The Paradoxes of Orasius Tubero

  • Robert McBride


La Mothe Le Vayer is one of those writers who were well-known and widely read in learned circles of their time, but who are now numbered among the great background names in the history of thought of their century. The reasons for his relative obscurity are not difficult to find. Many of his writings are pedagogical in nature, prepared for the instruction of the young Louis XIV and his brother, the Duc d’Anjou. Others are pieces of political propaganda written to justify the political alliances of Richelieu. In particular, Le Vayer had a penchant for the archaic genre of the ‘opuscule’, or ‘discours’ or ‘homilie académique’, that is, formal disquisitions on themes as disparate as eloquence, travel, dress, friendship, wealth and poverty, life and death, philosophy, etc. An informal variation of the genre is seen in his one hundred and fifty Petits Traités dealing with subjects as diverse as agriculture, superstitions, dreams, the court, food, funerals, the law, literature etc., all of which are treated in his quizzical and digressive manner. His essays and dialogues are pedantic in style and ponderous in their wit, lacking the refined irony of Erasmus and the charming self-depreciation of Montaigne. Of the innumerable subjects treated, the principal one is that of his beloved scepticism or epochē as he prefers to term it, to which he remained attached from the first page of his voluminous work to the last.


Christian Faith Great Background Sceptical Attitude Intellectual Humility Political Propaganda 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Pintard, Le libertinage érudit dans la première moitié du X Vile siècle (Paris, 1943 ), I, pp. 131–7;Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    J.-E. d’Angers, ‘Stdicisme et libertinage dans l’oeuvre de François La Mothe Le Vayer’, RSH, 75 (1954), pp. 259–84.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Sainte-Beuve, Nouveaux Lundis (Paris, 1866), VI, p. 382;.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    J. Grenier, ‘Le sceptique masqué, La Mothe Le Vayer’, TR, XXII (1949), pp. 1504–13.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    P. Bayle, Dictionnaire Historique ( Rotterdam, 1722 ), IV, Art.Le Vayer;Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    R. Kerviler, François de La Mothe Le Vayer, Etude sur sa vie et sur ses écrits (Paris, 1879 ), p. 110;Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    R. H. Popkin, The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (Assen, 1960 ), p. 98.Google Scholar
  8. 4.
    E. Tisserand (ed.), Deux dialogues sur la divinité et l’opiniâtreté (Paris, 1922), pp. 56–8.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    J. S. Spink, French Free-Thought from Gassendi to Voltaire (London, 1966 ), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    See the article by B. Beugnot, ‘La fonction du dialogue chez La Mothe Le Vayer’, CAIEF, 24 (mai 1972), pp. 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 15.
    On the debate between Erasmus and Luther about the criterion for religious truth, see R. H. Popkin, op. cit., pp. 1–7; on Luther’s attitude to reason, see E. F. Rice, The Renaissance Idea of Wisdom (Harvard, 1958 ), pp. 131–43;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    B. Rochot remarks that fideism is the ‘caractéristique dominante de l’esprit gassendien’, Pierre Gassendi, sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1955), p. 103.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    see H. Friedrich, Montaigne (Berne, 1949), pp. 138–49.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    see R. McBride, The Sceptical Vision of Molière (London, 1977), Ch. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert McBride 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert McBride
    • 1
  1. 1.The Queen’s University of BelfastUK

Personalised recommendations