"J'ayme ces mots . . .": expressions linguistiques de doute dans les Essais de Montaigne, and: Les repentirs de l'Exemplaire de Bordeaux (review)

Kirsti Sellevold's linguistic analysis of modal expressions in Montaigne's Essais and Paola Iemma's study of variants in the Bordeaux copy make a welcome contribution to a field where ideas tend to take prominence, reminding readers that subtle shifts of language may radically affect interpretation. Both studies bring out an authorial perspective, stressing the intentionality and artistry of the consummate writer that Montaigne was, but pretended not to be.

Kirsti Sellevold's thought-provoking study of expressions of doubt in the Essais explores the structure and workings of Montaigne's skeptical discourse from a dual perspective combining linguistics with a literary perspective. Her inquiry deliberately sidesteps epistemology to address ethical issues involving belief, moral responsibility, and the role of authority.

Chapters 1 and 2 present the linguistic methodological and theoretical framework of Sellevold's analyses, drawing on semantic pragmatics and cognitive semantics to show that doubt is inscribed into the very structure of the essai by means of certain modal expressions and evidential markers: peut-être, à l'avanture, pouvoir/devoir, sembler, trouver, penser. These indicate the relation between the locutor and the stated point(s) of view or the attitude of the speaker with respect to the truth-value of the proposition.

Chapter 3 presents an absorbing study of the locutor's changing attitude(s) vis-à-vis sources of knowledge, using the concept of linguistic polyphony as a frame of analysis. Sellevold devises a typology of polyphony to identify different degrees of responsibility assumed by the locutor linking him personally (internally) or impersonally (externally) and directly or indirectly to his statements In L'Apologie de Raymond Sebond Sellevold shows that the arguments in defense of Sebond clear a space for a third point of view, that of "je." Instead of reducing the locutor to silence, the pyrrhonist suspension of judgment invites opposing points of view on the part of locutor and readers alike, opening the way to a (self) critique in a non-dogmatic mode. Polyphony allows the locutor to juxtapose certainty and doubt but, according to Sellevold's findings, uncertainty is not thereby enhanced so much as freedom to express divergent opinions. Using linguistic analysis to distinguish the pyrrhonist features of Montaigne's discourse, Sellevold thus provides interesting insights into the relationship between the locutor and writer of the Essais as well as focusing attention on the different points of view that intersect in the text.

Chapter 4 combines different modes of linguistic analysis with a literary perspective. In so doing, attention is focused on contested literary interpretations of the Essais in literary scholarship to explore contradictions that have long baffled readers. In De l'utile et de l'honnête Sellevold cuts through some, if not all, questions raised by Montaigne's problematization of action in terms of self-interest and public utility. In L'Apologie de Raymond Sebond, she concludes that the locutor's personal experience receives a higher degree of credence than other (external) human sources of knowledge. Her interdisciplinary strategy is particularly useful in identifying the ethical thrust of Montaigne's discourse, with its emphasis on responsibility toward the other. In Sur des vers de Virgile, she shows that the locutor is made to recognize, if not identify with, the woman's point of view in a way that invites a non-dogmatic discourse about the other.

Sellevold assumes that her interdisciplinary approach is made accessible to literary scholars having little or no expertise in linguistics. Is this actually the case? Although the specialized nature of her project may appear narrow with its focus on a limited number of modal expressions and evidential markers within the conceptual framework...