hiç rastlanmayan bir tarzda yazıldığını ve hem yazıldığı dönemde hem de neredeyse 450 yıl sonra halen üzerinde konuşulduğunu belirtmekte yarar var. Bir kitaptan fazlası aslında öyle ki, Flaubert’ten, G. Sand ve A. Gide’e, W. Woolf’tan S. Zweig’a, gazeteci B. Levin’den filozof Nietzsche’ye kadar her kesimden insanları etkileyen, B. Pascal ve R. Descartes gibi filozofları çileden çıkaran hatta çaresiz kılan bir metinler bütünü diyebiliriz.
Yazar Sarah Bakewell, “nasıl yaşanır?” sorusuna 20 farklı biçimde Montaigne’nin kaleminden yani düşüncelerinden yararlanarak yanıtlar vermiş, böylece mükemmel bir Montaigne resmi yaratmış. Seneca ve Plutarkhos hayranı olan Montaigne’in üç kadim Helenistik felsefe olan Stoacılık, Epikurosculuk ve kuşkuculuk felsefelerini nasıl dengelediğini, kuşkuculuğa ağırlık vererek dengeyi nasıl öne aldığını, örneklerle anlatmış.
Gerçekten bir insan düşünün ki 16. yüzyıl Avrupa’sının kargaşasında yaşasın, Katolik-Protestan mezhep savaşlarının, cadı avlayıp yakmanın, veba salgınının, otorite boşluğu nedeniyle kırsal kesimin asiler ve çapulcularla dolu olduğu bir dönemde belediye başkanlığı (Bordeaux), Kral danışmanlığı (IX. Henri) gibi siyasi görevler yapsın, babası öldükten sonra şatosundan üzüm bağlarını, topraklarını ve köylerini idare etsin ve burnu kanamadan bu yılları geçirip 59 yaşında doğal ölümle hayata veda etsin. Mucizevi bir iş gerçekten.
İyi bir katolik olduğunu söylemesine rağmen protestan dostlarıyla bir arada olması, denemelerinde dönemin dini baskısı altında olmasına rağmen yaratılış, cennet, cehennem gibi kavramlardan hele de İsa hakkında hiç bahsetmemesi, ateist değilse bile kuşkuculuk felsefesi inancına olan bağlılığından öbür dünya ile ilgilenmediğini göstermesi çok dikkat çekicidir, o yüzyılda bunu yapabilmek zordan da öte büyük bir cesaret işidir.
S. Bakewell merceğine aldığı Montaigne’in akıl çağının ötesine geçmiş bir kişi olduğunu, insanların onu anlamaya çalışırken kendilerini anladıklarını ileri sürdüğü kitabında akıcı ve akılcı yaklaşımıyla ve çok iyi bir çeviri ile (Emre Ülgen Dal), resim ve illüstrasyonlar eşliğinde çok iyi bir iş çıkarmış. Öneriyorum.
Öncelikle “Denemeler”in 16. yüzyılda, daha önce hiç rastlanmayan bir tarzda yazıldığını ve hem yazıldığı dönemde hem de neredeyse 450 yıl sonra halen üzerinde konuşulduğunu belirtmekte yarar var. Bir kitaptan fazlası aslında öyle ki, Flaubert’ten, G. Sand ve A. Gide’e, W. Woolf’tan S. Zweig’a, gazeteci B. Levin’den filozof Nietzsche’ye kadar her kesimden insanları etkileyen, B. Pascal ve R. Descartes gibi filozofları çileden çıkaran hatta çaresiz kılan bir metinler bütünü diyebiliriz.
Yazar Sarah Bakewell, “nasıl yaşanır?” sorusuna 20 farklı biçimde Montaigne’nin kaleminden yani düşüncelerinden yararlanarak yanıtlar vermiş, böylece mükemmel bir Montaigne resmi yaratmış. Seneca ve Plutarkhos hayranı olan Montaigne’in üç kadim Helenistik felsefe olan Stoacılık, Epikurosculuk ve kuşkuculuk felsefelerini nasıl dengelediğini, kuşkuculuğa ağırlık vererek dengeyi nasıl öne aldığını, örneklerle anlatmış.
Gerçekten bir insan düşünün ki 16. yüzyıl Avrupa’sının kargaşasında yaşasın, Katolik-Protestan mezhep savaşlarının, cadı avlayıp yakmanın, veba salgınının, otorite boşluğu nedeniyle kırsal kesimin asiler ve çapulcularla dolu olduğu bir dönemde belediye başkanlığı (Bordeaux), Kral danışmanlığı (IX. Henri) gibi siyasi görevler yapsın, babası öldükten sonra şatosundan üzüm bağlarını, topraklarını ve köylerini idare etsin ve burnu kanamadan bu yılları geçirip 59 yaşında doğal ölümle hayata veda etsin. Mucizevi bir iş gerçekten.
İyi bir katolik olduğunu söylemesine rağmen protestan dostlarıyla bir arada olması, denemelerinde dönemin dini baskısı altında olmasına rağmen yaratılış, cennet, cehennem gibi kavramlardan hele de İsa hakkında hiç bahsetmemesi, ateist değilse bile kuşkuculuk felsefesi inancına olan bağlılığından öbür dünya ile ilgilenmediğini göstermesi çok dikkat çekicidir, o yüzyılda bunu yapabilmek zordan da öte büyük bir cesaret işidir.
S. Bakewell merceğine aldığı Montaigne’in akıl çağının ötesine geçmiş bir kişi olduğunu, insanların onu anlamaya çalışırken kendilerini anladıklarını ileri sürdüğü kitabında akıcı ve akılcı yaklaşımıyla ve çok iyi bir çeviri ile (Emre Ülgen Dal), resim ve illüstrasyonlar eşliğinde çok iyi bir iş çıkarmış. Öneriyorum.
March 20, 2019
بگذارید زندگی پاسخِ خود باشد. میشل آکم دو مونتنی
هم نشینی با مونتنی در آخرین روزهای سال، حالِ بسیار خوشی داشت. شاید خواندن این کتاب به گونه ای یادآور شیوه ی زیست و اندیشه ی او شد برایم. این که تن بدهم به روالِ طبیعی زندگی. آنجا که می گوید زندگی را همان گونه ببینیم که هست نه آن گونه که باید باشد و البته که درست دیدن را بیاموزیم.
مونتنی در جستارهایش در پی آن است شاید تا بگوید چگونه زندگی کنیم؛ همان گونه که زندگی هست. به گمانم خواندن این کتاب و جستجو در بیست پاسخی که نویسنده با هوشیاری بیان شان کرده است در روزهایی که به سر می بریم بی اندازه خوشایند و کارآمد باشد. در این روزهایی که ما در نادانی بزرگی به سر می بریم و تعصبِ کورکننده همه ی چشم اندازهای زندگی شخصی و اجتماعی ما را بسته است. هیاهوی بسیار که همه برای هیچ است، چنان تک تکِ ما را میخکوبِ دور شدن از حقیقتِ زندگی کرده است که هیچ م��الی نیست انگار برای بهره بردن از روزهایمان. مونتنی اینجا یاری گر ماست حتا اگر هیچ دسترسی به جستارهایش نداشته باشیم و با همین بیست پاسخِ درآمده از شیوه ی زندگی او سر کنیم.
این کتابِ ارجمند و عزیز، یک راهنما برای به درون نگاه کردن و از داشته ها بهترین بهره را بردن هم هست. کتابِ آموختنِ دوری از هیاهوی دروغین و نیرنگ های هر روز بیشتر هم هست. کتابِ به خلوت رفتن و در انزوایی بسیار دل نشین خود را دوره کردن و دانستنِ اینکه مجال برای بودن و البته درست بودن بسیار اندک است. این آخرین کتابی شد که در سال 1397 خورشیدی خواندم. بسیار ناگهانی خودش را بر من نمایاند هرچند مدتها بود که در دسترس بود. خواندنش چقدر دلچسب بود در آخرین روزهای سال و چقدر یادآور اینکه قواعد و رفتارها اگر طبیعی پی گرفته شوند دیگر چه غم از رسیدن خطرها و اندوه؟ چه خوش
#
اشاره به چند گوشه:
به رفقای جان پیشنهاد می کنم پیش از خواندن این کتاب، برای بهره بردن بیشتر و البته ارتباط و لذت زیادتر از آن، دو کتابی را که می آورم حتمن بخوانند: 1-در باب دوستی و دوجستار دیگر 2-گفتار در بندگی خودخواسته. هر دو را خانم دکتر لاله قدکپور ترجمه و نشر گمان چاپ کرده است که بی گمان دریچه هایی بسیار روشن برای ورود به دنیای مونتنی هستند. امیدوارم ایشان ترجمه ی جستارها را هم به انجام برسانند، از ایشان هم بی اندازه سپاس
دیدگاهِ بسیار خوبی را دوستِ ارجمندمان نوشته اند بر کتاب که به گمانم خواندن آن بی اندازه برای شناختن کتاب سودمند است
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
در باره ی ترجمه: سپاسگزارم از خانم تقدیسی برای ترجمه ی خوب شان از کتاب. تنها یک نکته ی کوچک را بگویم اما، در متنِ کتاب بهتر بود به جای مقالات از جُستارها استفاده می شد. باری جدای از همه چیز متن اما یک دست و روان است. سپاس
#
یازده و چهل دقیقه ی چهارشنبه
1397.12.29
هم نشینی با مونتنی در آخرین روزهای سال، حالِ بسیار خوشی داشت. شاید خواندن این کتاب به گونه ای یادآور شیوه ی زیست و اندیشه ی او شد برایم. این که تن بدهم به روالِ طبیعی زندگی. آنجا که می گوید زندگی را همان گونه ببینیم که هست نه آن گونه که باید باشد و البته که درست دیدن را بیاموزیم.
مونتنی در جستارهایش در پی آن است شاید تا بگوید چگونه زندگی کنیم؛ همان گونه که زندگی هست. به گمانم خواندن این کتاب و جستجو در بیست پاسخی که نویسنده با هوشیاری بیان شان کرده است در روزهایی که به سر می بریم بی اندازه خوشایند و کارآمد باشد. در این روزهایی که ما در نادانی بزرگی به سر می بریم و تعصبِ کورکننده همه ی چشم اندازهای زندگی شخصی و اجتماعی ما را بسته است. هیاهوی بسیار که همه برای هیچ است، چنان تک تکِ ما را میخکوبِ دور شدن از حقیقتِ زندگی کرده است که هیچ م��الی نیست انگار برای بهره بردن از روزهایمان. مونتنی اینجا یاری گر ماست حتا اگر هیچ دسترسی به جستارهایش نداشته باشیم و با همین بیست پاسخِ درآمده از شیوه ی زندگی او سر کنیم.
این کتابِ ارجمند و عزیز، یک راهنما برای به درون نگاه کردن و از داشته ها بهترین بهره را بردن هم هست. کتابِ آموختنِ دوری از هیاهوی دروغین و نیرنگ های هر روز بیشتر هم هست. کتابِ به خلوت رفتن و در انزوایی بسیار دل نشین خود را دوره کردن و دانستنِ اینکه مجال برای بودن و البته درست بودن بسیار اندک است. این آخرین کتابی شد که در سال 1397 خورشیدی خواندم. بسیار ناگهانی خودش را بر من نمایاند هرچند مدتها بود که در دسترس بود. خواندنش چقدر دلچسب بود در آخرین روزهای سال و چقدر یادآور اینکه قواعد و رفتارها اگر طبیعی پی گرفته شوند دیگر چه غم از رسیدن خطرها و اندوه؟ چه خوش
#
اشاره به چند گوشه:
به رفقای جان پیشنهاد می کنم پیش از خواندن این کتاب، برای بهره بردن بیشتر و البته ارتباط و لذت زیادتر از آن، دو کتابی را که می آورم حتمن بخوانند: 1-در باب دوستی و دوجستار دیگر 2-گفتار در بندگی خودخواسته. هر دو را خانم دکتر لاله قدکپور ترجمه و نشر گمان چاپ کرده است که بی گمان دریچه هایی بسیار روشن برای ورود به دنیای مونتنی هستند. امیدوارم ایشان ترجمه ی جستارها را هم به انجام برسانند، از ایشان هم بی اندازه سپاس
دیدگاهِ بسیار خوبی را دوستِ ارجمندمان نوشته اند بر کتاب که به گمانم خواندن آن بی اندازه برای شناختن کتاب سودمند است
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
در باره ی ترجمه: سپاسگزارم از خانم تقدیسی برای ترجمه ی خوب شان از کتاب. تنها یک نکته ی کوچک را بگویم اما، در متنِ کتاب بهتر بود به جای مقالات از جُستارها استفاده می شد. باری جدای از همه چیز متن اما یک دست و روان است. سپاس
#
یازده و چهل دقیقه ی چهارشنبه
1397.12.29
February 12, 2020
تحصل على أفضل ما في الحياة حين لا تحصل على ما اعتقدت أنك تريده..
في هذه الكتاب المختلف تتناول الكاتبة سارة بكويل سيرة الفيلسوف الشهير ميشيل دي مونتين في عشرين فصل بعشرين إجابة للسؤال الصعب: كيف تعاش الحياة؟
كتاب استمتعت بقرائته وسعدت بتقديمه للمحتوى الفلسفي بطريقة بسيطة سلسة تناسب أمثالي من يجدون صعوبة في قراءة الفلسفة.
هنا دردشة عن هذا الكتاب اللطيف جدا :
https://youtu.be/kq3YE2LcJA8
في هذه الكتاب المختلف تتناول الكاتبة سارة بكويل سيرة الفيلسوف الشهير ميشيل دي مونتين في عشرين فصل بعشرين إجابة للسؤال الصعب: كيف تعاش الحياة؟
كتاب استمتعت بقرائته وسعدت بتقديمه للمحتوى الفلسفي بطريقة بسيطة سلسة تناسب أمثالي من يجدون صعوبة في قراءة الفلسفة.
هنا دردشة عن هذا الكتاب اللطيف جدا :
https://youtu.be/kq3YE2LcJA8
February 18, 2023
[3.5]. I read this book along with a selection of Montaigne's essays and it was very helpful. Bakewell writes clearly about the historical context of his essays as well as his life. I like the way the book is organized and it's accessibility, but it provided more historical and biographical detail than I wanted. This book would be great for those who are looking for a deep dive into both Montaigne's life and the times he wrote in.
July 27, 2015
Bakewell's work is too structured and readable to be a modern re-mix of Montaigne! Bakewell takes us through Montaigne's life even as we are taken through the essays and their evolution. To top it off we are also taken through the evolving reception of the essays and of the changing reflections that various readers of various generations and centuries found in them. In the end we are given not only a life of Montaigne but a glimpse at four centuries of Montaigne reading. The book is hard to capture and I cannot imagine how someone who has not read Montaigne will get much out of it, but as with all things Montaigne, we can be assured they will get as much out of it as they put into it.
April 15, 2021
Яг энэ номыг эхлэхийн өмнө Леонардо Да Винчигийн намтрыг (Leonardo da Vinci) уншиж дуусгахад түүний амьдрал 15-р зуунд Италиас эхлээд 16 зуунд Франц хүрээд өндөрлөж байсан. Тэгсэн 2 дахь номны маань баатар Монтений амьдрал 16-р зуунд Францаас эхэлсэн болж таарлаа шүү. Сонин тохиол таарлаа. Хоёр мундаг хүний намтраар дамжуулж сэргэн мандалтын үеийн түүхийн бодит байдлын талаар багагүй төсөөлөлтэй болоод хоцрох нь хэмээн олзуурхан сууж ахуй.
16-р зуунд Франц орон шашны сөргөлдөөн, түүнээс үүдсэн иргэний дайнд туйлдаж ядарсан байдалтай байжээ. Энэ ороо бусгаа байдал Монтенийг улс төрийн оролцооноос зайлсхийж хөдөө нутагруугаа явахад ихээхэн нөлөөлсөн бололтой.
Мань эр ер нь маш энгийн хүн байсан байна. Түний философи дорнын гүн ухаантай маш ойрхон санагдсан. Бүх зүйл хоосон гэдэг шиг л амьдрал гээчид нухлагдаж амьдрахаар зүгээр давалгаан дунд нь хөвж амьдар. Салхины эсрэг заавал зөрж байхаар салхи уруудаж 5 алхаад салхи намдахаар буцаад 1 алхахад юу нь болохгүй билээ? гэх үзлүүд түүний амьдралыг давамгайлдаг байжээ.
La Boetie - гэх найз нь их гоё оо. Хэдий богинохон ч энэ хоёр маань маш сайхан нөхөрлөл үүсгэж чадсан байгаа юм. Ер нь үүсгэсэн гэхэд хэцүү. Монтенийхээр бол тэд 300 жилд ганц заяаж болох заяаны төрмөл найзууд. Яг л эвлүүлдэг тоглоомын хоёр хэсэг шиг бие биенээ ойлгож нэгдэж чаддаг байжээ. Зөвхөн түүнд л тэр өөрийн жинхэнэ төрхөө харуулж, өөрийнхөөрөө байж чаддаг байсан гэнэ. Ингэтлээ нандигнадаж байсан найзтайгаа 6хан жил хамт байх учиртай байж найз нь хар залуугаараа зуурдаас халин одох хувьтай байж. Хамгаас хайртай найзыгаа алдаж түүнийгээ амьдралынхаа туршид харуусаж, дурсаж, хатуужиж ирсэн бололтой юм. Тэгээд ч тэр юм уу найздаа хэлж чадаагүй өөрийн үнэн бодит байдлаа ний нуугүй цаасан дээр уудлан бичсэн нь түүний эссэнүүд болж бидэнд үлдсэн байна.
Энэ Ла Боэти найз нь бас их гоё мундаг хүн байж. Voluntary Servitude (Cайн дурын боолчлол?) нэртэй ном гаргаж байсан байна. Энэ ном маш том утга санааг агуулсан байх юм. Хүн гэдэг амьтан ямар нэг дарангуйлагчийн нөлөөлөлд орохоороо илбэдэгдсэн мэт болж байнгын дадалдаа хөтлөгдөн хөвсөөр эрх чөлөө гэх ойлголтоо мартчихдаг байна. Өөрөөр хэлбэл хүмүүс ямар нэг хаант засаглал (төр засгийн) доор их татвар төл гэвэл төлдөг, эх орны нэрийг барьж дайн хий гэвэл уухай хашгирч хүний амийг алж талдаг. Энэ бурангуй тойргоос гарахын тул шууд л тэр дарангуйлагчийг бүгд дагаахаа болиход боно гэж Ла Боэти үзсэн байна. Ихэнх хүмүүс юу ч бодолгүй бусдын хэлсэнийг дагагч болж цөөн тооны хүмүүс сэхээрэвч энэ нь томоохон үр дүнд хүргэж чаддагүй тухай өгүүлсэн байдаг гэнэ. Дараа энэ тухай дэлгэрэнгүй олж уншна аа. Би хувийн зүгээсээ дайнд маш дургүй. Дайн гэгч үнэхээрийн утга учиргүй үйлдэл мэт санагдаж заримдаа яаж дайныг байлдааныг гаргахгүй байж болох бол гэж их боддог шүү. Миний бодож олсон шийдэл мөн л яг Ла Боэтигийн хэлдэг шиг зүгээр зэр зэвсгээ хаяаад явахад л болох юм шиг. Яг Хемингуэйн Зэр зэвсэг минь баяртай (A Farewell to Arms) дээр гардаг шиг зүгээр л орхиод хайртай хүнтэйгээ инээж хөхрөөд уулсаар аялаад явчих хэрэгтэй юм шиг. Гэвч хүн болгон ингэж бодож чадах болов уу? Боломжгүй байх л даа.
Нэг талаар Монтень их азтай хүн байжээ. Ийм сайхан нөхөрлөлтэй учрах завшаантай... байдаг нь цагаахан атаархал төрүүлэхгүй байхын аргагүй.
Сонирхолтой баримтууд
- Монтень Латин хэлээр хэлд орсон. Багадаа латин хэлтэй гэрийн багштайгаа латинаар ярьж хэлд орсон. Тэгээд зогсохгүй бас төрөөд удаагүй байхдаа тариачин айлд хүргэгдэн тэндээ хэлд орохын өмнөх хүртлээ амьдарсан байна. Аав нь их сониучхан төрөл бүрийн туршилт хийх дуртай хүн байсан бөгөөд түний тэр олон төслүүдийн нэг нь Монтенийг төрөлхөөс нь тухайн үеийнхээ стандартаар төгс хүн болгож хүмүүжүүлэх байв.
- Монтений гэр бүлийн бизнес болох дарсны бизнес одоо ч хүртэл ажиллагаатай байгаа гэнэ. Дараа очиж дарс авъя даа хэхэ.
16-р зуунд Франц орон шашны сөргөлдөөн, түүнээс үүдсэн иргэний дайнд туйлдаж ядарсан байдалтай байжээ. Энэ ороо бусгаа байдал Монтенийг улс төрийн оролцооноос зайлсхийж хөдөө нутагруугаа явахад ихээхэн нөлөөлсөн бололтой.
Мань эр ер нь маш энгийн хүн байсан байна. Түний философи дорнын гүн ухаантай маш ойрхон санагдсан. Бүх зүйл хоосон гэдэг шиг л амьдрал гээчид нухлагдаж амьдрахаар зүгээр давалгаан дунд нь хөвж амьдар. Салхины эсрэг заавал зөрж байхаар салхи уруудаж 5 алхаад салхи намдахаар буцаад 1 алхахад юу нь болохгүй билээ? гэх үзлүүд түүний амьдралыг давамгайлдаг байжээ.
La Boetie - гэх найз нь их гоё оо. Хэдий богинохон ч энэ хоёр маань маш сайхан нөхөрлөл үүсгэж чадсан байгаа юм. Ер нь үүсгэсэн гэхэд хэцүү. Монтенийхээр бол тэд 300 жилд ганц заяаж болох заяаны төрмөл найзууд. Яг л эвлүүлдэг тоглоомын хоёр хэсэг шиг бие биенээ ойлгож нэгдэж чаддаг байжээ. Зөвхөн түүнд л тэр өөрийн жинхэнэ төрхөө харуулж, өөрийнхөөрөө байж чаддаг байсан гэнэ. Ингэтлээ нандигнадаж байсан найзтайгаа 6хан жил хамт байх учиртай байж найз нь хар залуугаараа зуурдаас халин одох хувьтай байж. Хамгаас хайртай найзыгаа алдаж түүнийгээ амьдралынхаа туршид харуусаж, дурсаж, хатуужиж ирсэн бололтой юм. Тэгээд ч тэр юм уу найздаа хэлж чадаагүй өөрийн үнэн бодит байдлаа ний нуугүй цаасан дээр уудлан бичсэн нь түүний эссэнүүд болж бидэнд үлдсэн байна.
Энэ Ла Боэти найз нь бас их гоё мундаг хүн байж. Voluntary Servitude (Cайн дурын боолчлол?) нэртэй ном гаргаж байсан байна. Энэ ном маш том утга санааг агуулсан байх юм. Хүн гэдэг амьтан ямар нэг дарангуйлагчийн нөлөөлөлд орохоороо илбэдэгдсэн мэт болж байнгын дадалдаа хөтлөгдөн хөвсөөр эрх чөлөө гэх ойлголтоо мартчихдаг байна. Өөрөөр хэлбэл хүмүүс ямар нэг хаант засаглал (төр засгийн) доор их татвар төл гэвэл төлдөг, эх орны нэрийг барьж дайн хий гэвэл уухай хашгирч хүний амийг алж талдаг. Энэ бурангуй тойргоос гарахын тул шууд л тэр дарангуйлагчийг бүгд дагаахаа болиход боно гэж Ла Боэти үзсэн байна. Ихэнх хүмүүс юу ч бодолгүй бусдын хэлсэнийг дагагч болж цөөн тооны хүмүүс сэхээрэвч энэ нь томоохон үр дүнд хүргэж чаддагүй тухай өгүүлсэн байдаг гэнэ. Дараа энэ тухай дэлгэрэнгүй олж уншна аа. Би хувийн зүгээсээ дайнд маш дургүй. Дайн гэгч үнэхээрийн утга учиргүй үйлдэл мэт санагдаж заримдаа яаж дайныг байлдааныг гаргахгүй байж болох бол гэж их боддог шүү. Миний бодож олсон шийдэл мөн л яг Ла Боэтигийн хэлдэг шиг зүгээр зэр зэвсгээ хаяаад явахад л болох юм шиг. Яг Хемингуэйн Зэр зэвсэг минь баяртай (A Farewell to Arms) дээр гардаг шиг зүгээр л орхиод хайртай хүнтэйгээ инээж хөхрөөд уулсаар аялаад явчих хэрэгтэй юм шиг. Гэвч хүн болгон ингэж бодож чадах болов уу? Боломжгүй байх л даа.
Нэг талаар Монтень их азтай хүн байжээ. Ийм сайхан нөхөрлөлтэй учрах завшаантай... байдаг нь цагаахан атаархал төрүүлэхгүй байхын аргагүй.
Сонирхолтой баримтууд
- Монтень Латин хэлээр хэлд орсон. Багадаа латин хэлтэй гэрийн багштайгаа латинаар ярьж хэлд орсон. Тэгээд зогсохгүй бас төрөөд удаагүй байхдаа тариачин айлд хүргэгдэн тэндээ хэлд орохын өмнөх хүртлээ амьдарсан байна. Аав нь их сониучхан төрөл бүрийн туршилт хийх дуртай хүн байсан бөгөөд түний тэр олон төслүүдийн нэг нь Монтенийг төрөлхөөс нь тухайн үеийнхээ стандартаар төгс хүн болгож хүмүүжүүлэх байв.
- Монтений гэр бүлийн бизнес болох дарсны бизнес одоо ч хүртэл ажиллагаатай байгаа гэнэ. Дараа очиж дарс авъя даа хэхэ.
Shelved as 'ongoing'
April 20, 2023The perfect book to spur you on to read Montaigne yourself.
September 5, 2017
I bought this book not knowing what to expect and, therefore, expecting very little. What a pleasant surprise. And pleasant is the right word for HOW TO LIVE. It is one of the most pleasantly thought-provoking books in memory. Part biography, part literary investigation, part historical commentary and part philosophy, Bakewell has written a smart and satisfying book that can be read quickly. I thought Bakewell's format (twenty attempts to answer a question) might be distracting, but not at all. HOW TO LIVE is about serious matters, yet qualifies as recreational reading too.
Michel du Montaigne is not widely read in the United States today and, I suspect, not very well known here either. He was a 16th Century French nobleman who lived in a time of civil war that was characterized by almost unimaginable cruelty between Catholic and Protestant zealots.
Montaigne lived two lives. One public. Another private. Bakewell details both, but his private life was the source of the Essays that established his fame. In certain parts of the world and among certain circles in the US, the Essays are still treasured as a source of comfort and practical wisdom for living well, particularly, in troubling times.
It has been Montaigne's fate to be reinterpreted as each new generation re-invented him to reflect the philosophical fashions of the day. Bakewell takes care to disentangle and debunk the various reinterpretations of Montaigne that have emerged over the centuries. For example, Bakewell demonstrates that Montaigne was not a free thinking enlightenment philosopher born two centuries too early. Rather he was a practitioner of a mixed stew of the classic Hellenistic philosophies: stoicism, epicureanism and skepticism, leavened with a love of life and good humor for others.
Nor was he a romantic as he was depicted by many of his readers in the 19th century. Far from it. Skeptical indifference and equilibrium were among his goals in living. Despite the enthusiasm of the romantics, Montaigne was cool and measured in his essays. These were qualities he admired and strived for. Indeed, Montaigne 's praise of ordinariness can be understood as a reaction to and distrust of the immoderate feelings later favored by the romantics.
Today, Montaigne is sometimes seen as a precursor to post-modernism. His secularism and casual detachment appeal to the post-modern sensibility. But he was a man of his times. Post-modernism would have appalled him. Bakewell skewers this nutty idea with characteristically good nature.
Bakewell wants to persuade her readers that Montaigne should not be categorized. She argues very credibly. But I came away from this book most impressed with his stoicism. Certainly, he appears to have borrowed liberally from many schools of thought. But first and foremost, he appears to have pursued the classic goal of a stoic, the cheerful acceptance of whatever happens. Judging from Bakewell's depiction, Montaigne seems to have achieved his goal for much of his later life.
Michel du Montaigne is not widely read in the United States today and, I suspect, not very well known here either. He was a 16th Century French nobleman who lived in a time of civil war that was characterized by almost unimaginable cruelty between Catholic and Protestant zealots.
Montaigne lived two lives. One public. Another private. Bakewell details both, but his private life was the source of the Essays that established his fame. In certain parts of the world and among certain circles in the US, the Essays are still treasured as a source of comfort and practical wisdom for living well, particularly, in troubling times.
It has been Montaigne's fate to be reinterpreted as each new generation re-invented him to reflect the philosophical fashions of the day. Bakewell takes care to disentangle and debunk the various reinterpretations of Montaigne that have emerged over the centuries. For example, Bakewell demonstrates that Montaigne was not a free thinking enlightenment philosopher born two centuries too early. Rather he was a practitioner of a mixed stew of the classic Hellenistic philosophies: stoicism, epicureanism and skepticism, leavened with a love of life and good humor for others.
Nor was he a romantic as he was depicted by many of his readers in the 19th century. Far from it. Skeptical indifference and equilibrium were among his goals in living. Despite the enthusiasm of the romantics, Montaigne was cool and measured in his essays. These were qualities he admired and strived for. Indeed, Montaigne 's praise of ordinariness can be understood as a reaction to and distrust of the immoderate feelings later favored by the romantics.
Today, Montaigne is sometimes seen as a precursor to post-modernism. His secularism and casual detachment appeal to the post-modern sensibility. But he was a man of his times. Post-modernism would have appalled him. Bakewell skewers this nutty idea with characteristically good nature.
Bakewell wants to persuade her readers that Montaigne should not be categorized. She argues very credibly. But I came away from this book most impressed with his stoicism. Certainly, he appears to have borrowed liberally from many schools of thought. But first and foremost, he appears to have pursued the classic goal of a stoic, the cheerful acceptance of whatever happens. Judging from Bakewell's depiction, Montaigne seems to have achieved his goal for much of his later life.
June 22, 2012
I got an early copy of this book for a project I am working on. It is spectacular. The book was a bestseller in the UK and was featured in a 6 part series in The Guardian. The format of the book is a bit unusual, instead of chapters it is made up of 20 Montaigne style essays that discuss the man from a variety of different perspectives. I'm very into Montaigne at the moment, as he is an interesting counter to the Stoics and to the Epicureans. More accurately, he is a combination of the two plus about a thousand other schools of thought and that is why he is so interesting. I would recommending reading some of his essays first, my favorites are To Philosophize is to Learn How to Die and On Experience and On the Cannibals. If you like them and this book, I found a short but helpful biography of Montaigne by Peter Burke that focused on putting him in historical context.
October 10, 2022
Nothing to haggle on the great value of Montaigne and his Essays, but this introduction was a bit disappointing. Maybe my expectations were too high, but Bakewell’s approach is far too elaborate, and at the same time didn't add incredibly much. As with many things, nothing beats the original. It’s a pity, because I liked her At the Existentialist Café: Freedom, Being, and Apricot Cocktails very much.
March 27, 2012
Despite some initial warning signs (enumerated list, self help), the fantastic cover art and the fact that this book is about Montaigne drew me in. I've started reading his Essays several times and always bailed for one reason or another. I picked this up hoping it would give me some context and get me more excited to read, and maybe even finish the essays. It did. How to Live isn't just a biography of Montaigne, it's a history of Essays with a ton of rich context and interesting descriptions of the ways they have been influential throughout history. The 20 answers to the question of "how to live" don't define the book as much as give it some nice structure.
Instead of urging constant improvement like a typical self help book would do, How to Live feels like it's written to give you permission to live a more examined life. Montaigne didn't go through life explicitly seeking improvement, instead he sought eudaimonia or "human flourishing." Often, finding that meant cutting back, spending more time alone, doing a good job but not a great job, focusing less on relationships and more on knowing and being comfortable with yourself. His essays, rather than preaching, are simply observations, mostly about his internal world.
Knowing Montaigne a little better, I feel more free to abstain from having an opinion on anything and everything. Montaigne is famous for reviving the Pyrrhonian Stoicsm idea of epohke which means "I suspend judgement," or as Sextus put it more verbosely, "I now feel in such a way as neither to posit dogmatically nor to reject any of the things falling under this investigation." Epohke is different from the contemporary concept of open-mindedness. Today to be open-minded is to accept everything and everyone as they are. Epohke doesn't have a goal of acceptance, it is goalless. It's an approach that may not work all the time, but settling in to that mode of thought, even for a short period of time, can be incredibly freeing.
Even in his stoicism Montaigne was not dogmatic. He summarized himself as "extremely idle, extremely independent, both by nature and by art." What he did he did because he wanted to. Honor played a part, civic-mindedness played a part, love of his friends and family played a part, but overall he was true to himself. It's hard for me to grasp this entirely, but How to Live gave me a good start and made me excited to read more. Shakespeare was influenced by Montaigne and on occasion heavily borrowed from his works. Nietzsche was influenced by him, Flaubert, Joyce, Rousseau, Descartes and Virginia Wolf were all very heavily influenced by Montaigne and after reading How to Live, I'm going to very humbly throw my name into that list too.
Instead of urging constant improvement like a typical self help book would do, How to Live feels like it's written to give you permission to live a more examined life. Montaigne didn't go through life explicitly seeking improvement, instead he sought eudaimonia or "human flourishing." Often, finding that meant cutting back, spending more time alone, doing a good job but not a great job, focusing less on relationships and more on knowing and being comfortable with yourself. His essays, rather than preaching, are simply observations, mostly about his internal world.
Knowing Montaigne a little better, I feel more free to abstain from having an opinion on anything and everything. Montaigne is famous for reviving the Pyrrhonian Stoicsm idea of epohke which means "I suspend judgement," or as Sextus put it more verbosely, "I now feel in such a way as neither to posit dogmatically nor to reject any of the things falling under this investigation." Epohke is different from the contemporary concept of open-mindedness. Today to be open-minded is to accept everything and everyone as they are. Epohke doesn't have a goal of acceptance, it is goalless. It's an approach that may not work all the time, but settling in to that mode of thought, even for a short period of time, can be incredibly freeing.
Even in his stoicism Montaigne was not dogmatic. He summarized himself as "extremely idle, extremely independent, both by nature and by art." What he did he did because he wanted to. Honor played a part, civic-mindedness played a part, love of his friends and family played a part, but overall he was true to himself. It's hard for me to grasp this entirely, but How to Live gave me a good start and made me excited to read more. Shakespeare was influenced by Montaigne and on occasion heavily borrowed from his works. Nietzsche was influenced by him, Flaubert, Joyce, Rousseau, Descartes and Virginia Wolf were all very heavily influenced by Montaigne and after reading How to Live, I'm going to very humbly throw my name into that list too.
April 26, 2019
کافکا یه جمله داره که میگه «کتاب باید مانند تبری باشد برای دریای یخزده درونمان»
این کتاب برای من همون تبر بود که زد و خرد کرد دریای یخزده درونم رو !!
اولین بار اسم مونتنی رو توی کتاب تسلیبخشیهای فلسفه شنیدم. برام طرز فکرش جالب بود. دوست داشتم ازش بیشتر بدونم و این کتاب رو انتخاب کردم.
برای کسی که کمالگرایی بیمارگونهای داره مواجه شدن با فلسفهای که اصل حرفش پذیرش نقصهای انسانه چقدر میتونه تکان دهنده باشه؟
برای کسی که داره با خودش میجنگه تا پیشآمدهای ناخوشایند رو حذف کنه خوندن از میانهروی و عشق به تقدیر چقدر میتونه دردناک باشه؟
خوندن از مونتنی برای من تکاندهنده و دردناک بود. خیلی مقاومت کردم که نپذیرم مسلک رواقیمآبش رو، شکاکیت پورهونیش رو، میانهروی و اعتدالش رو، کنار اومدنش با تضادها رو. ولی واقعیت اینه که نتونستم چون فلسفهاش دقیقا پاسخ بود به اونچه باعث ملال من شده بود.
جالبه که کتابها خودشون انتخاب میکنن چه زمانی خونده بشن. این کتاب رو من دقیقا زمانی خوندم که تشنهترین بودم برای پاسخ به اینکه چطور باید زندگی کنم؟ و چه جوابی شیرینتر از این میتونستم بگیرم بعد از مزه مزه کردن صفحات این کتاب: «بگذارید زندگی جواب خود باشد»
همیشه با خودم میگفتم اینایی که میگن فلان کتاب زندگی منو متحول کرد و اینا، قطعا جوگیر شدن.
حرفمو پس میگیرم
برای هر آدمی یه کتاب هست که اگر به وقتش بخونه میتونه دنیاشو زیر و رو کنه
کتابی که دنیای منو زیر و رو کرد همین کتابه.
اصلا شبیه ریویو نشد اینایی که نوشتم😁 شبیه مقدمه مترجم یا ویراستار شده از بس پر از شوره.
شاید بعدا اصلاحش کردم و جور دیگهای نوشتمش. وقتی تب و تاب کشفیات جدیدم با مونتنی یه کم خوابیده باشه.
این کتاب برای من همون تبر بود که زد و خرد کرد دریای یخزده درونم رو !!
اولین بار اسم مونتنی رو توی کتاب تسلیبخشیهای فلسفه شنیدم. برام طرز فکرش جالب بود. دوست داشتم ازش بیشتر بدونم و این کتاب رو انتخاب کردم.
برای کسی که کمالگرایی بیمارگونهای داره مواجه شدن با فلسفهای که اصل حرفش پذیرش نقصهای انسانه چقدر میتونه تکان دهنده باشه؟
برای کسی که داره با خودش میجنگه تا پیشآمدهای ناخوشایند رو حذف کنه خوندن از میانهروی و عشق به تقدیر چقدر میتونه دردناک باشه؟
خوندن از مونتنی برای من تکاندهنده و دردناک بود. خیلی مقاومت کردم که نپذیرم مسلک رواقیمآبش رو، شکاکیت پورهونیش رو، میانهروی و اعتدالش رو، کنار اومدنش با تضادها رو. ولی واقعیت اینه که نتونستم چون فلسفهاش دقیقا پاسخ بود به اونچه باعث ملال من شده بود.
جالبه که کتابها خودشون انتخاب میکنن چه زمانی خونده بشن. این کتاب رو من دقیقا زمانی خوندم که تشنهترین بودم برای پاسخ به اینکه چطور باید زندگی کنم؟ و چه جوابی شیرینتر از این میتونستم بگیرم بعد از مزه مزه کردن صفحات این کتاب: «بگذارید زندگی جواب خود باشد»
همیشه با خودم میگفتم اینایی که میگن فلان کتاب زندگی منو متحول کرد و اینا، قطعا جوگیر شدن.
حرفمو پس میگیرم
برای هر آدمی یه کتاب هست که اگر به وقتش بخونه میتونه دنیاشو زیر و رو کنه
کتابی که دنیای منو زیر و رو کرد همین کتابه.
اصلا شبیه ریویو نشد اینایی که نوشتم😁 شبیه مقدمه مترجم یا ویراستار شده از بس پر از شوره.
شاید بعدا اصلاحش کردم و جور دیگهای نوشتمش. وقتی تب و تاب کشفیات جدیدم با مونتنی یه کم خوابیده باشه.
April 28, 2023
Sarah Bakewell mixes biography, 16th Century French history, philosophy, and translation/publishing history in her book about Michel de Montaigne. He's a fascinating man, and "How to Live" is an enticement to read Montaigne's "The Complete Essays."
The Complete Essays
by
Michel de Montaigne
The Complete Essays
by
Michel de Montaigne
May 31, 2011
When the publishing industry is in decline and our expectation of instant gratification make TV and the internet our primary sources for news, one would have to ask oneself: is this the best time to publish a new book on the philosophy of a discursive French essayist who died over 400 years ago? Of course, the answer would have to be “it depends.” Sarah Bakewell has managed to make Michel de Montaigne seem relevant, perhaps even revolutionary, but certainly eminently likeable. Montaigne would have been an exceedingly popular blogger, for he took incidents of daily life and held them up for examination as well as using them as stepping stones to rambling narrative. He inspired loyal devotees and provoked, and enjoyed, passionate rebuttal. “No propositions astonish me, no belief offends me, whatever contrast it offers with my own.” One could argue endlessly, happily, and undoubtedly profitably, with such a man.
For twenty years, from ages 38 to 59, he mainly stayed at his estate in the Bordeaux region along the Dordogne River, and wrote essays. He came close to death in a riding accident, weathered various occurrences of plague (though the love of a lifetime, La Boétie, was taken), and was victim of various ailments that could have been alleviated today but which eventually killed him. Importantly, he lived through the period of time known as The Saint Bartholomew Wars, which was recently cited in a book on modern counter-insurgency as an example of one of the longest and most consequential non-state religion-based internecine conflicts characterized by extreme violence, bloodshed and carnage: Catholics on Protestants. It led Montaigne to write, “There is no hostility that exceeds Christian hostility.” And yet Montaigne managed to maintain a sense of proportion and breadth of perspective that seems positively Zen in this day and age.
Montaigne had a fascination with pragmatic schools of philosophy like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. All these schools had the same aim: to achieve a way of living known as "happiness," "joy," or "human flourishing" (from the Greek eudaimonia). The schools agreed that the best path to eudaimonia was ataraxia, which can be translated as "imperturbability" or "freedom from anxiety." (Does this not sound like Buddhism to you?) It appears a key to living well, fully, and without regret is cultivating mindfulness:
But I haven’t yet said what it is about this book that makes me convinced there is no better time to introduce this back into the mainstream. It is Sarah Bakewell’s handling of the material, in which she proves herself a fascinating conversationalist. In lesser hands, the material could have seemed distant at best. But she allows Montaigne himself to shine: his work seems as amusing and fresh as a friend declaiming over a glass of wine—red wine, white wine—you never know with Michel. I haven’t yet read Montaigne’s Essays , but I certainly intend to now. It seems a pity to leave Montaigne to experts. More than that, who couldn’t use a clever best friend? I relished the background and erudition Bakewell brought to the picnic. Every page was a delight.
For twenty years, from ages 38 to 59, he mainly stayed at his estate in the Bordeaux region along the Dordogne River, and wrote essays. He came close to death in a riding accident, weathered various occurrences of plague (though the love of a lifetime, La Boétie, was taken), and was victim of various ailments that could have been alleviated today but which eventually killed him. Importantly, he lived through the period of time known as The Saint Bartholomew Wars, which was recently cited in a book on modern counter-insurgency as an example of one of the longest and most consequential non-state religion-based internecine conflicts characterized by extreme violence, bloodshed and carnage: Catholics on Protestants. It led Montaigne to write, “There is no hostility that exceeds Christian hostility.” And yet Montaigne managed to maintain a sense of proportion and breadth of perspective that seems positively Zen in this day and age.
Montaigne had a fascination with pragmatic schools of philosophy like Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. All these schools had the same aim: to achieve a way of living known as "happiness," "joy," or "human flourishing" (from the Greek eudaimonia). The schools agreed that the best path to eudaimonia was ataraxia, which can be translated as "imperturbability" or "freedom from anxiety." (Does this not sound like Buddhism to you?) It appears a key to living well, fully, and without regret is cultivating mindfulness:
A person who does not sleepwalk through the world…is freed to respond to situations in the right way, without hesitation—as if they were questions asked all of a sudden, as Epictetus puts it. A violent attack, a quarrel, the loss of a friend: all these are demands barked at you by life, as by a schoolteacher trying to catch you not paying attention in class. Even a moment of boredom is such a question. Whatever happens, however unforeseen it is, you should be able to respond in a suitable way. This is why, for Montaigne, learning to live “appropriately” (à propos) is the “great and glorious masterpiece” of human life. (pp. 111-112)
But I haven’t yet said what it is about this book that makes me convinced there is no better time to introduce this back into the mainstream. It is Sarah Bakewell’s handling of the material, in which she proves herself a fascinating conversationalist. In lesser hands, the material could have seemed distant at best. But she allows Montaigne himself to shine: his work seems as amusing and fresh as a friend declaiming over a glass of wine—red wine, white wine—you never know with Michel. I haven’t yet read Montaigne’s Essays , but I certainly intend to now. It seems a pity to leave Montaigne to experts. More than that, who couldn’t use a clever best friend? I relished the background and erudition Bakewell brought to the picnic. Every page was a delight.
January 5, 2022
An excellent historical biography of Michel de Montaigne, the French Renaissance philosopher (late 1500s) and author of the Essays. Montaigne's Essays explore what it is to be a human being on the material plane. I recommend him to everyone. He is the warmest and most companionable of philosophers, easy to read--not an abstract thinker, he likes life in the concrete and anecdotal. We won't have anyone so appealing and readable again until we get to Nietzsche--who was himself very fond of Montaigne.
I recommend that people read How To Live after rather than before reading the Essays. Montaigne needs no explicators--he's straightforward and rambling and charming and the first to talk about himself as a human animal--something that shocked his contemporaries. It's only when you have a sense Montaigne through the Essays, his intimacy with the reader, his companionability, his honesty without flourishes or abstraction, that you'll want to know more about his life and times (and my god, what times, horrific religious civil wars in France plus periodic appearances of the Plague). How to Live gives us the context in which he thought and wrote, as well as the way successive generations have claimed him for their own--beautifully unfolded in "twenty attempts at an answer."
Philosophy is at its best when it's addressing the question 'How to Live.' In former times, people didn't read 'self-help' books, they read philosophy, where great minds confronted life's bigger questions Montaigne is my favorite self-help go-to, because he is so earthy, so accepting of himself and others. He doesn't offer you a plan to improve yourself, no picture of ideal life, but a picture of humans living according to their nature and within their own times, a man of boundless curiosity. The Bakewell biography presents a multi-scale picture of Montaigne the man, the landowner, the politician, the traveler, amid the struggles and turmoil of sixteenth-century Europe, as well as the way his work was claimed by succeeding generations of readers of wildly varying causes and purposes. All of them saw themselves in him, because he contained multitudes. He wasn't afraid of his contradictions--he embraced them as part of being human.
First read the Essays, then read How to Live.
I recommend that people read How To Live after rather than before reading the Essays. Montaigne needs no explicators--he's straightforward and rambling and charming and the first to talk about himself as a human animal--something that shocked his contemporaries. It's only when you have a sense Montaigne through the Essays, his intimacy with the reader, his companionability, his honesty without flourishes or abstraction, that you'll want to know more about his life and times (and my god, what times, horrific religious civil wars in France plus periodic appearances of the Plague). How to Live gives us the context in which he thought and wrote, as well as the way successive generations have claimed him for their own--beautifully unfolded in "twenty attempts at an answer."
Philosophy is at its best when it's addressing the question 'How to Live.' In former times, people didn't read 'self-help' books, they read philosophy, where great minds confronted life's bigger questions Montaigne is my favorite self-help go-to, because he is so earthy, so accepting of himself and others. He doesn't offer you a plan to improve yourself, no picture of ideal life, but a picture of humans living according to their nature and within their own times, a man of boundless curiosity. The Bakewell biography presents a multi-scale picture of Montaigne the man, the landowner, the politician, the traveler, amid the struggles and turmoil of sixteenth-century Europe, as well as the way his work was claimed by succeeding generations of readers of wildly varying causes and purposes. All of them saw themselves in him, because he contained multitudes. He wasn't afraid of his contradictions--he embraced them as part of being human.
First read the Essays, then read How to Live.
January 16, 2012
I dunno. I was expecting something a little jazzier, a little more hip to the jive. The title and subtitle seem to promise a searching, po-mo genre bender, but How to Live is a fairly conventional biography that could have been written at any time in the last fifty years or so. The author comes across as an over-earnest popularizer: "See, kids? Isn’t Montaigne cool? Now I’m going to tell you about the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, which is also super interesting. But first we have to go all the way back to the Reformation. Can anyone tell me what the Reformation was...?" Ugh. I may be an idiot, but I’m not twelve.
OTOH, thanks to this book, I can now add Montaigne to my mental list of writers whose penises were probably smaller than mine. So far, it’s just him and poor old Malcolm Lowry, but new candidates are always welcome. Send photos.
OTOH, thanks to this book, I can now add Montaigne to my mental list of writers whose penises were probably smaller than mine. So far, it’s just him and poor old Malcolm Lowry, but new candidates are always welcome. Send photos.
February 21, 2019
I was looking for something like this, since I have always been curious of Montaigne but I never got up the nerve to read him, so this is a great introduction, and I learned a few more things too. I guess I was kind of looking for a little self help, but without it being self help openly, and I enjoyed it a lot.
March 27, 2020
كيف تُعاش الحياة أو حياة مونتاني.....سارة بكويل
ترجمة: سهام بنت سنية وعبدالسلام
دا كتاب رايق، سلس، ممتع، دافيء، أفكاره عميقة وعرضها واضح ومباشر وبسيط، فيه كل مواصفات الكتاب الجيد في الأوقات دي، والترجمة بتاعته موفقه جدا.
ترجمة: سهام بنت سنية وعبدالسلام
دا كتاب رايق، سلس، ممتع، دافيء، أفكاره عميقة وعرضها واضح ومباشر وبسيط، فيه كل مواصفات الكتاب الجيد في الأوقات دي، والترجمة بتاعته موفقه جدا.
July 9, 2020
„Няма нищо по-скъпо струващо от грижата и труда, а пък аз не търся нищо друго, освен да се отпусна и разслабя.“
Как да не заобичаш човек, способен на такава сладка философия?
Авторът на горните думи е вдъхновил Вирджиния Улф да се впусне по потоците на съзнанието, той е и утешителят на Стефан Цвайг в годините на емиграция, той е и „тази най-свободна и най-силна душа“ според Ницше, а за Ленърд Улф е „първият напълно модерен човек“. Рожба на размирния 16 век, връстник на кралица Елизабет I, Монтен е колкото рожба на къснорененсансовата епоха, толкова и универсален, надисторически.
„Как да живеем. Животът на Монтен“ е едновременно биография, история и идеен анализ, посветен на необикновения французин и неговата практична философия за добър живот.
Монтен е писал своите „Опити“ с усърдното самонаблюдение на човек, който се е учил в движение да улавя есенцията от мимолетните изживявания. Осланяйки се на мъдростта на трите велики елинистични школи – стоицизъм, епикурейство и скептицизъм, той надгражда тяхното наследство, като превръща собствената си личност в учебна дисциплина. Така успява да разчупи канона, поставяйки себе си в центъра на своите размишления. Пише „Опити“ и паралелно с това ги живее. Самонаблюдава се с удивлението, обикновено резервирано за причудливите неща. Намира се за безкрайно интересен и едновременно с това обикновен като всички останали хора.
Подобно на предишната си книга „В кафенето на екзистенциалистите“, и тук Бейкуел изгражда широка историческа картина, в която полага личността, за която пише. С такъв похват разбираме не само кой е Монтен, но и какъв е светът, в който е живял и какви са били вълненията на неговите съвременници. Отделен е въпросът, че въпросната личност не е представена като музеен експонат – почтително избърсан от праха на историята, а като пълнокръвна личност, чиито слабости са ни твърде понятни.
Монтен живял, без преувеличение, във вълнуващи от днешна гледна точка, и опасни от негова, времена. Неотдавна Лутер бил посял семето на протестанството, в резултат на което във Франция бушували религиозни войни и междуособици. Историческият коктейл, в който на Монтен му се налагало да навигира дипломатично, включвал имена, познати от романите на Александър Дюма - Анри IV, херцог дьо Гиз, Катерина Медичи, папа Григорий XIII.
Докато светът около него се разпадал, а сънародниците му били заети с това да се колят, Монтен се отделил в своята кула (буквално), за да се отдаде на самосъзерцание и безгрижие, с което, в крайна сметка, успява да съхрани здравия си разум. Въпреки че обстоятелствата го принудили да вземе дейно участие в хода на френската история, писателят, като модерен стоик, запазва спокойната си умереност и безпристрастност.
Опитите да бъде обвинен в леност и конформизъм (в първото той се самообвинява често) са всъщност нежелание му да бъде съпричастен към лудостта на своето време. Монтен е очарователно антидогматичен и антифанатичен. Освен това е бил и рядко непрактичен човек, отдалечен от тривиалните аспекти на ежедневния живот. Явно е бил лош феодал от перспективата на тогавашния човек. „Впрочем кой знае“ е изразът, който той обичал да използва и който най-добре описва криволичещата му и безгрижна философия, в която няма окончателни присъди.
Описвайки себе си, той на практика описва човешката природа, слага знак за равенство между високообразования и привилегирован човек от Късния Ренесанс, какъвто е бил, и всеки друг човек, навсякъде по света. Нищо чудно че „Опитите“ вдъхновяват великите умове на Просвещението и хвърлят духовен мост към личности като Волтер, Вирджиния и Ленърд Улф и разбира се, Цвайг.
За това колко свежи и оригинални са мислите на Монтен можем да съдим от факта, че след смъртта му Инквизицията включва „Опити“ в Индекса на забранените книги, където престоява близо два века.
Бейкуел нито величае, нито принизява Монтен и в този смисъл тя постига обективност и баланс, ценни качества при подобен род изследвания. Хуморът й е от типа, който високо ценя – работи чрез натрупване, където постепенното опознаване на героя ни дава възможност да уловим добронамерената насмешка по адрес на неговата личност. Монтен е изобразен с майсторството, запазено за качествените портрети на литературните герои.
Въобще не предполагах, че тази книга ще ми хареса поне толкова, колкото предишната от Сара Бейкуел – „В кафенето на екзистенциалистите.“ Сара Бейкуел просто умее да пише интересно, без да звучи опростенчески, а Монтен ми стана безкрайно близък и симпатичен, най-вече със слабостите, които двамата споделяме. С удоволствие бих прочела всичко, което Сара Бейкуел възнамерява да напише, включително и за някой по-недолюбван философ, например Ницше.
Философия, поднесена от жизнерадостен хуманист, действа като рецепта за себесъхранение. А вдъхновението е в така наречения обикновен живот, изживян спокойно и умерено.
Впрочем, кой знае.
Как да не заобичаш човек, способен на такава сладка философия?
Авторът на горните думи е вдъхновил Вирджиния Улф да се впусне по потоците на съзнанието, той е и утешителят на Стефан Цвайг в годините на емиграция, той е и „тази най-свободна и най-силна душа“ според Ницше, а за Ленърд Улф е „първият напълно модерен човек“. Рожба на размирния 16 век, връстник на кралица Елизабет I, Монтен е колкото рожба на къснорененсансовата епоха, толкова и универсален, надисторически.
„Как да живеем. Животът на Монтен“ е едновременно биография, история и идеен анализ, посветен на необикновения французин и неговата практична философия за добър живот.
Монтен е писал своите „Опити“ с усърдното самонаблюдение на човек, който се е учил в движение да улавя есенцията от мимолетните изживявания. Осланяйки се на мъдростта на трите велики елинистични школи – стоицизъм, епикурейство и скептицизъм, той надгражда тяхното наследство, като превръща собствената си личност в учебна дисциплина. Така успява да разчупи канона, поставяйки себе си в центъра на своите размишления. Пише „Опити“ и паралелно с това ги живее. Самонаблюдава се с удивлението, обикновено резервирано за причудливите неща. Намира се за безкрайно интересен и едновременно с това обикновен като всички останали хора.
Подобно на предишната си книга „В кафенето на екзистенциалистите“, и тук Бейкуел изгражда широка историческа картина, в която полага личността, за която пише. С такъв похват разбираме не само кой е Монтен, но и какъв е светът, в който е живял и какви са били вълненията на неговите съвременници. Отделен е въпросът, че въпросната личност не е представена като музеен експонат – почтително избърсан от праха на историята, а като пълнокръвна личност, чиито слабости са ни твърде понятни.
Монтен живял, без преувеличение, във вълнуващи от днешна гледна точка, и опасни от негова, времена. Неотдавна Лутер бил посял семето на протестанството, в резултат на което във Франция бушували религиозни войни и междуособици. Историческият коктейл, в който на Монтен му се налагало да навигира дипломатично, включвал имена, познати от романите на Александър Дюма - Анри IV, херцог дьо Гиз, Катерина Медичи, папа Григорий XIII.
Докато светът около него се разпадал, а сънародниците му били заети с това да се колят, Монтен се отделил в своята кула (буквално), за да се отдаде на самосъзерцание и безгрижие, с което, в крайна сметка, успява да съхрани здравия си разум. Въпреки че обстоятелствата го принудили да вземе дейно участие в хода на френската история, писателят, като модерен стоик, запазва спокойната си умереност и безпристрастност.
Опитите да бъде обвинен в леност и конформизъм (в първото той се самообвинява често) са всъщност нежелание му да бъде съпричастен към лудостта на своето време. Монтен е очарователно антидогматичен и антифанатичен. Освен това е бил и рядко непрактичен човек, отдалечен от тривиалните аспекти на ежедневния живот. Явно е бил лош феодал от перспективата на тогавашния човек. „Впрочем кой знае“ е изразът, който той обичал да използва и който най-добре описва криволичещата му и безгрижна философия, в която няма окончателни присъди.
Описвайки себе си, той на практика описва човешката природа, слага знак за равенство между високообразования и привилегирован човек от Късния Ренесанс, какъвто е бил, и всеки друг човек, навсякъде по света. Нищо чудно че „Опитите“ вдъхновяват великите умове на Просвещението и хвърлят духовен мост към личности като Волтер, Вирджиния и Ленърд Улф и разбира се, Цвайг.
За това колко свежи и оригинални са мислите на Монтен можем да съдим от факта, че след смъртта му Инквизицията включва „Опити“ в Индекса на забранените книги, където престоява близо два века.
Бейкуел нито величае, нито принизява Монтен и в този смисъл тя постига обективност и баланс, ценни качества при подобен род изследвания. Хуморът й е от типа, който високо ценя – работи чрез натрупване, където постепенното опознаване на героя ни дава възможност да уловим добронамерената насмешка по адрес на неговата личност. Монтен е изобразен с майсторството, запазено за качествените портрети на литературните герои.
Въобще не предполагах, че тази книга ще ми хареса поне толкова, колкото предишната от Сара Бейкуел – „В кафенето на екзистенциалистите.“ Сара Бейкуел просто умее да пише интересно, без да звучи опростенчески, а Монтен ми стана безкрайно близък и симпатичен, най-вече със слабостите, които двамата споделяме. С удоволствие бих прочела всичко, което Сара Бейкуел възнамерява да напише, включително и за някой по-недолюбван философ, например Ницше.
Философия, поднесена от жизнерадостен хуманист, действа като рецепта за себесъхранение. А вдъхновението е в така наречения обикновен живот, изживян спокойно и умерено.
Впрочем, кой знае.
June 27, 2015
How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at An Answer by Sarah Bakewell is an examination of both the life and work of Montaigne, the 16th writer who basically invented the art of the personal essay.
I first read Montaigne in college and fell in love with him. In my mid-twenties, swept up in an excess of emotions, he seemed too restrained, too balanced. In my 30s, he once again appealed to my desire to live a more self-accepting, balanced life but I was too busy with career and then children to devote much time to reading him. Bakewell's book leaves me yearning to read him yet again.
Montaigne lived in turbulent times-plagues and religious wars being two of the most notable crises. He himself was raised with an indulgence and child-centeredness unusual (although not unheard-of) for the times. He seems to feel that his upbringing left him unwilling to exert himself when not internally motivated, searching for pleasure and avoiding boredom. He found his pleasure in an early retirement to a tower (on the other side of a large house from his wife) and books. He began to write his essays in an effort to explore the classical question of, How can we live? How should we live?
Bakewell breaks her book into 20 possible answers to this question all drawn from Montaigne's work and his life. In a very general way, the answer seems to lie in moderation, self-acceptance, mindfulness of our experience and the world around us, as well as an aliveness to the experience of those around us, including animals. Never has this last lesson seemed more important.
Bakewell's book is filled with thoughtful observations, not least of which has to do with how readers have used Montaigne throughout the centuries in which to find themselves and validate their own experience-or, on the other hand, to contrast their views and take an adversarial position to the work. Either way, the work has remained alive and potent.
Montaigne's digressiveness has formed a line that includes Tristram Shandy and, more recently, Finnegans Wake. Nothing is simple as he continued to add to and elaborate upon his essays throughout his life, always complicating and not simplifying them. At the very least, Montaigne conveys a fascination with ordinary life and our own experiences and perceptions that keeps him alive from the 16th century until the present.
Bakewell's book is exciting and fascinating. I now am burning to read the original again, in this later part of my life, to discover who he is now to me and who I am in this endlessly rich work.
I first read Montaigne in college and fell in love with him. In my mid-twenties, swept up in an excess of emotions, he seemed too restrained, too balanced. In my 30s, he once again appealed to my desire to live a more self-accepting, balanced life but I was too busy with career and then children to devote much time to reading him. Bakewell's book leaves me yearning to read him yet again.
Montaigne lived in turbulent times-plagues and religious wars being two of the most notable crises. He himself was raised with an indulgence and child-centeredness unusual (although not unheard-of) for the times. He seems to feel that his upbringing left him unwilling to exert himself when not internally motivated, searching for pleasure and avoiding boredom. He found his pleasure in an early retirement to a tower (on the other side of a large house from his wife) and books. He began to write his essays in an effort to explore the classical question of, How can we live? How should we live?
Bakewell breaks her book into 20 possible answers to this question all drawn from Montaigne's work and his life. In a very general way, the answer seems to lie in moderation, self-acceptance, mindfulness of our experience and the world around us, as well as an aliveness to the experience of those around us, including animals. Never has this last lesson seemed more important.
Bakewell's book is filled with thoughtful observations, not least of which has to do with how readers have used Montaigne throughout the centuries in which to find themselves and validate their own experience-or, on the other hand, to contrast their views and take an adversarial position to the work. Either way, the work has remained alive and potent.
Montaigne's digressiveness has formed a line that includes Tristram Shandy and, more recently, Finnegans Wake. Nothing is simple as he continued to add to and elaborate upon his essays throughout his life, always complicating and not simplifying them. At the very least, Montaigne conveys a fascination with ordinary life and our own experiences and perceptions that keeps him alive from the 16th century until the present.
Bakewell's book is exciting and fascinating. I now am burning to read the original again, in this later part of my life, to discover who he is now to me and who I am in this endlessly rich work.
April 21, 2023
الكتاب يتطرق لحياة المفكر الفرنسي مونتاني صاحب كتاب "المقالات" و هو كتاب ضخم يجمع قناعاته و فلسفته حول الحياة و كتابنا بدوره يجيبنا عن سؤال : كيف تعيش الحياة؟ من خلال أجابات مونتاني عبر كتابه السالف الذكر.
هو كتاب يجمع بين التاريخ الفردي /الشخصي لمونتاني و كذلك تاريخه الفكري و السياسي مع تقديم تاريخ أوروبا و خصوصا فرنسا في بداية العصر الحديث.
هو كتاب ممتع بلغة ممتعة و مرحة و بسيطة
هو كتاب يجمع بين التاريخ الفردي /الشخصي لمونتاني و كذلك تاريخه الفكري و السياسي مع تقديم تاريخ أوروبا و خصوصا فرنسا في بداية العصر الحديث.
هو كتاب ممتع بلغة ممتعة و مرحة و بسيطة
March 9, 2018
A well-written, very well-structured book--surprisingly so, given everything that Bakewell is trying to do: biography, reception history, philosophy, history... But I confess, her Montaigne gives me hives. In these pages, he is reliably contemporary; by far the most interesting thing about Montaigne is his untimeliness. The answer to how to live given here is, depressingly, "do what you, reader of books like this, already do: hedonism, moderation, liberalism, naturalism, centrism, agnosticism, Heracliteanism; be anti-philosophical, empathetic, unique, rebellious and, preferably, vegetarian. And, above all, seek therapy everywhere you look. "Modern readers," Bakewell writes, "who approach Montaigne asking what he can do for them are asking the same question he himself asked of Seneca, Sextus, and Lucretius...", which is both false--inasmuch as Montaigne seems to have been a notably disinterested reader, looking for other people, rather than trying to see how they can profit him--and obnoxious, because it implies that this just is how modern readers approach Montaigne. For Bakewell, and readers like her, Montaigne's only relation to his own time was to stand in opposition to it, while his only relation to our time is to conform to it. It would be nice if we could approach him in the opposite manner: a man deeply at odds with many of our own preconceptions about what it is to lead a good life. Montaigne spends most of his time writing about things other than himself, because he is interested in things other than himself. Predictably, but tiresomely, Bakewell tries to turn Montaigne into a kind of proto-deist: Montaigne commends his spirit to God on his death bed; for Bakewell, this is "a final act of Catholic convention: a brief acknowledgment to God in the life of this joyfully secular man"--as if our divisions of secular and religious can be read back into the sixteenth century, not to mention our divisions of convention and sincerity). But there's no reason to doubt that he was a genuinely devoted Catholic, as he understood that.
Also, any readers of Descartes are advised to stay well clear of his appearance in the book; Descartes, a man who famously died because he was told to get out of bed before noon, is here a Puritan who hated everything except mathematics.
I'm torn between genuine, gob-smacked admiration for Bakewell's ability to structure a book this complex, and rage at her inability to find in a sixteenth century Frenchman anything other than a twenty-first century American.
Also, any readers of Descartes are advised to stay well clear of his appearance in the book; Descartes, a man who famously died because he was told to get out of bed before noon, is here a Puritan who hated everything except mathematics.
I'm torn between genuine, gob-smacked admiration for Bakewell's ability to structure a book this complex, and rage at her inability to find in a sixteenth century Frenchman anything other than a twenty-first century American.
Want to read
March 10, 2016"Cicero says—[Tusc., i. 31.]—"that to study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die."
in Essays (CHAPTER XIX——THAT TO STUDY PHILOSOPY IS TO LEARN TO DIE)
I listened to an interview the author gave on her book. Some ideas ahead.
(a) Michel Montaigne (1533-1592) was a French magistrate who, by the age of 37, felt the need to “retire from active duty”. His father having just died, made MM to inherit a wine estate. So, he dedicated his remaining years to reflection; some of this, on himself; thence his essays.
(b) I’ve found of particular interest his near-death-experience; his recollections of being thrown out his horse, being bruised …and the “floating experience”.
(c) He loved Plutarch, historians…; and followed Seneca’s recommendations.
(d) Some say “skepticism” had a great impact on him; but Doubt in him and in Descartes are different; while in Descartes doubt is a “stage”, in MM it’s “a way of life”. The author hinted at MM’s influence on later authors: like Pascal, Voltaire and Nietzsche.
(e) MM acknowledged that peasants may have more wisdom than those who are based on readings.
(f) Sarah Bakewell called MM an “accidental philosopher”. His fascination with the inner world was paired up with that of the outside world.
(g) MM: “I may contradict myself but not truth”.
(h) One could wonder if Philosophy is a way to “learn how to die”….or, on “how to live”... well.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,190 reviews