Locating the True Montaigne

Earlier today Uncle Rico, the esteemed Uncle Rico, counseled against discussing ourselves instead of Montaigne, and the point is well taken. The intent of this blog is to explore Montaigne’s essays, so the focus should be on Montaigne, and not any of us. It’s all about what Montaigne thinks; not what any of us thinks about Montaigne. But here’s the problem.

Bloom says (always Bloom), “Montaigne changes as he rereads and revises his own book; more perhaps than in any other instance, the book is the man is the book….no other book is so much an ongoing process.” As a result, even Bloom declares himself unable to become familiar with Montaigne, “though I reread it constantly, because it is a miracle of mutability.” “Montaigne startles the common reader at each fresh encounter….”

This dilemma should be familiar to students of physics -- the inability to know exactly where and how fast something is moving. Stated otherwise, the act of perception alters the object being perceived. So then each reading of Montaigne differs from the previous one, in part because of the qualities the author brings to the work, and in part because of the differences the reader brings to the book each time he or she picks it up.

Therefore, to a certain extent, although we are searching for Montaigne’s meaning in each of the essays, that meaning will change with each reader, and apparently also with each reading. And so, it’s unavoidable that at some point in our efforts to understand Montaigne, we’ll have to talk about ourselves, our lives, our beliefs, our experiences. But we can attempt, in discussing our own selves, and our biases, at least to be truthful: “What gave Montaigne the clarity to see and write the truth about himself?” If we adhere to that principle, perhaps our personal digressions will not hinder, but instead will assist us in our search.