Different levels of language in Montaigne

In this article we distinguish different levels of language in Montaigne: natural, spontaneous, artificial, rhetoric, literary. In the light of these distinctions, we are free to put forward a number of hypotheses. One might suppose that Montaigne values informal, friendly, everyday conversations in that they make possible a real semantisation of our perceptions and affections, unlike the verbal devices of the rhetoricians and the subtleties and obscurities of certain books, but only on condition that the message is sincere. The practice of ordinary conversation may also prove to be useful in teaching children, but it must be balanced by a critical attitude towards the words and opinions that one hears formulated and by certain interpretations that can really magnify the semantic depth of the words learned. Nevertheless, Montaigne invites us not to forget the epistemic limits of language: it does not express the hidden structure of nature but represents, rather, a function thanks to which man finds his place in nature. If “le monde n’est qu’une escole d’inquisition” and “nous sommes sur la maniere, non sur la matiere du dire” (M. de Montaigne, Essais, edited by P. Villey and L.-V. Saulnier III, VIII, 928CB), and if language is concerned with the relationships between all of nature’s creatures and, more particularly, helps to develop and strengthen inter-personal relations, we believe that the question of language in Montaigne is less that of its logical form than that of its communicative and sociable dimension. It is less concerned with the theoretical question of denotation and the correspondence between words and things, than with the pragmatic urgency of preserving a historical, changing human territory in which to pursue a form of sharing and harmony. However, the use that governments may make of lies to contain the passions of the masses, weighs heavily on this function of language. Perhaps this misleading use of language manifests itself in certain societies and is, consequently, connected to precise historical circumstances. It seems to us, nevertheless, that a certain ambivalence remains in the Essais: language is a natural matter; it serves as a bridge, as a link between men within the social fabric – hence the importance of sincerity, of one’s given word –, but this language function, which requires men to utter truthful words and speech, co-exists at all times (Ibid., II, XVI, 629A) with the use of the lie and of devices to create laws and maintain social order and, more precisely, to make sure that the people willingly accept the laws of the sovereigns and legislators.