Essais II, Chapter VI

Beginning with an apparent homage to Rabelias, attributed to Aristotle,

Nous produisons trois sortes de vent ; celuy qui sort par embas est trop sale : celuy qui sort par la bouche, porte quelque reproche de gourmandise : le troisiesme est l’esternuement : et parce qu’il vient de la teste, et est sans blasme, nous luy faisons cet honneste recueil : Ne vous moquez pas de cette subtilité, elle est (dit-on) d’Aristote.

this essay draws an interesting parallel between the results of motion sickness, and the too liberal distribution of royal finds. It seems the debates we hear in our republic are ancient:

Demosthenes combat à outrance, la loy de sa ville, qui assignoit les deniers publics aux pompes des jeux, et de leurs festes : Il veut que leur grandeur se montre, en quantité de vaisseaux bien equippez, et bonnes armees bien fournies.

Above all, such funds should not be used to gain favor (which is their primary use today).

Philippus de ce que son fils essayoit par presents, de gaigner la volonté des Macedoniens, l’en tança par une lettre, en cette maniere. Quoy ? as tu envie, que tes subjects te tiennent pour leur boursier, non pour leur Roy ? Veux tu les prattiquer ? Prattique les, des bien-faicts de ta vertu, non des bien-faicts de ton coffre.

I’m not quite sure how the reading turns to early South American conquest, and Montaigne doesn’t either. He does invoke the title of the essais in telling the tale of the last King of Peru, whose subjects rushed to steady his litter as his bearers were killed, only to be struck down and replaced in their turn.

Essais II, Chapter II

It is interesting that, in a chapter on repentance, the author would state:

Si j’avois à revivre, je revivrois comme j’ay vescu. Ny je ne pleins le passé. ny je ne crains l’advenir.

Truly, he does not wish us to accept that he has been perfect, but that he has lived a good life, according to the life of men:

Excusons icy ce que je dy souvent, que je me repens rarement, et que ma conscience se contente de soy : non comme de la conscience d’un Ange, ou d’un cheval, mais comme de la conscience d’un homme.

However, he just said that accepted and legal vice is still vice.

Je tiens pour vices (mais chacun selon sa mesure) non seulement ceux que la raison et la nature condamnent, mais ceux aussi que l’opinion des hommes a forgé, voire fauce et erronee, si les loix et l’usage l’auctorise.

So, if vice accepted of men is still vice, and our author has the conscience of a man (not of an angel), then are we to take him as a sinner or a saint? The answer may lie inwhat Heraclitus said about stepping in a river:

Je ne peinds pas l’estre, je peinds le passage : non un passage d’aage en autre, ou comme dict le peuple, de sept en sept ans, mais de jour en jour, de minute en minute. Il faut accommoder mon histoire à l’heure. Je pourray tantost changer, non de fortune seulement, mais aussi d’intention

PS – What would Montaigne think about today’s debate of our right to privacy?

Et fut une digne parole de Julius Drusus, aux ouvriers qui luy offroient pour trois mille escus, mettre sa maison en tel poinct, que ses voysins n’y auroient plus la veuë qu’ils y avoient : Je vous en donneray, dit-il, six mille, et faictes que chacun y voye de toutes parts.

Essais II, CHAPITRE XVIII

C’est un vilain vice, que le mentir; et qu’un ancien peint bien honteusement, quand il dit, que c’est donner tesmoignage de mespriser Dieu, et quand et quand de craindre les hommes. Il n’est pas possible d’en representer plus richement l’horreur, la vilité, et le desreglement: Car que peut on imaginer plus vilain, que d’estre couart à l’endroit des hommes, et brave à l’endroit de Dieu? Nostre intelligence se conduisant par la seule voye de la parolle, celuy qui la fauce, trahit la societé publique. C’est le seul util, par le moyen duquel se communiquent noz volontez et noz pensées: c’est le truchement de nostre ame: s’il nous faut, nous ne nous tenons plus, nous ne nous entrecognoissons plus. S’il nous trompe, il rompt tout nostre commerce, et dissoult toutes les liaisons de nostre police.

IANAL, but I’ve often considered how we justify different punishments for different crimes. The obvious answer is that some acts are more heinous than others, and, thus, justice demands a stricter consequence. How then, do we explain the outrageous fine for driving in the carpool lane? There must be another angle.

Punishment, in our society, is no longer about justice, but about correction and conformity. Punishment is not about expiation, but about discouraging the improper act. Therefore, the prescribed punishment is a function of both the severity of the offense, and the odds of being caught.

Bookies have never created a point spread based on the quality of the teams. (BTW, did you see that Air Force, 20-point underdogs, lost to Tennessee by one point? Talk about covering the spread.) No, it’s much more democratic than that. They set the predicted outcome based on the bets they’re receiving. Their end goal is to get an even number of people betting each way. They pay out the amount they took in, minus their fees. It’s the only way they can be assured a profit.

So, like the bookies, our government determines at what price the average person would be discouraged from committing an offense, and sets the punishment accordingly. The actual odds of getting caught in the carpool lane are pretty slim. So, although it is a minor offense, the fine is six times that of speeding.

I would thus extend Montaigne’s declaration that lying is a “villainous vice.” Not only is it serious because it poisons our method of knowledge transferral, but the odds of the lie being uncovered are very slim.