Chapter 14 Appendix II Preface to Montaigne's Immortal Chapters

Montaigne only wrote one book in his life: "The Collection of Essays". This unique book has no predetermined writing rules and no order.He published "Essay Collection" four times in succession, and I want to say "makeover" four times.The first edition was in 1580, at the age of forty-seven.This text, he revised and perfected again and again, until his death (1592) left a volume full of corrections and additions, which served as a blueprint for many future reprints.During this period Montaigne traveled throughout southern Germany and Italy (1580-1581), and then served as the mayor of Bordeaux (from 1581 to 1585): he let readers share what he saw and heard abroad, Shares his experience holding public office during the tumultuous times of the Wars of Religion.

After this, he turned his attention from public affairs to self-cultivation (I mean, he carefully organized his thoughts), and lived in his own "bookstore", shutting himself out until his death, staying in the Peihe where he was born. In the small castle of Rigor.He wrote new chapters to form the third volume of the Essays; he reworked and polished the first two volumes, adding and correcting six hundred places.Montaigne also introduced the excerpts from his frequent reading into the book, which made the first volume bloated and complicated, because he was convinced that everything had ancient teachings, so he devoted himself to proving that human thoughts are always the same and similar everywhere.A large number of quotations make some chapters of "Essays" become a dense "patch" of Greek and Latin authors, which makes people doubt Montaigne's originality.Ingenuity really has to be very distinct to rise above this messy pile.

It was not Montaigne's personal ostentation to flaunt his erudition; Greco-Roman culture still reigned supreme.Gibbon rightly points out that the study of ancient literature, much earlier than the early Renaissance, delayed rather than accelerated the intellectual development of the peoples of the West.At that time, people were looking for models and didn't care much about drawing inspiration and inspiration.In the age of Boccaccio and Rabelais, erudition oppressed intellectuals, and instead of helping them to liberate themselves, it suffocated them.The authority of the ancients, especially that of Aristotle, has left a deep imprint on culture.Throughout the sixteenth century, the University of Paris produced only academics and bookworms.

Montaigne is not opposed to the profound knowledge in books, but he is good at digesting and using it for himself without affecting the formation of his own thoughts. This is what distinguishes him from other scholars.At best he conformed to the fashion and stuffed his writings with quotations.But he pointed out: "What's the use of stuffing our stomachs with meat, if it can't be digested, if it can't increase nutrition, if it can't strengthen the body?" Self-comparison with bees: "Bees collect flowers everywhere, make honey, and complete their masterpieces."

"The Collection of Essays" would be inconceivable without the extraordinary personality of the author.So what new things did he bring to the world?Know yourself.He was not so sure of knowing all kinds of other things, but the humanity he discovered, the humanity he revealed to us, was so reliable and so real that every reader of the Essays knew himself in him. In every historical period, human beings always try to cover up their true humanity with conventional images.Montaigne took off this mask, traced back to the source, and grasped the essence.The reason why he has reached this point is that he tirelessly honed his unique insight; because he opposed conformity, unchanging beliefs, and conformity; it was because he had a critical spirit that was always sober. , generous and open-minded without deliberately trying to please, just because he strives to understand, not to preach.

In Montaigne's view, the body and the spirit are equally important; he does not separate the two, and avoids expressing his thoughts in the abstract.Therefore, it is very important to watch his actions before listening to his words.Fortunately, he himself has revealed all about himself.Then take a look. He was short in stature, with a full face but not fat, and a beard that was not too long in the fashion of the time.The facial features are "perfect".Although he indulged and spoiled his strong body, his body was still very strong, and he only got kidney stones at the age of forty-seven.He has a steady gait, sharp movements, and a sonorous voice.He is talkative, always impassioned, and accompanied by various actions.Everything he ate tasted delicious, and he devoured it voraciously, even biting his fingers, because forks were not used then.He rode often, and rode long distances without feeling tired until his later years.He wrote that sleeping occupied most of his life.

The importance of a writer lies not only in his inherent value, but also in the timelyness of his revelation.Some preaching of the scriptures was only temporarily important, but now it has no resonance.At that time, it could awaken conscience, arouse enthusiasm, and set off revolution, but it has no appeal to us.Great writers are great because their books not only respond to the needs of one nation at one time, but provide sufficient food for the various hungers of generations and races.Montaigne said: "A confident reader finds that the strengths of other people's thoughts are often different from what the author puts into the book and emphasizes, and endows them with richer meaning and appearance." (Book 25 §) Is he "confident" himself?Will he be able to answer the new questions posed to him by his "confident readers" in young America?I will wait and see.This preface and the compilation of Montaigne's anthology were written to meet the demands of a New York publisher.

In our age, in every country, constructive thinkers are in high demand.A writer is best admired for proposing to us a well-ordered system, a solution to political, social, and moral problems, for the anxiety-provoking problems that afflict peoples of all nations, and above all of us, every day. personal.Montaigne does not offer us any method (does a method that was valuable in his time work today?), nor does he offer any philosophy or social system.Far from being orderly, his thoughts were allowed to dance wildly and freely.His persistent skepticism made Emerson think that he was the most perfect representative of skepticism (that is, the representative of anti-dogmatism, the representative of spiritual exploration). dirt.So some people do think that his "what I know" statement is the finishing touch to his wisdom and teachings, but I can't get enough.Skepticism is not something I like in the Essays, and it is especially uneducating to me.A "confident reader" will find better things in Montaigne than doubts and doubts.

To Pilate's venomous question: "What is truth?" has echoed through the ages, and to which Montaigne seems to have borrowed Christ's remarkable answer, "I am truth," although from the human point of view, in a manner Entirely secular, its meaning is also very different from its original meaning.That is to say, Montaigne believed that it was impossible to really know anything but oneself.That's why he talks so much about himself, knowing himself more than anything else.He writes: "One should unmask both the appearance of the thing and the mask of the character." (Book 1, Section 20) He writes about himself in order to expose himself.Although masks belong to characters, they also belong to times and countries. Therefore, people are distinguished by masks, so that we can easily recognize our own kind from those who have really been unmasked.

He even went so far as to think that his own portrayal might be of more general interest, even though it was more personal to him.In this profound truth we value his own portrayal, because "every man carries the full picture of the human condition." (Book III, Section 2) What's more, as Pindar said, Montaigne firmly believed that "true living beings are the beginning of great good and great virtue". (Book II, Section 18) Montaigne borrowed this phrase from Plutarch, who in turn borrowed it from Pindar, and now I will use Montaigne's words for my own use.I am very happy to use it as the title of "Essay Collection", because if I always keep this important teaching in mind, I will definitely benefit a lot.

Montaigne didn't seem to have the courage and assurance at first to take only his true self and describe himself vividly.From this, there is a certain initial hesitation in his self-drawn outlines; from this, he seeks refuge in the dense thorns of history: from this, he piles up classic quotations, collects various examples, and I would say that he quotes from classics and keeps groping , like walking on eggshells.He took an interest in himself, at first vaguely, not quite aware of its importance, doubting whether what appeared to be the least insignificant and which attracted the most disdain was not precisely the most noteworthy.Everything in him was to him an object of curiosity, amusement, and wonder: "In the end I saw nothing but the world's aversions and beauties all in one: people get used to all the weirdness for a long time; but the more I haunt myself, the more I know myself, The more you marvel at your own ugliness, the more you get in trouble with yourself." Isn't it interesting to hear him talk about his "ugliness" in this way?For what we love in him is what makes us recognize in him that which is like us, that which is like the common and unadorned. It was only from the third volume and the last volume of the "Essays" (which the first few editions did not have) that Montaigne was able to talk about his problems without hesitation.He knows what he wants to say, what to focus on, and he speaks brilliantly, with elegant writing, witty and funny, well-expressed, winding paths, and endless wit.He wrote: "People cultivate people (such as Awakening the World), and I chant people." (Book III, Section 2) Later, he wrote more subtly: "I do not describe what exists, but what is fleeting. The Germans say Werden, because Montaigne has always been concerned with the eternal flow of all things, in other words, with the instability of human character: personality is never fixed, only conscious of itself in elusive changes.At least this certainty grows in the collapse of all other certainties, and on the subject of himself, he is "the most knowledgeable man alive" (Book III, Section 2), "No one can ever As accurate as he is and perseveres to perfection", the virtue that complements certainty can only be "fidelity", so Montaigne thinks it can be added immediately: "Certainty is clear at a glance, the most sincere and purest." I think the greatest pleasure we get from Montaigne's Essays comes from the fact that he wrote it, and we feel it in almost every sentence.Of all the chapters that make up the three volumes of the Essays, there is only one that is dull, and that is the longest, most conscientious, linking, and methodical text: "In Defense of Raymond de Seponde."De Sebonde was a fifteenth-century Spanish philosopher who taught medicine at the University of Toulouse in France.Montaigne laboriously translated de Sebond's Natural Theology at the behest of his father. "This is a very strange and new thing for me, but since I have luck and spare time and can't disobey the best father ever, I tried my best and finally finished translating it." (Volume Two, Twelfth Section) This text, located in the middle of the "Essays", is Montaigne's first work and is one of the best-known and most often cited articles.Montaigne's mind was wild and unrestrained, but he took great pains to write this essay, detailing a doctrine that casts a firm and consistent veil on his uncertain mysticism.But precisely because he tightly controlled his thoughts here, his thoughts almost lost all elegance and his detached charm like a wild crane.We feel that when he directs his thoughts to a purpose, we are not interested in reading it. Only when he occasionally feels something in the later writing, he writes like a stroll, walking into an unplanned path to pick flowers, we feel it. With relish.I am happy to point out here that the most popular and beautiful works are also the works that the author is happiest and most happy to write, and such works are easy to read.Art does not stand by seriousness, but fun is the surest guide. Montaigne's thoughts expounded in all or almost all of the different chapters of "Essays" are almost in a state of flux, so uncertain, so changeable, and even full of contradictions, that later generations can make various differences. explanation of.Some people, such as Pascal and Kant, saw Montaigne as a Christian, and Emerson regarded him as a model of skepticism; "Collection" is the preparation and prelude to Spinoza's "Ethics".But I think Sainte-Beuve comes closest to the real Montaigne when he points out: "He takes a different attitude, makes himself into a strange eccentricity, thereby touching everyone's little world, and through self-portraits (he is inattentive, tireless, persistent, etc.) drawing pictures of himself) the better to be the painter and image-capturer of most men, for which he often painstakingly dissects himself, in his own words, of his inconsistencies and layers of overlap." "Everyone in his (Montaigne) has a small piece of heaven and earth in him." ("History of the Abbey of Port-Royal", Volume III, Chapter 2) I think Montaigne's ability to tolerate inconsistencies and contradictions is a great strength. The words at the beginning of the second volume of "Essays" are both awakening and warning to us: "He who strives to control human behavior can neither help nor add glory, because human behavior is full of contradictions, so strange, it seems impossible. In the same way." (Book 1, Section 1) For this self-contradiction of human beings, spiritual masters, no matter whether they are named Shakespeare, Cervantes or Racine, all have at least a brief apperception.However, in order to establish classical art, it is first necessary to temporarily establish a psychology, a bit superficial, but with definite and unchanging broad lines.For this there must be a man who is in love, a penny-pinching miser, and a jealous man who is jealous, but there must be no one who is a little bit of all of the above.Montaigne said of these "good writers" that they "choose the appearance of all beings, and according to this image, they arrange and explain the various actions of the characters. If they can't fit the feet, they simply falsify them." (Book II, stanza 1) he added: "Augustus was blind to it," and later Saint-Evremont wrote in the same tune: "The folds and labyrinths of our souls, he (P. Lutak) turned a blind eye...he judged people in a big way, and didn't believe that others were different from him...when he felt a flaw, he blamed external causes...while Montaigne understood it much deeper It’s gone.” I think Montaigne saw it even more clearly, not just the “changeability of man” as Saint-Evremont said.I think that under the cover of the word "mutable" is precisely the crux of the matter, which was not dealt with until much later by Dostoevsky, and then by Proust, so that it is said: The concept of man on which we live has raised objections", and several people such as contemporary Freud broke the gap in the concept of man.Perhaps it is Montaigne who surprises me the most, and which appeals directly to us, when he offers us unexpected clues about the uncertain boundaries of personality and the instability of the ego. Montaigne's contemporaries must have overlooked the most striking passages, turned a blind eye, or at least failed to see their importance.Perhaps Montaigne himself sympathized with the indifference of his contemporaries, but at any rate he was also concerned with hotspots of interest that no longer interest us today.Had he returned to the world today, he might have said, "If I had known you were concerned with this, I would have said more!" Well, what's the use of postponing?Who told you to blindly cater to your contemporaries but not our descendants.The question that his age accused him of, or the most neglected question, is often the question of how a writer can communicate with us through the ages.It takes special insight to gauge what interests future generations beyond immediate anxieties. Love doesn't seem to play a big role in Montaigne's life, he pays more attention to physical pleasure.It seems that he was not very enthusiastic when he got married. If he was a good husband, he would not have written such words in his later years: "It is easier to have sex when you have an affair, but you have to follow the rules and be restrained when you are with your wife." (Volume Two, No. Thirty-three) Of course, this statement does not mean that he personally practiced it.He didn't think much of women, and after every pleasure, he let women do housework.I have excerpted passages from Montaigne's "Essays" on women, and they are all ugly words.As for his children, he briefly mentioned in the book: "They all died in infancy." (Book II, Section 8) Only one daughter "escaped this bad luck" (ibid.).It seemed that he didn't feel sorry for his children dying one after another. However, Montaigne is not unreasonable, he especially sympathizes with the common people: "I am wholeheartedly for the common people, and my heart is born with infinite sympathy for them." (Volume III, Section 13) But when rational balance is needed, he immediately recovers Sedation: "I am so sympathetic to the sufferings of others that I am so soft-hearted that it is easy to cry with others if it is on occasion where I am deeply saddened." (Book II, Section 11) La Rochefoucauld later said: "I have little compassion, and I don't want to have it at all." Eventually leading to Nietzsche's famous quote: "Let us have hearts of stone." I am especially moved by such statements coming from people like Montaigne or Nietzsche who are naturally soft-hearted. The only aspect of Montaigne's emotional life that is reflected in his writings is friendship.His sincere friendship for Étienne de La Boyetti seems to have always been hidden in his heart, and it also occupied an important place in his spirit.This close friend who is three years older than him has only one small essay: "On Voluntary Slavery".This small book is not enough to make us regard Raboiedi as "the great man of the century", standing alongside Montaigne, but it is probably enough to make us understand that the author of the later "Essays" is attached to a very generous and noble heart. soul. Another friendship that also featured prominently in Montaigne's life was his affection for Mademoiselle Marie de Guinet, whom he called "the daughter-in-law".When he was in his twilight, he wrote: "I love her much more than my father. She has been with me in my retirement and solitude, and has become the best part of myself." He even added: "In this world, I only care about her. Already." When she was "super-full" admiring and admiring the author of the "Essays", she was only twenty, while Montaigne was fifty-four.Not to mention the pure spiritual nostalgia of this school can be said to have forgotten the ancestors, because thanks to Mademoiselle de Guinet's care, the third edition of the "Essays", a very important edition, was published three years after Montaigne's death (1595). She was faithful, and Montaigne's manuscript was preserved, which was of great benefit to the subsequent publication of Montaigne's complete works. Noble as Montaigne's friendship with Etienne de La Poyetti may have been, we may suppose it was somewhat restrictive; What kind of person he would become, especially if Raboiedi hadn't died young (at the age of thirty-three), I don't know what the "Essays" would have become; if his thoughts continued to be controlled by his friend Laboiedi, I don't know What will happen.In this regard, Sainte-Beuve quoted a very beautiful sentence from Pliny the Younger: "I have lost the witness of life... From now on I am afraid that life will be more careless." Good "casualty", we like Montaigne's "casualty".In Laboyetti's view, Montaigne was a little archaic.Sincerely though, as he had always been, because he admired heroism very much, he didn't like it, disliked people pretending to be great, and worried more and more that he would have to shrink before he got tall. Laboiedi pointed out to him in a Latin verse to Montaigne: "You, friend, you need more self-denial, because we know that you are naturally inclined to vice and great success." Once Raboilledi died, Montaigne became more and more disdainful of "self-denial", which was due to his natural quality and philosophical concepts.Manners and painstakingly acquired personalities (literally impersonal), personalities molded by a melting pot of morals, etiquette, conventions, and even prejudices, Montaigne was most disgusted.The real humanity that is fettered, concealed and disguised by all these seems to have a mysterious value for Montaigne, and he hopes that this value will be manifested in some way.Admittedly, I understand that it is too easy to play with words here, and only need to point out from Montaigne's teaching that he advocated letting nature take its course, blindly following instinct, even letting the lowest instinct have its own way, because such instinct always appears the most sincere, that is, It is the most natural, like the sediment at the bottom of a vase, its concentration and thickness are bound to gather, and even after being shaken by the most noble excitement, the sediment will be produced again... But I think this completely misunderstands Montaigne's original intention, although he has no doubts about it. The instinct we share with animals is very concerned, perhaps overly concerned, but he still transcends it, never allowing himself to be its slave or victim. Naturally, Montaigne did not feel the slightest bit of remorse and remorse because of the above thoughts.He wrote in 1588: "I have aged eight years since the publication of my first works, but I doubt that I have changed at all." (Book III, Section 9) What's more: "My Licentiousness, those indecent things, led me astray and made me very unhappy, but that's all." (Book II, Section 11) Similar statements fill the last part of the "Essays".Later he added: "If I had to live again, I would live it again as I have lived: I neither complain about the past nor fear the future." Big anger.These statements are of course completely contrary to Christianity.Whenever Montaigne spoke of Christianity, it was always harsh, sometimes almost mean-spirited.He was often concerned with religion, but kept his mouth shut about Christ.Not once are the words of Christ quoted.It may even be doubted whether he has read the Gospels, or rather, there may be no doubt that he has never read the Gospels.As for his reverence for the Catholic Church, he was indeed cautious, for it should not be forgotten that the edict of Caterina de Medicis and Charles IX in 1572 led to massacres of Protestants throughout the Kingdom of France.The case of Erasmus (died 1536) alarmed Montaigne, who knew that he did not want to force himself to write a book like "Ode to Fools".Obviously, Erasmus didn't want to write either, but he had to be ordered by the Church, and commitment itself was a bondage.It is better to be hypocritical: Montaigne continues to add reconciliation in the chapter entitled "Prayer", as in the 1582 version, as in the 1595 version.During his travels in 1581, he dedicated his writings to Pope Gregory XIII, the founder of the Gregorian calendar (Gregorian for short), which is still in use today.The Pope praised him, but with several reservations, Montaigne quickly added a few lines at the Pope's will, more than intended, and repeated them in several other places, to show complete orthodoxy and obedience to the Church.At that time, the Church was very accommodating, compromising with the flourishing Renaissance culture.Erasmus was recommended for the office of cardinal, despite accusations of atheism that his book was banned in Paris.Machiavelli's writings, though irreligious, were published in Rome as Pope Clement VII's bull. This tolerance and relaxation made the leaders of the Reformation more unscrupulous.Montaigne could get along well with Catholicism, but he couldn't get along well with Jesusism.He accepts religion as long as it is content with window dressing.What he said about "self-willed princes" was equally applied to ecclesiastical authorities: "To them bow and obey, but not the intellect; my reason should not bow, but my knees may be bent" (p. Volume 3, Section 8) In order to preserve his work, he felt obliged to add a few more reassuring lines, hardly recognizable as his own, even in the most brilliant points of the Essays, such as the warning to the devout Christian heart, "Only It is well worth giving up comfort and warmth for the sake of another life and immortality" (Book I, section 39).This passage has always been a handwritten commentary, and it was only made public after Montaigne's death.Other similar words are inserted like lightning rods in the book, or more accurately, like sticking the label "syrup" or "lemonade" on the bottle of whiskey during the period of diet control.A few lines from the above quote there is the "lightning rod": "We must persist in enjoying the pleasures of life, clinging on and clinging to them, as the years ruthlessly rob us of them year by year." (No. Volume 39) This passage in the first edition is difficult to cover up in the words added later, and gives us a picture of the real Montaigne, a man who is "the sworn enemy of all forgery" (Book 1, 4th) Section 10).I would have been indignant at this hypocritical backlash, had it not occurred to me that it might be motivated by the need to be able to sell us its wares.Saint-Beuve said it well: "He (Montaigne) can show that he is a good Catholic, but he can't make people feel that he believes in Christianity." So we can use Montaigne to comment on Emperor Julian. Himself: "Religiously, he was incapable of everything, so he was called an apostate, because he abandoned our religion. However, I think it is more valid to say that he never believed in us in his heart." religion, but in obedience to the law he made a fool of himself..." In addition, he quotes Amien Marcellin "...he (Emperor Julian) kept paganism in his heart because his army was entirely Christian , not daring to reveal that he believes in heresy.” Therefore, the character of Julian strongly attracted him. What Montaigne liked about Catholicism, what he admired and even promoted was order and seniority.He said: "In the present debate about the civil war in France, the best and healthiest faction is undoubtedly the one that defends both religion and the ancient way of governing the country." (Book II, Section 19) The country is in chaos." "...the oldest and best known maladies are more bearable than the most recent and inexperienced." (Book III, Nine) His ignorance of the Gospels was not due to the Protestant Reformers hate, need not seek other reasons.The Catholic Church, the French Catholic Church, he advocates keeping it intact, not because he thinks Tennoism is the only good religion, but because he feels that it is not good to change the church. Likewise, we see in Montaigne, throughout his life and throughout his oeuvre, an unwavering love of order and propriety, a concern for the common good, and a refusal to put one's own interests above those of others.However, speaking up and maintaining integrity are in his opinion the most important, prior to all other considerations: "...I would rather fail completely than condescend against my will." Perhaps a bit of braggadocio, for these words still sound as important today as they did in the chaotic era in which Montaigne lived, when certain bright and enlightened beings remained independent and disdain to follow the crowd. "All generalizations are cowardly and dangerous." (Book III, Section 8) And: "There is no way of life so foolish and fragile as acting according to regulations and discipline." (Book Three, Section 13) ) There are many such passages in the "Essays", and I will choose the most important ones, especially for today, and I will quote one last paragraph: "The public welfare requires people to betray and lie", alas!He even added later: "Even massacre", "Let this task be given to those who obey their orders and compromise!" (Volume Three, Section 1) It is obvious that Montaigne was not born to engage in politics. He himself felt that he was not qualified enough to lead public affairs. When he relinquished his position as a judge and later resigned as mayor of Bordeaux to concentrate on self-cultivation, his thoughts were very healthy.He considered writing the Essays his greatest service to his country; I would say, his greatest service to all mankind, for it must be noted that in his opinion the ideas of humanity far outweigh those of the motherland.He admired France unusually, at least Paris: "Paris is the glory of France, the noblest brilliance of the world", and he "loves everything, even the defects and blemishes" (Book III, Section 9) But he has a heart, declaring his friendship with all mankind: "...I consider all people to be my compatriots, embrace the Poles as I embrace the French, and put national relations after the relations of the world." (ibid.) he Added: "The pure friendships we strive for are often more than those formed by climate or kinship. We are born free and unencumbered, and we confine ourselves in certain narrow places , just as the kings of Persia, who disciplined themselves to drink only the water of the Shuaspez, foolishly refused the right to enjoy all other rivers, and drained all other waters in the world from their sight." (ibid.) Later generations always owe Montaigne.Since there is no order or method in what he says, everyone can collect from the "Essays" what he likes, which is often what others despise.No writer is so easily taken advantage of and so hard to accuse others of betraying him, because he set the example himself: constantly contradicting himself, breaking his word and getting rich. "If it is the truth, you need not be afraid to admit it," he wrote frankly. "If necessary, I can easily put a candle on both Saint Michel and his snake." (Book III, Section 1) Of course To please the snake more than to displease Saint-Michel.Therefore, Montaigne is not loved by believers, and he does not like believers.This explains why he was not taken seriously after his death, at least in factional and divided France.Between 1595 (remember, he died in 1592) and 1635, only three or four new editions of the Essays appeared.Abroad, as in Italy, in Spain, and especially in England, Montaigne quickly gained popularity just as he was unpopular or less popular in his own country.We find traces of the undeniable influence of the Essays in the writings of Bacon and Shakespeare. While Montaigne stayed away from Christianity, he approached Goethe in advance: "As for me, I love life and cultivate life just as God is willing to give us life...Nature is a gentle guide, but a cautious and fair guide." These are almost It is the conclusion of the "Essay Collection", and the later Goethe must be happy to sign his name on the back.This is what Montaigne's wisdom achieves.There is no nonsense in his work.Montaigne carefully combined prudence, impartiality and cultivation with his statement of love of life. The chief lesson that Montaigne gave us was what was long after called enlightened generosity.I think that's the wisest lesson we can take from him in this day and age, when political or religious beliefs are tearing people apart and against each other. "Because of the present disputes in this country," he said, "it is my concern not to underestimate the commendable virtues of my opponents, nor the reprehensible qualities of those I follow." (Book III, stanza 10) He added later: "A good book does not lose its charm by contradicting me." Judgment is not at the service of the truth, but of the plans we desire. I would rather go to the other extreme, for I fear my desires will deceive me. Besides, I do not believe much in my desires." (ibid.) These spiritual and spiritual qualities have never been more popular or useful than in their most despised period. This rare and remarkable momentum, that tendency, of which he so often tells us, to listen to and adopt the opinions of others even over his own, prevented him from venturing too deeply down the path that later Nietzsche path of.Likewise, a natural prudence held him back, and in keeping with prudence he was reluctant to act rashly.He is afraid of barren regions, of regions where the air is thin.A bewildered curiosity crept over him, both in the realm of thought and in travels.In the journal of the trip, written by the secretary who accompanied him on the trip, we read: "I have never seen him so indefatigable that he stopped complaining of his ailments (he was suffering from kidney stones, but this did not prevent him from riding for hours) , both on the road and in his lodgings, was so absorbed in noticing what he encountered, and taking every opportunity to chat with strangers, that I think this relieved his disease." He declared that "walks in strange places are unplanned." ，较远处：“他嗜好迁徙，以致厌恶他不得不歇脚的近处。”所以他经常说：“过了惶惑不安的一夜之后，早晨想起还要观看一个城市或一个新地方，就乐不可支地起床了。”在《随笔集》中蒙田本人也写道：“我很清楚，这种迁徙的乐趣严格地讲表明了惶惑不安和优柔寡断，由此产生我们主要的、主宰的素质。是的，无可讳言，除了在梦中和想望中，我看不出哪里是我的立身之地：惟有变动的欲望给我带来好处，还有掌握纷繁的内容也使我获益匪浅。” （第三册第九节） 蒙田一生中第一次也是惟一的一次长途旅行是去德国南部和意大利，其时年近半百。那次旅行历经十七个月。要不是他出乎意外地被选为波尔多市长而不得不突然返回法国，他的旅行很可能还会延长更久，可见他乐此不疲，流连忘返。从此之后，他经常想轻松愉快一下，好奇心驱使他匆匆上路。 根据《随笔集》前后的版本追寻一下蒙田对死亡观念的态度是很有教益的。他为作品最初章节中的一节加了标题：哲学思考就是领会死亡。在这节中我们读到：“我始终怀有对死亡的想像，胜过对一切的想像，即使在最年轻的时代也是如此。”驯服对死亡的想像力在于减少对死亡的恐惧。在最后一版的《随笔集》中蒙田终于说：“谢天谢地，我可以在上帝乐意的时刻毫无遗憾地离去。我没有任何牵挂，除了我自己，我向每个人痛快地告别。从未有人像我这样又纯粹又充分地准备离开世界，像我这样时刻准备洒脱而去。”……“死亡即便突然来到，我也不会有什么新鲜感了。”（第一册第二十节）他几乎爱上了这样的死亡，就像喜爱一切自然的东西。 据悉，蒙田完全像基督徒那样寿终正寝，虽然他走的不是基督徒所走的道路。他临终时却有妻子和女儿陪伴，也许是她们好心促使他比他自己所设想的更虔诚地离世，而他则“满足于平心静气地死去，赤条条孑然一身地死去，这才符合本人离群索居、无牵无挂的生活”（第三册第九节）。没准是这种预感促使他写道：“倘若我可以选择我的死亡，我想，宁愿死在马上而不在床上，不在家里，远离亲人。”（同上） 如果有人指责我过分突出蒙田思想的锋芒，那我会反驳道，许多评论蒙田的专家竭力抹去蒙田思想的棱角。我只不过把蒙田思想删繁就简，把繁芜的《随笔集》理出个头绪，因为繁杂的章节常常如乱麻似的让我们看不清来龙去脉。对于大胆的作家，即使在他们成为经典之后，教育家也总想方设法使他们无甚大碍，这种锲而不舍的努力确实令人赞赏。曾几何时，一切新思想好像就失去了棱角；另外，对新思想有某种适应之后就玩弄起来，也不怕玩物丧志。 蒙田在游历意大利时惊异地发现古罗马最傲岸的宏伟建筑大多一半埋在废墟瓦砾里。古建筑总是从顶端一点点风化崩塌。但，正是从顶端坠落的碎片堆积了起来，我们脚下的土地才升高了。如今我们之所以觉得尖顶不太高了，也因为我们眺望的基点不太低呀。