Michel de Montaigne
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
> A friend of mine the other day turning over my tablets, found therein a memorandum of something I would have done after my decease, whereupon I told him, as it was really true, that though I was no more than a league’s distance only from my own house, and merry and well, yet when that thing came into my head, I made haste to write it down there, because I was not certain to live till I came home. As a man that am eternally brooding over my own thoughts, and confine them to my own particular concerns, I am at all hours as well prepared as I am ever like to be, and death, whenever he shall come, can bring nothing along with him I did not expect long before. We should always, as near as we can, be booted and spurred, and ready to go, and, above all things, take care, at that time, to have no business with any one but one’s self.
This is my favorite philosopher by far (I'm not saying that because I'm french!). Partly because his essays are not too "abstract" and this allows me to truly understand it, partly also because I found his essays still valid today.
One little and unimportant anecdote I liked: his parents forced themselves and his tutor to speak only in latin when he was a child. Later, Montaigne thanked his parents a lot when he saw how others were struggling with this language.
I made the pilgrimage to visit his study when I last visited your country. I had read about the quotations set into the rafters and was surprised to find so much greek!
Runciman's "History of Ideas" series on political thought was excellent, and pairs well with a number of other philosophy podcasts I follow (Peter Adamson, Stephen West, Cecil Adams, Nigel Warburton, amongst others).
Thanks for mentioning that.
Arguably this "last edition" is the best one: https://www.puf.com/content/Les_Essais_Livres_I-III
You can also go with "La Pléïade" version, however it's based upon the posthumous version, and in typical Pléïade's fashion, punctuation is altered/modernised from the ancient versions.
I've read both and my advice is to go with the first, cheaper one :)
Could you elaborate on that? I thought copyright was a much more recent idea.
>I make additions but not corrections: firstly, that is because when a man has mortgaged his book to the world I find it reasonable that he should no longer have any rights over it. Let him put it better elsewhere if he can, not corrupt the work he has already sold. From such folk you should buy nothing until they are dead. Let them do their thinking properly before they publish. Who is making them hurry? My book is ever one: except that, to avoid the purchaser’s going away quite empty-handed when a new edition is brought out, I allow myself, since it is merely a piece of badly joined marquetry, to tack on some additional ornaments. That is no more than a little extra thrown in, which does not damn the original version but does lend some particular value to each subsequent one through some ambitious bit of precision. From this there can easily arise however some transposition of the chronological order, my tales finding their place not always by age but by opportuneness.
Although I agree that a digital edition that allows you to toggle between the different editions would be a wonderful idea. Charles Rosen talked at length about the inadequacies of the Pléiade edition in this regard in his review[1].
[1] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/02/14/the-genius-of-mo...
"On the highest throne in the world, we are seated, still, upon our arses."
Montaigne Fled the Plague, and Found Himself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25261727 - Dec 2020 (4 comments)
maybe there were others?
Montaigne knew how to play The Glass Bead Game.
(and anticipated the Memex' associative trails with a low-tech implementation)
> The owner of the memex, let us say, is interested in the origin and properties of the bow and arrow. Specifically he is studying why the short Turkish bow was apparently superior to the English long bow in the skirmishes of the Crusades. He has dozens of possibly pertinent books and articles in his memex. First he runs through an encyclopedia, finds an interesting but sketchy article, leaves it projected. Next, in a history, he finds another pertinent item, and ties the two together. Thus he goes, building a trail of many items. Occasionally he inserts a comment of his own, either linking it into the main trail or joining it by a side trail to a particular item. When it becomes evident that the elastic properties of available materials had a great deal to do with the bow, he branches off on a side trail which takes him through textbooks on elasticity and tables of physical constants. He inserts a page of longhand analysis of his own. Thus he builds a trail of his interest through the maze of materials available to him.
Montaigne incorporates classical material (by reference) into the personal trails of his essays. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millefiori beads, Glass Bead Game (Hesse) players incorporate old material into new contexts of their own devising...
I had been recalling that the raw materiel (the "beads", see millefiori in neighbouring thread) was shared, part of the "extant literature" if you will, but that plays were supposed to be novel as well as good. (a bit like an LZ decompressor, where each additional bit of input both recalls something in the dictionary and adds a new entry)
I have been assuming it was the players' personal styles that provided the novelty, but upon reflection that could easily be my US background more than the source text speaking!
Edit: come to think of it, maybe that's a valid criticism of the game as played in Castalia — that the castalians had become too conventional, losing the playfulness of their play?
(in possible relation, I was watching a national championship final over a decade ago with the mother of one of the contestants: she was very critical of her daughter, and correctly predicted the other would become champion. Why, I asked during the match? Her response: her daughter always came up with the classical textbook plays, whereas the the eventual champion knew how to exploit gambits: plays that were, on paper, weaker, but in practice, strong due to the element of surprise)
I do remember that Hesse description of how the past colours our experience of the present and his thoughts on both the nature of subjectivity and the place of spirituality made a strong impression on the young me at the time.
I probably should read this book again. It seems like the time is right.
I thought it was great, although I knew little more than that Montaigne was a philosopher before reading it. A really fascinating man.