� 2001-2006 by Shiloh
�
Next week's reading assignment for Lit. is Montaigne's Of Cannibals and William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Montaigne's essay is the subject of this entry, as it's the part I read. (I'll read Shakespeare next.) I guess I'm writing this because the professor wants our response papers to be on Shakespeare. So I guess this is my way of equalizing my attention between the two.
As the editors of my textbook point out in their introduction to Montaigne, he rambles a bit in his essays, even though according to them, they are witty and learned. And he does indeed ramble. His main topic is about a certain Native American tribe observed by a man he once had taken in after the man returned from the newly discovered New World. But his points are scattered throughout the essay so much so that you're half way through the essay before you get the bigger point: in his opinion domestication of nature and man should be considered wild and barbaric, instead of the things grown or living in the wild. 'Course, I was drowsing while trying to wade through it, so I may have missed the true point of it.
The first part was more interesting than the last half, so I'm just going to talk about the comments that interested me. He mentioned a reference to Atlantis in the beginning and cited Plato as his source. Since the classical greats like Plato are steeped in antiquity, even though they are considered enlightened, places like this or events in early history are shadowed by some doubt because "esteemed scholars" throw more doubt on the validity of some of the writings of the greats. *ironic smile* And the example I'm speaking of is Atlantis itself.
I once saw a documentary on it a long time ago. They were trying to determine if it really existed or was just a myth lost in the mists of time. One of the classical philosophers or writers, I can't remember if it was Homer or Plato--most likely Plato though, wrote about it sinking beneath the sea in a day and night. (I'd have to watch the beginning of Disney's Atlantis again because they have it there.) Anyways, that same quote was mentioned in the documentary then had shadow thrown on its accuracy--if I remember correctly. Well, if these "esteemed scholars" are going to throw doubt on someone who is considered a great mind, then how are we to believe that anything that happened in early history actually happened as they described in their brief accounts?
Popular belief of Atlantis is that it may have existed. Where exactly in the Atlantic is unknown, but in Of Cannibals Montaigne writes that Plato mentioned "...Solon, telling how he had learned from the priests of the city of Sais in Egypt that in days of old, before the Flood, there was a great island named Atlantis, right at the mouth of the Strait of Gibraltar, which contained more land than Africa and Asia put together, and the kings of that country, who not only possessed that island but had stretched out so far on the mainland that they held the breadth of Africa as far as Egypt, and the length of Europe as far as Tuscany, undertook to step over into Asia and subjugate all the nations that border on the Mediterranean, as far as the Black Sea..."
I have been called naive many times, and past entries give credence to that. And I freely admit it. But surely, if Plato was indeed a real man *acting like those esteemed scholars* and he wrote of an island named Atlantis in an historical account and of its people and rulers, then it must have existed?? Right? Perhaps I am being naive again in firmly believing that island city-state really existed. And in the possibility that the account I just quoted to you tells where Atlantis really was, and perhaps in the possibility that the Biblical flood was the flood that destroyed it.
If this is so, then--going further in my own speculation--surely the rest about the people could also be true. And if they were so far spread among these other continents, then surely they died, unless one was a relative of Noah. (Ha ha.) But if the flood that covered Atlantis wasn't the Biblical flood then think about this: supposing that the above account is true then Atlantians were far spread and not just on the island. With this being the case then Atlantians not on zee island would have survived. People today in Europe, Asia and Africa or those who've immigrated to anywhere in the world could be descendants of Atlantians!
Another idea Montaigne brought up was that the Americas could be the aforesaid island. But he was doubtful. *half snort* I should say so. I highly doubt we live on what once was called Atlantis. But then all the continents were once one: Pangeia(sp?).
The other idea I found interesting was his view of whatever tribe he was discussing. I found it a bit naive and contradictory. He said all they did all day was dance. They didn't war, but then he said they did. And he called their lodges or long houses barns. *makes a face* Barn? That sounds ssoo common. The Indians may have led a less...complicated life, but they were no less civilized than the French...relatively speaking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We embrace everything, but we clasp only wind."
~Michel de Montaigne~
|
moon phase |
