For Yves Bonnefoy

In his “Consideration sur Ciceron” (livre I, chapitre 40),Montaigne remarks that when someone dwells on the language, the style, ofhis essays, “j’aimerois mieus qu’il s’enteust.” It was, above all, the objective content of which he wasproud, more material and denser, he says, than in other writers. But, as heobserves at once, this matter is not always straightforward:

This open invitation to read between the lines is followed by a condemnationof style for style’s sake (a subject to which we may return briefly),reinforced by a quotation from Seneca: “Elegance is not a masculineornament.” (All these considerations were added in the margins of the1588 edition.)

Hors de propos, we might remark (thinking of the presentacademic fashion of imposing a Montaigne bien pensant andimpeccably orthodox Catholic) that an author who is unwilling to expresshimself completely and who expects the happy few (the readers who understandhis “air”) to guess at oblique resonancesà gauche is not likely to hold the mostrespectable opinions or positions. Sainte Beuve’s summary observationthat Montaigne would have been a very good Catholic if he had only been aChristian still seems to me the most cogent formula, although stillunsatisfactory. It also explains his importance for Pascal: it is throughMontaigne that Pascal found within himself the realization that incredulityhas an attraction as powerful as faith—an orthodox Montaigne wouldhave been of little use to him. The power and the intelligibility of thePensées rest on recognizing the seduction ofdisbelief and indifference.

The matter that Montaigne derived from his reading has an ambiguous status.He mocks writers who quote frequently from the classics, although this wascertainly his own practice.