Reviews 223 virtual and factual) reacts. The analysis is made more complex by the fact that it focuses not on the self-image as abstracted from the argumentation, but rather on how it functions as part of the argumentation, in other words in the context of overall rhetorical strategy.The discours savant which Rousseau favors early on has,for example, very different rules from other genres that can be pressed into polemical service. A number of the formal letters are examined, particularly that addressed to Christophe de Beaumont and those to his fellow Genevans in response to Tronchin’s Lettres de la campagne. The texts that best lend themselves to this exercise are of course those that contain plenty of first- and second-person pronouns and verbs, yet the third person must not be overlooked (particularly in the form of on, but also le lecteur or even le public). Koshi spends relatively little time on dialogues, though Rousseau juge de JeanJacques is adduced for its theory of how opinion is constructed in the public sphere. It will come as no surprise that Rousseau proves so protean that the only satisfactory way of grasping his method is through microanalysis. The resulting chapters, carefully and fluidly written, are thorough to a fault, much too much so for a non-specialist, and it would be as fastidious to list all the arguments as it would be futile to attempt to summarize them, for each separate one requires immersion into the elements of the particular case before the most pertinent elements of manipulation can be properly described. Koshi is hardly the first to tackle such questions by one bias or another, and he acknowledges previous arguments which he usually buys into only partially in order to draw further distinctions. In so doing, he casts new light on a number of familiar texts and heightens the interest of several, such as Lettres écrites de la montagne, which many would find heavy going. His analyses, though sometimes verging on the tedious, will bring illuminating depth to political as well as semiotic readings of these texts. Duke University (NC) Philip Stewart Krazek, Rafal. Montaigne et la philosophie du plaisir: pour une lecture épicurienne des Essais. Paris: Garnier, 2011. ISBN 978-2-8124-0361-3. Pp. 279. 36 a. This book argues that the essential elements of Montaigne’s thinking were formed by his encounter with the philosophy of Epicurus—above all by his studying the poetic expression of that philosophy, Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura. The book’s six chapters treat, in order, the following topics: the clandestine presence of Epicurean materialist views in sixteenth-century French humanism prior to Montaigne (who, Krazek argues, was the first in France to espouse such views in an open and unabashed fashion); the sources of Montaigne’s Epicureanism, chief among which being Denis Lambin’s edition of Lucretius’s poem, published in Paris in 1563; Montaigne’s formulation of an implicitly non-Christian (and even anti-Christian) critique of religion, which Krazek finds throughout the Essais, especially in the“Apologie de Raymond Sebond”; Montaigne’s naturalism, according to which humans do not ever transcend their physical existence but rather belong fully, along with animals, plants, and minerals, to the natural world; Montaigne’s turning to Epicurean philosophy as a remedy for the fear of death and as guidance in the art of avoiding pain through pleasure, understood here as health,equilibrium,and repose; finally,Montaigne’s devotion to active pleasures (meant to complement the essential pleasure of healthful repose) such as reading, writing, conversation, and travel. The heart of Montaigne et la philosophie du plaisir is the third chapter’s substantial treatment of Montaigne and religion. Rather boldly challenging Lucien Febvre’s famous and widely-accepted insistence that virtually all sixteenth-century French humanists held sincere Christian beliefs, Krazek aims to show that Montaigne’s professed moderate Catholicism and apparent piety were a veneer covering over a truly radical rejection of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Following Lucretius and Epicurus, Montaigne (Krazek argues) denies the immortality of the human soul and regards the notion of an eternal afterlife as the chief obstacle to human pleasure. This is a...
Read full abstract