Prefatory Matter

The editor identifies that this publication addresses a recognized gap in English literature by providing a proper library edition of Montaigne's Essays.

The editor argues that Montaigne's Essays served as a source of ideas for great minds like Bacon and Shakespeare, and his importance stems largely from his influence on other thinkers.

The editor cautions that in assessing Montaigne's achievement, one must account for the limitations of his era: poor education, scarce books, and limited intellectual exchange.

The editor notes that Montaigne freely borrowed from others and others borrowed from him, yet his reputation was earned naturally despite these circumstances.

The editor argues that Montaigne, perhaps unknowingly, pioneered a new school of thought and letters by writing in a fundamentally different way that redirected intellectual currents.

The editor emphasizes that Montaigne's essays were unprecedented in their candor, offering frank opinions on all subjects and shedding new light on poorly understood matters.

The editor describes how Montaigne made himself public property by disclosing his intellectual and physical nature, treating his essays as a form of literary self-diagnosis.

The editor claims that among egotists, Montaigne was the most fascinating because he was least affected and most truthful in his self-examination.

The editor compares Montaigne's mental investigation to a schoolboy dismantling a watch, suggesting a systematic and mechanical examination of his own mind's workings.

The editor notes that Montaigne delivered the results of his self-examination to his fellows accompanied by illustrations marked by originality and force.

The editor argues that Montaigne eschewed eloquence and rhetorical effect, writing instead to leave something memorable to France and the world.

The editor identifies Montaigne's true aim as leaving a record of what kind of man he was—his feelings, thoughts, and sufferings—which he exceeded beyond expectations.

The editor argues that while Montaigne might reasonably expect local and national recognition in Gascony and France, his worldwide fame would have been unforeseeable.

The editor catalogs the ways Montaigne's renown became worldwide, with millions reading him across European languages without knowing biographical details.

The editor defines true fame as belonging to no particular period or country, and Montaigne achieves this by speaking the universal language of nature.

The editor specifies that the text derives from Cotton's first English translation (1685-6) and subsequent reprints, noting that Cotton died before seeing later editions.

The editor notes that only the first 240 pages of the earliest edition had press errors corrected, with subsequent editions following the same pattern.

The editor notes that Cotton died in 1687 and left behind a collection of poems published posthumously in 1689.

The editor argues that correcting Cotton's translation through careful comparison with the French variorum edition (1854) and Florin's earlier work was imperative.

The editor notes that the edition includes a biography of Montaigne and his sixteen recovered letters, though acknowledging the correspondence survives only in fragmentary form.

The editor explains that providing only a sketch of Montaigne's life was appropriate given the existence of Bayle St. John's excellent biography.

The editor criticizes both of Montaigne's previous translators for adapting his language to their own times and constantly inserting interpolated material supposedly for clarification.

The editor argues that these unauthorized insertions produced unfortunate results and resolves to either remove them or move them to notes, refusing to credit Montaigne with Cotton's additions.

The editor notes that Cotton omitted certain passages from the original text and insists that restoring all omitted material is essential to textual integrity.

The editor thanks his father, the Registrar Hazlitt, for assistance in verifying quotations and collating the English text with the best French editions.

The editor criticizes Cotton's quotations as corrupt and his English versions as singularly loose and inexact compared to the French originals.

The editor notes access to Cotton's personal copy of Cotgrave's Dictionary (1650) with his autograph and manuscript notes, likely the dictionary Cotton used for translation.