<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0028" id="link2HCH0028"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER XXVIII——NINE AND TWENTY SONNETS OF ESTIENNE DE LA BOITIE </h2>
<h3> TO MADAME DE GRAMMONT, COMTESSE DE GUISSEN. </h3>
<p>[They scarce contain anything but amorous complaints, expressed in a<br/>
very rough style, discovering the follies and outrages of a restless<br/>
passion, overgorged, as it were, with jealousies, fears and<br/>
suspicions.—Coste.]<br/>
[These....contained in the edition of 1588 nine-and-twenty sonnets<br/>
of La Boetie, accompanied by a dedicatory epistle to Madame de<br/>
Grammont. The former, which are referred to at the end of Chap.<br/>
XXVIL, do not really belong to the book, and are of very slight<br/>
interest at this time; the epistle is transferred to the<br/>
Correspondence. The sonnets, with the letter, were presumably sent<br/>
some time after Letters V. et seq. Montaigne seems to have had<br/>
several copies written out to forward to friends or acquaintances.]<br/></p>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0029" id="link2HCH0029"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER XXIX——OF MODERATION </h2>
<p>As if we had an infectious touch, we, by our manner of handling, corrupt
things that in themselves are laudable and good: we may grasp virtue so
that it becomes vicious, if we embrace it too stringently and with too
violent a desire. Those who say, there is never any excess in virtue,
forasmuch as it is not virtue when it once becomes excess, only play upon
words:</p>
<p>"Insani sapiens nomen ferat, aequus iniqui,<br/>
Ultra quam satis est, virtutem si petat ipsam."<br/>
["Let the wise man bear the name of a madman, the just one of an<br/>
unjust, if he seek wisdom more than is sufficient."<br/>
—Horace, Ep., i. 6, 15.]<br/>
["The wise man is no longer wise, the just man no longer just, if he<br/>
seek to carry his love for wisdom or virtue beyond that which is<br/>
necessary."]<br/></p>
<p>This is a subtle consideration of philosophy. A man may both be too much
in love with virtue, and be excessive in a just action. Holy Writ agrees
with this, Be not wiser than you should, but be soberly wise.—[St.
Paul, Epistle to the Romans, xii. 3.]—I have known a great man,</p>
<p>—["It is likely that Montaigne meant Henry III., king of France.<br/>
The Cardinal d'Ossat, writing to Louise, the queen-dowager, told<br/>
her, in his frank manner, that he had lived as much or more like a<br/>
monk than a monarch (Letter XXIII.) And Pope Sextus V., speaking of<br/>
that prince one day to the Cardinal de Joyeuse, protector of the<br/>
affairs of France, said to him pleasantly, 'There is nothing that<br/>
your king hath not done, and does not do so still, to be a monk, nor<br/>
anything that I have not done, not to be a monk.'"—Coste.]<br/></p>
<p>prejudice the opinion men had of his devotion, by pretending to be devout
beyond all examples of others of his condition. I love temperate and
moderate natures. An immoderate zeal, even to that which is good, even
though it does not offend, astonishes me, and puts me to study what name
to give it. Neither the mother of Pausanias,</p>
<p>—["Montaigne would here give us to understand, upon the authority of<br/>
Diodorus Siculus, that Pausanias' mother gave the first hint of the<br/>
punishment that was to be inflicted on her son. 'Pausanias,' says<br/>
this historian, 'perceiving that the ephori, and some other<br/>
Lacedoemonians, aimed at apprehending him, got the start of them,<br/>
and went and took sanctuary m Minerva's temple: and the<br/>
Lacedaemonians, being doubtful whether they ought to take him from<br/>
thence in violation of the franchise there, it is said that his own<br/>
mother came herself to the temple but spoke nothing nor did anything<br/>
more than lay a piece of brick, which she brought with her, on the<br/>
threshold of the temple, which, when she had done, she returned<br/>
home. The Lacedaemonians, taking the hint from the mother, caused<br/>
the gate of the temple to be walled up, and by this means starved<br/>
Pausanias, so that he died with hunger, &c. (lib. xi. cap. 10., of<br/>
Amyot's translation). The name of Pausanias' mother was Alcithea,<br/>
as we are informed by Thucydides' scholiast, who only says that it<br/>
was reported, that when they set about walling up the gates of the<br/>
chapel in which Pausanias had taken refuge, his mother Alcithea laid<br/>
the first stone."—Coste.]<br/></p>
<p>who was the first instructor of her son's process, and threw the first
stone towards his death, nor Posthumius the dictator, who put his son to
death, whom the ardour of youth had successfully pushed upon the enemy a
little more advanced than the rest of his squadron, do appear to me so
much just as strange; and I should neither advise nor like to follow so
savage a virtue, and that costs so dear.</p>
<p>—["Opinions differ as to the truth of this fact. Livy thinks he<br/>
has good authority for rejecting it because it does not appear in<br/>
history that Posthumious was branded with it, as Titus Manlius was,<br/>
about 100 years after his time; for Manlius, having put his son to<br/>
death for the like cause, obtained the odious name of Imperiosus,<br/>
and since that time Manliana imperia has been used as a term to<br/>
signify orders that are too severe; Manliana Imperia, says Livy,<br/>
were not only horrible for the time present, but of a bad example to<br/>
posterity. And this historian makes no doubt but such commands<br/>
would have been actually styled Posthumiana Imperia, if Posthumius<br/>
had been the first who set so barbarous an example (Livy, lib. iv.<br/>
cap. 29, and lib. viii. cap. 7). But, however, Montaigne has Valer.<br/>
Maximus on his side, who says expressly, that Posthumius caused his<br/>
son to be put to death, and Diodorus of Sicily (lib. xii. cap.<br/>
19)."—Coste.]<br/></p>
<p>The archer that shoots over, misses as much as he that falls short, and
'tis equally troublesome to my sight, to look up at a great light, and to
look down into a dark abyss. Callicles in Plato says, that the extremity
of philosophy is hurtful, and advises not to dive into it beyond the
limits of profit; that, taken moderately, it is pleasant and useful; but
that in the end it renders a man brutish and vicious, a contemner of
religion and the common laws, an enemy to civil conversation, and all
human pleasures, incapable of all public administration, unfit either to
assist others or to relieve himself, and a fit object for all sorts of
injuries and affronts. He says true; for in its excess, it enslaves our
natural freedom, and by an impertinent subtlety, leads us out of the fair
and beaten way that nature has traced for us.</p>
<p>The love we bear to our wives is very lawful, and yet theology thinks fit
to curb and restrain it. As I remember, I have read in one place of St.
Thomas Aquinas,—[Secunda Secundx, Quaest. 154, art. 9.]—where
he condemns marriages within any of the forbidden degrees, for this
reason, amongst others, that there is some danger, lest the friendship a
man bears to such a woman, should be immoderate; for if the conjugal
affection be full and perfect betwixt them, as it ought to be, and that it
be over and above surcharged with that of kindred too, there is no doubt,
but such an addition will carry the husband beyond the bounds of reason.</p>
<p>Those sciences that regulate the manners of men, divinity and philosophy,
will have their say in everything; there is no action so private and
secret that can escape their inspection and jurisdiction. They are best
taught who are best able to control and curb their own liberty; women
expose their nudities as much as you will upon the account of pleasure,
though in the necessities of physic they are altogether as shy. I will,
therefore, in their behalf:</p>
<p>—[Coste translates this: "on the part of philosophy and theology,"<br/>
observing that but few wives would think themselves obliged to<br/>
Montaigne for any such lesson to their husbands.]—<br/></p>
<p>teach the husbands, that is, such as are too vehement in the exercise of
the matrimonial duty—if such there still be—this lesson, that
the very pleasures they enjoy in the society of their wives are
reproachable if immoderate, and that a licentious and riotous abuse of
them is a fault as reprovable here as in illicit connections. Those
immodest and debauched tricks and postures, that the first ardour suggests
to us in this affair, are not only indecently but detrimentally practised
upon our wives. Let them at least learn impudence from another hand; they
are ever ready enough for our business, and I for my part always went the
plain way to work.</p>
<p>Marriage is a solemn and religious tie, and therefore the pleasure we
extract from it should be a sober and serious delight, and mixed with a
certain kind of gravity; it should be a sort of discreet and conscientious
pleasure. And seeing that the chief end of it is generation, some make a
question, whether when men are out of hopes as when they are superannuated
or already with child, it be lawful to embrace our wives. 'Tis homicide,
according to Plato.—[Laws, 8.]— Certain nations (the
Mohammedan, amongst others) abominate all conjunction with women with
child, others also, with those who are in their courses. Zenobia would
never admit her husband for more than one encounter, after which she left
him to his own swing for the whole time of her conception, and not till
after that would again receive him:—[Trebellius Pollio, Triginta
Tyran., c. 30.]—a brave and generous example of conjugal continence.
It was doubtless from some lascivious poet,—[The lascivious poet is
Homer; see his Iliad, xiv. 294.]—and one that himself was in great
distress for a little of this sport, that Plato borrowed this story; that
Jupiter was one day so hot upon his wife, that not having so much patience
as till she could get to the couch, he threw her upon the floor, where the
vehemence of pleasure made him forget the great and important resolutions
he had but newly taken with the rest of the gods in his celestial council,
and to brag that he had had as good a bout, as when he got her maidenhead,
unknown to their parents.</p>
<p>The kings of Persia were wont to invite their wives to the beginning of
their festivals; but when the wine began to work in good earnest, and that
they were to give the reins to pleasure, they sent them back to their
private apartments, that they might not participate in their immoderate
lust, sending for other women in their stead, with whom they were not
obliged to so great a decorum of respect.—[Plutarch, Precepts of
Marriage, c. 14.]—All pleasures and all sorts of gratifications are
not properly and fitly conferred upon all sorts of persons. Epaminondas
had committed to prison a young man for certain debauches; for whom
Pelopidas mediated, that at his request he might be set at liberty, which
Epaminondas denied to him, but granted it at the first word to a wench of
his, that made the same intercession; saying, that it was a gratification
fit for such a one as she, but not for a captain. Sophocles being joint
praetor with Pericles, seeing accidentally a fine boy pass by: "O what a
charming boy is that!" said he. "That might be very well," answered
Pericles, "for any other than a praetor, who ought not only to have his
hands, but his eyes, too, chaste."—[Cicero, De Offic., i. 40.]
AElius Verus, the emperor, answered his wife, who reproached him with his
love to other women, that he did it upon a conscientious account,
forasmuch as marriage was a name of honour and dignity, not of wanton and
lascivious desire; and our ecclesiastical history preserves the memory of
that woman in great veneration, who parted from her husband because she
would not comply with his indecent and inordinate desires. In fine, there
is no pleasure so just and lawful, where intemperance and excess are not
to be condemned.</p>
<p>But, to speak the truth, is not man a most miserable creature the while?
It is scarce, by his natural condition, in his power to taste one pleasure
pure and entire; and yet must he be contriving doctrines and precepts to
curtail that little he has; he is not yet wretched enough, unless by art
and study he augment his own misery:</p>
<p>"Fortunae miseras auximus arte vias."<br/>
["We artificially augment the wretchedness of fortune."<br/>
—Properitius, lib. iii. 7, 44.]<br/></p>
<p>Human wisdom makes as ill use of her talent, when she exercises it in
rescinding from the number and sweetness of those pleasures that are
naturally our due, as she employs it favourably and well in artificially
disguising and tricking out the ills of life, to alleviate the sense of
them. Had I ruled the roast, I should have taken another and more natural
course, which, to say the truth, is both commodious and holy, and should,
peradventure, have been able to have limited it too; notwithstanding that
both our spiritual and corporal physicians, as by compact betwixt
themselves, can find no other way to cure, nor other remedy for the
infirmities of the body and the soul, than by misery and pain. To this
end, watchings, fastings, hair-shirts, remote and solitary banishments,
perpetual imprisonments, whips and other afflictions, have been introduced
amongst men: but so, that they should carry a sting with them, and be real
afflictions indeed; and not fall out as it once did to one Gallio, who
having been sent an exile into the isle of Lesbos, news was not long after
brought to Rome, that he there lived as merry as the day was long; and
that what had been enjoined him for a penance, turned to his pleasure and
satisfaction: whereupon the Senate thought fit to recall him home to his
wife and family, and confine him to his own house, to accommodate their
punishment to his feeling and apprehension. For to him whom fasting would
make more healthful and more sprightly, and to him to whose palate fish
were more acceptable than flesh, the prescription of these would have no
curative effect; no more than in the other sort of physic, where drugs
have no effect upon him who swallows them with appetite and pleasure: the
bitterness of the potion and the abhorrence of the patient are necessary
circumstances to the operation. The nature that would eat rhubarb like
buttered turnips, would frustrate the use and virtue of it; it must be
something to trouble and disturb the stomach, that must purge and cure it;
and here the common rule, that things are cured by their contraries,
fails; for in this one ill is cured by another.</p>
<p>This belief a little resembles that other so ancient one, of thinking to
gratify the gods and nature by massacre and murder: an opinion universally
once received in all religions. And still, in these later times wherein
our fathers lived, Amurath at the taking of the Isthmus, immolated six
hundred young Greeks to his father's soul, in the nature of a propitiatory
sacrifice for his sins. And in those new countries discovered in this age
of ours, which are pure and virgin yet, in comparison of ours, this
practice is in some measure everywhere received: all their idols reek with
human blood, not without various examples of horrid cruelty: some they
burn alive, and take, half broiled, off the coals to tear out their hearts
and entrails; some, even women, they flay alive, and with their bloody
skins clothe and disguise others. Neither are we without great examples of
constancy and resolution in this affair the poor souls that are to be
sacrificed, old men, women, and children, themselves going about some days
before to beg alms for the offering of their sacrifice, presenting
themselves to the slaughter, singing and dancing with the spectators.</p>
<p>The ambassadors of the king of Mexico, setting out to Fernando Cortez the
power and greatness of their master, after having told him, that he had
thirty vassals, of whom each was able to raise an hundred thousand
fighting men, and that he kept his court in the fairest and best fortified
city under the sun, added at last, that he was obliged yearly to offer to
the gods fifty thousand men. And it is affirmed, that he maintained a
continual war, with some potent neighbouring nations, not only to keep the
young men in exercise, but principally to have wherewithal to furnish his
sacrifices with his prisoners of war. At a certain town in another place,
for the welcome of the said Cortez, they sacrificed fifty men at once. I
will tell you this one tale more, and I have done; some of these people
being beaten by him, sent to acknowledge him, and to treat with him of a
peace, whose messengers carried him three sorts of gifts, which they
presented in these terms: "Behold, lord, here are five slaves: if thou art
a furious god that feedeth upon flesh and blood, eat these, and we will
bring thee more; if thou art an affable god, behold here incense and
feathers; but if thou art a man, take these fowls and these fruits that we
have brought thee."</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />