Abstract
How was Montaigne actually working? When reading the Essais one gets the feeling that such a book cannot be extemporised. It is then natural to presume that he must have been writing according to some kind of a method. This method could be, since we speak of the sixteenth century, one very widely used at that time, namely the use of a ‘commonplace-book’. Critics are divided on the issue, and I will first summarise the pros and cons. Secondly, I will argue that the true method is to be found somewhere in between.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Paul Porteau, Montaigne et la vie pédagogique de son temps (Paris, 1935); Michel Beaujour, Miroirs d’encre (Paris, 1980). For the Essais, my page numbers refer to the Villey-Saulnier edition (Paris).
André Tournon, Montaigne, la glose et l’essai (Lyon, 1983), p. 309.
Joachim Fortius Ringelbergius, De ratione studii, in Opusculorum de ratione studii (Lugduni Batavorum: J. Luchtmans, 1792), p. 27. (Ringelbergius is dead in 1536.)
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 Francis Goyet
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Goyet, F. (1991). The Word ‘Commonplaces’ in Montaigne. In: Hunter, L. (eds) Towards A Definition of Topos. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11502-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11502-0_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-11504-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-11502-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)