What do you think?
Rate this book
Shakespeare's Montaigne: The Florio Translation of the Essays, A Selection
An NYRB Classics OriginalShakespeare, Nietzsche wrote, was Montaigne’s best reader—a typically brilliant Nietzschean insight, capturing the intimate relationship between Montaigne’s ever-changing record of the self and Shakespeare’s kaleidoscopic register of human character. And there is no doubt that Shakespeare read Montaigne—though how extensively remains a matter of debate—and that the translation he read him in was that of John Florio, a fascinating polymath, man-about-town, and dazzlingly inventive writer himself.Florio’s Montaigne is in fact one of the masterpieces of English prose, with a stylistic range and felicity and passages of deep lingering music that make it comparable to Sir Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy and the works of Sir Thomas Browne. This new edition of this seminal work, edited by Stephen Greenblatt and Peter G. Platt, features an adroitly modernized text, an essay in which Greenblatt discusses both the resemblances and real tensions between Montaigne’s and Shakespeare’s visions of the world, and Platt’s introduction to the life and times of the extraordinary Florio. Altogether, this book provides a remarkable new experience of not just two but three great writers who ushered in the modern world.
481 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1603
About the author
Michel de Montaigne
1,803 books1,593 followersMichel Eyquem de Montaigne (1532-1592) was one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance. Montaigne is known for popularizing the essay as a literary genre. He became famous for his effortless ability to merge serious intellectual speculation with casual anecdotes and autobiography—and his massive volume Essais (translated literally as "Attempts") contains, to this day, some of the most widely influential essays ever written. Montaigne had a direct influence on writers the world over, from William Shakespeare to René Descartes, from Ralph Waldo Emerson to Stephan Zweig, from Friedrich Nietzsche to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was a conservative and earnest Catholic but, as a result of his anti-dogmatic cast of mind, he is considered the father, alongside his contemporary and intimate friend Étienne de La Boétie, of the "anti-conformist" tradition in French literature.
In his own time, Montaigne was admired more as a statesman then as an author. The tendency in his essays to digress into anecdotes and personal ruminations was seen as detrimental to proper style rather than as an innovation, and his declaration that, "I am myself the matter of my book", was viewed by his contemporaries as self-indulgent. In time, however, Montaigne would be recognized as embodying, perhaps better than any other author of his time, the spirit of freely entertaining doubt which began to emerge at that time. He is most famously known for his skeptical remark, "Que sais-je?" ("What do I know?").
Remarkably modern even to readers today, Montaigne's attempt to examine the world through the lens of the only thing he can depend on implicitly—his own judgment—makes him more accessible to modern readers than any other author of the Renaissance. Much of modern literary nonfiction has found inspiration in Montaigne, and writers of all kinds continue to read him for his masterful balance of intellectual knowledge and personal storytelling.
In his own time, Montaigne was admired more as a statesman then as an author. The tendency in his essays to digress into anecdotes and personal ruminations was seen as detrimental to proper style rather than as an innovation, and his declaration that, "I am myself the matter of my book", was viewed by his contemporaries as self-indulgent. In time, however, Montaigne would be recognized as embodying, perhaps better than any other author of his time, the spirit of freely entertaining doubt which began to emerge at that time. He is most famously known for his skeptical remark, "Que sais-je?" ("What do I know?").
Remarkably modern even to readers today, Montaigne's attempt to examine the world through the lens of the only thing he can depend on implicitly—his own judgment—makes him more accessible to modern readers than any other author of the Renaissance. Much of modern literary nonfiction has found inspiration in Montaigne, and writers of all kinds continue to read him for his masterful balance of intellectual knowledge and personal storytelling.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
March 28, 2018
I was sure I would like this book because of the positive feeling of reading Montaigne's essays, Shakespeare's sonnets and learning how the French writer's words could be absorbed by the English playwright. And who was John Florio, the Frenchman who made this possible?
Added to this 2014 NYRB edition is Stephen Greenblatt who was a co-editor with Peter G. Platt. Greenblatt wrote an outstanding introduction, and Platt annotated the sixty plus pages including the Bibliography, Notes, and Floriolegium. An example of the latter is a quote from Montaigne compared to a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet.
"Life in itself is neither good nor evil; it is the place of good or evil according as you prepare it for them." (1.20/1.19)
"For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet, II.ii.244-45)
Shakespeare possibly knew Florio who was twelve years older. In 1580 when Shakespeare was sixteen years old with no future prospects, Montaigne was forty-seven and had published his first two books of essays. Shakespeare shared Florio's ("I am an Englishman in Italian") translation with contemporaries in England. It is believed that the translation of Montaigne's Essays lay on Shakespeare's desk when he wrote The Tempest. "It is long been recognized as a source upon which Shakespeare was clearly drawing." The reference is to the essay, "Of the Cannibals."
Here is a sample of the twenty essays selected in the book.
1. Of Friendship
2. Of the Cannibals
3. Of the Affection of Fathers to Their Children
4. Of Repenting
5. Upon Some Verses of "Virgil"
6. Of Experience
Shakespeare, Nietzsche wrote, was Montaigne's best reader. Read Montaigne in order to live wrote Gustave Flaubert.
You can write your quote here...after reading "Shakespeare's Montaigne".
Added to this 2014 NYRB edition is Stephen Greenblatt who was a co-editor with Peter G. Platt. Greenblatt wrote an outstanding introduction, and Platt annotated the sixty plus pages including the Bibliography, Notes, and Floriolegium. An example of the latter is a quote from Montaigne compared to a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet.
"Life in itself is neither good nor evil; it is the place of good or evil according as you prepare it for them." (1.20/1.19)
"For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." (Hamlet, II.ii.244-45)
Shakespeare possibly knew Florio who was twelve years older. In 1580 when Shakespeare was sixteen years old with no future prospects, Montaigne was forty-seven and had published his first two books of essays. Shakespeare shared Florio's ("I am an Englishman in Italian") translation with contemporaries in England. It is believed that the translation of Montaigne's Essays lay on Shakespeare's desk when he wrote The Tempest. "It is long been recognized as a source upon which Shakespeare was clearly drawing." The reference is to the essay, "Of the Cannibals."
Here is a sample of the twenty essays selected in the book.
1. Of Friendship
2. Of the Cannibals
3. Of the Affection of Fathers to Their Children
4. Of Repenting
5. Upon Some Verses of "Virgil"
6. Of Experience
Shakespeare, Nietzsche wrote, was Montaigne's best reader. Read Montaigne in order to live wrote Gustave Flaubert.
You can write your quote here...after reading "Shakespeare's Montaigne".
July 12, 2014
The title of this book is somewhat deceiving. Greenblatt (a Shakespeare scholar) tries to build the case that Shakespeare was heavily influenced by Montaigne. While it is true that Montaigne's translator (Florio) was a contemporary of Shakespeare and that they probably knew each other, I believe the case Greenblatt tries to build is more marketing than reality. Who would read the essays of a 16th century author? The essays themselves are thought provoking. The difficulty is that some of the old English, the copious footnotes (that must be read) and the fact that Montaigne backs each of his ideas with quotes from Homer, Plato, Socrates, etc. (which I understand was the fashion of the day)makes this book a difficult read.
Read
July 20, 2020Here's all of Florio's translations of the Essays.
https://warburg.sas.ac.uk/pdf/ebh610b...
The NYRB edition is a cynical cash grab. There are over 70 pages of endnotes, which are nothing more than definitions of obscure Elizabethan words. The format was chosen, rather than footnotes, simply to increase the size of the volume.
There's nothing in either Greenblatt's or Pratt's introductions that warrant the need for this particular volume either.
If you're new to Montaigne, then go with either the Frame or Screech translation into modern English. Both also offer excellent introductions. You can give this volume a pass and feel confident doing so; you're not missing anything at all.
https://warburg.sas.ac.uk/pdf/ebh610b...
The NYRB edition is a cynical cash grab. There are over 70 pages of endnotes, which are nothing more than definitions of obscure Elizabethan words. The format was chosen, rather than footnotes, simply to increase the size of the volume.
There's nothing in either Greenblatt's or Pratt's introductions that warrant the need for this particular volume either.
If you're new to Montaigne, then go with either the Frame or Screech translation into modern English. Both also offer excellent introductions. You can give this volume a pass and feel confident doing so; you're not missing anything at all.
May 22, 2014
Who edited the endnotes? It was mildly distracting to have certain words (seely, froward, sottishness being the most frequent) notated anytime they showed up in an essay. Public domain rehash with a Shakespearean spin that other than one certainty and one fairly certainty, seems shaky and irrelevant. Montaigne himself is enjoyable but he didn't say anything that floored me or made me wish to reread in the foreseeable future.
March 12, 2015
The original English translation of The Essays, apparently read by Shakespeare. Not the most precise translation. But if you want to read Montaigne and prefer the poetry and majesty of the King James version over the blandness of many contemporary translations, here's your Montaigne. This edition contains some 75 pages of must-read footnotes; they translate antiquated words, point out Florio's many mistranslations/interpolations/flights-of-fancy, and indicate parallels to Shakespeare.
February 13, 2023
(for hum) “read” is such a strong word for what i did w this book that i almost feel bad counting it on goodreads but then i remembered that i don’t care. this was so fucking boring. so many words to say so little things, even less of which mattered at all. and this motherfucker wouldn’t stop saying like “this day and age sucks” ALL DAYS AND AGES SUCK EVERYONE FROM EVERY DAY AND AGE HAS SAID THAT LITERALLY ALWAYS SO CAN U SHUT UP ABOUT IT. the “good old days” don’t exist and never have. this book could have been summed up in 1 page double spaced times new roman i swear to god. most of the essays weren’t even about what they were titled until the last couple pages and even then he had nothing new to say that hasn’t already been said
July 30, 2018
when it’s interesting, it’s quite interesting, but when it’s dull, it’s really, really dull.
February 27, 2026
“Because it was he, because it was myself”
Big book of essays but very much worth my time. Fav essay was “Of Friendship.” I hate the French but this little French man got me
Big book of essays but very much worth my time. Fav essay was “Of Friendship.” I hate the French but this little French man got me
January 19, 2026
My first experience reading Montaigne, and it was a delight. There are obviously things that are dated--for example, his views on women--but this was hundreds of years ago, and it is surprisingly how much his...inconstancy, his...openness to new thought...seems modern. He is a rambler, though, and these essays here veer from one subject to the next quite rapidly within the essays themselves. He can be funny and witty, and he clearly has a view of these things from a landed French aristocrat, so there's that, but he, again, is surprisingly not much of a class-adherer. Of course, he has the luxury of being a member of the upper class that has allowed him even to indulge in such thoughts (and essays), one has to think his romanticization of both the natives of the Americas and that of those who live simple lives *might* not have been viewed so rosily by those who had to constantly endure the hardships that were absent in Montaigne's life, but still, his wit and style contains a great deal of humility and wonder, and one would like to think that if he were granted some kind of Highlander-like immortality, he would continue to embrace change and be at the forefront of skepticism but also moving along with the times.
Of course, this is not merely Montaigne, but John Florio's *translation* of Montaigne, which renders these essays into the kind of Elizabethan English that, yes, Shakespeare used. Having not read a modern translation of Montaigne, I can't attest to the clarity in comparison, but, if I had to guess, Florio makes Montaigne *more* difficult for the modern reader, but also very much of its time (which is very close to Montaigne) and Florio's almost meandering, ahem, "florid" style imbibes the entire thing with a timelessness rather than a dated feeling. Thankfully the notes help out at times. Could I have served myself better by reading a more modern translation of Montaigne first? Perhaps. Would it have been as romantic and fun? Unlikely. And I'd like to thing Montaigne would agree, that by virtue of my mind having to stretch to meet Florio it encounters Montaigne more in a home-like plane (or plain, for that matter).
And finally, this is not just Florio's translation of Montaigne, but the reason for this NYRB edition is that it is firmly believed that Shakespeare read these [being Florio's translation] and incorporated them into not only his thought but lifted direct lines as well for his plays. And this argument is presented soundly. But I am not an erudite Shakespeare scholar, although I am familiar with his basic works. Still, what comes across is complex--Shakespeare definitely seems to have read these, but doesn't necessarily seem to completely agree with Montaigne, and, to be disastrously "punny", therein lies the rub. For what little we can gleam from Shakespeare's interaction with this material, he more "riffed" on it, engaged almost as a conversation with it, and I can't help but think that Shakespeare's own class sentiments grounded and, in some ways, challenged, those more romantic aspects of Montaigne I previously mentioned. Whatever the case may be, Montaigne via Florio vs Shakespeare, the trip was a challenging and ultimately savory dive into the flux that is our being.
Of course, this is not merely Montaigne, but John Florio's *translation* of Montaigne, which renders these essays into the kind of Elizabethan English that, yes, Shakespeare used. Having not read a modern translation of Montaigne, I can't attest to the clarity in comparison, but, if I had to guess, Florio makes Montaigne *more* difficult for the modern reader, but also very much of its time (which is very close to Montaigne) and Florio's almost meandering, ahem, "florid" style imbibes the entire thing with a timelessness rather than a dated feeling. Thankfully the notes help out at times. Could I have served myself better by reading a more modern translation of Montaigne first? Perhaps. Would it have been as romantic and fun? Unlikely. And I'd like to thing Montaigne would agree, that by virtue of my mind having to stretch to meet Florio it encounters Montaigne more in a home-like plane (or plain, for that matter).
And finally, this is not just Florio's translation of Montaigne, but the reason for this NYRB edition is that it is firmly believed that Shakespeare read these [being Florio's translation] and incorporated them into not only his thought but lifted direct lines as well for his plays. And this argument is presented soundly. But I am not an erudite Shakespeare scholar, although I am familiar with his basic works. Still, what comes across is complex--Shakespeare definitely seems to have read these, but doesn't necessarily seem to completely agree with Montaigne, and, to be disastrously "punny", therein lies the rub. For what little we can gleam from Shakespeare's interaction with this material, he more "riffed" on it, engaged almost as a conversation with it, and I can't help but think that Shakespeare's own class sentiments grounded and, in some ways, challenged, those more romantic aspects of Montaigne I previously mentioned. Whatever the case may be, Montaigne via Florio vs Shakespeare, the trip was a challenging and ultimately savory dive into the flux that is our being.
March 4, 2026
When I started this book some months ago and had my first encounter with Montaigne’s essays, I had no idea how these two gigantic names could possibly fit together. On the surface, they stood at opposite ends of the social and artistic spectrum. Montaigne, the renowned nobleman writing in the quiet of his tower with the proud awareness of his aristocratic position, cultivated the essay as a refuge for self scrutiny. Shakespeare, on the other hand, was the son of a provincial glover who wrote for money and for the clamour of the playhouse, forging drama out of the competing voices of the street, the court, and the human heart. One wrote to understand himself; the other wrote to hold a mirror up to everyone else.
And yet… and yet, as I advanced through these selected essays, I realized that their works lean toward each other across time like two minds that never met yet somehow spoke the same language. It seems almost certain that Shakespeare encountered Florio’s translation of Montaigne, and that the reflective, inquisitive quality of the Essays slipped quietly into the bloodstream of his plays.
How else can one explain the probing doubt, the scepticism that dismantles certainties, so present in Shakespeare’s late tragedies where he dauntlessly tests the limits of knowledge, authority, and human judgment; much as Montaigne does in these essays?
The affinity is unmistakable. Think of “King Lear”, where being stripped of power, left exposed to the storm, and confronted with the collapse of illusion echo Montaigne’s conviction that only by losing our self-imposed absolutes do we get a glimpse of our true self.
And what about “The Tempest”? Montaigne’s meditation in his essay “Of Cannibals”, where the so called “savages,” in their simplicity, might posses a purer virtue than most “civilized” Europeans, reverberates through Shakespeare’s creation of Caliban, embodying the question: who, truly, is the barbarian?
Last night I finished the final essay in this selection, “Of Experience”. I took my time with this book, but I am glad I did. It is like good whisky: one needs time to savour and appreciate it fully. Through this last essay, it became clear that Montaigne offers the Bard not a philosophy to imitate, but a way of thinking through his experience; a way that is flexible, humane, curious, and alert to contradiction. Their works meet in a space where doubt becomes wisdom, and where literature, in all its forms, becomes a means of learning how to be human.
And yet… and yet, as I advanced through these selected essays, I realized that their works lean toward each other across time like two minds that never met yet somehow spoke the same language. It seems almost certain that Shakespeare encountered Florio’s translation of Montaigne, and that the reflective, inquisitive quality of the Essays slipped quietly into the bloodstream of his plays.
How else can one explain the probing doubt, the scepticism that dismantles certainties, so present in Shakespeare’s late tragedies where he dauntlessly tests the limits of knowledge, authority, and human judgment; much as Montaigne does in these essays?
The affinity is unmistakable. Think of “King Lear”, where being stripped of power, left exposed to the storm, and confronted with the collapse of illusion echo Montaigne’s conviction that only by losing our self-imposed absolutes do we get a glimpse of our true self.
And what about “The Tempest”? Montaigne’s meditation in his essay “Of Cannibals”, where the so called “savages,” in their simplicity, might posses a purer virtue than most “civilized” Europeans, reverberates through Shakespeare’s creation of Caliban, embodying the question: who, truly, is the barbarian?
Last night I finished the final essay in this selection, “Of Experience”. I took my time with this book, but I am glad I did. It is like good whisky: one needs time to savour and appreciate it fully. Through this last essay, it became clear that Montaigne offers the Bard not a philosophy to imitate, but a way of thinking through his experience; a way that is flexible, humane, curious, and alert to contradiction. Their works meet in a space where doubt becomes wisdom, and where literature, in all its forms, becomes a means of learning how to be human.
June 2, 2025
Yes, I read this book but I think it would be more accurate to say I endured it. The small amount of Montaigne I have read in other translations left me exhilarated by his humor and wit, maybe a little overwhelmed by every direction each essay spiraled into, but in the end, inspired and entertained. The essays as translated by Florio, around 500 years ago, did not twinkle with the same light. I think the version of English used here, along with Florio himself, add a level of formality and distance which greatly takes away from the eccentricity and exuberance I've gotten from more contemporary translations. I don't work in French so I couldn't say if this were a difference of language or of translator but I have to think the essays are not only worse off for the archaic language to all but scholarly pursuits, but that I gained nothing by having an added layer of grammatical awkwardness as far as any insight I may have gained into Shakespeare's interest in the material.
My rating is for anyone in a similar position as me, ie, those without a scholarly interest in the material. For the courageously curious, there are better views from other climbs.
My rating is for anyone in a similar position as me, ie, those without a scholarly interest in the material. For the courageously curious, there are better views from other climbs.
May 31, 2025
Montaigne is an amazing thinker - he seemed so close and admirable in his acceptance of life. You understand that his weak sides are true: he is wordy, unstructured, getting lost in his own thoughts; it is a labour to work through his essays (my pace was 20 minutes per 10 pages). But it feels like you are sitting next to a fire with someone who has a lot of life experience, and tells what he understood about life as it is, confusedly but sincerely and vulnerably.
I read a different collection of essays, in translation of DMF from 1943
I read a different collection of essays, in translation of DMF from 1943
June 8, 2018
The first English translation of Montaigne: if Shakespeare read "The Essays," it would have been Florio's version. To read Montaigne in a beautiful, if occasionally difficult, Elizabethan English, is an incomparable delight.
October 7, 2024
THIS is english prose; alive and kicking.
Frankly, I don’t care much for the Greenblatt intro; but, until somebody brings out a complete edition of Florio’s translation, or I find an older edition that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg, this will have to do.
Frankly, I don’t care much for the Greenblatt intro; but, until somebody brings out a complete edition of Florio’s translation, or I find an older edition that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg, this will have to do.
February 16, 2023
Exciting.
Read
January 7, 2025“Shakespeare, … was Montaigne's best reader.” - Neitzsche
As the introduction acknowledges, there is no explicit reference to the Essays except in King Lear and the Tempest. Hamlet was published too early before the complete Essays came out, and, even then the connection is uncertain. So that Montaigne’s influence seems to be a latecomer, though it is quite possible that these geniuses developed the same thoughts and conclusions in parallel, as it were. But, in that case, though they complement, they do not exactly interpret each other. I therefore felt it unnecessary to read it at this point as I read through the works of Shakespeare.
Quote:
- How Shakespeare and Montaigne differ (xxx)
- What Shakespeare and Montaigne share (xxxii)
- Montaigne on choosing the contemplative life, quoted from Frame’s translation
As the introduction acknowledges, there is no explicit reference to the Essays except in King Lear and the Tempest. Hamlet was published too early before the complete Essays came out, and, even then the connection is uncertain. So that Montaigne’s influence seems to be a latecomer, though it is quite possible that these geniuses developed the same thoughts and conclusions in parallel, as it were. But, in that case, though they complement, they do not exactly interpret each other. I therefore felt it unnecessary to read it at this point as I read through the works of Shakespeare.
Quote:
- How Shakespeare and Montaigne differ (xxx)
- What Shakespeare and Montaigne share (xxxii)
- Montaigne on choosing the contemplative life, quoted from Frame’s translation
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews