SAE and Montaigne’s EssaysSAE蒙田随笔集SAE蒙田隨筆集 · 05 / 05

The Man I Am, the Man I Just Was

我如今和我方才

Returning to the page is one thing. Knowing that the later self is better is another.

改过很多次，不等于已经知道哪一个自己更好。

改過很多次，不等於已經知道哪一個自己更好。

Han Qin (秦汉秦汉秦漢) · 2026

We are still in Of Vanity. This time, the point of departure is a single sentence.

In the printing of 1588, Montaigne says that he has aged eight years since his first books appeared, but doubts whether he has improved an inch.

It is frank enough already. In the Bordeaux Copy, it becomes a place to which his pen repeatedly returns.

Several kinds of intervention

There is a change to the number. Eight is crossed out, and seven is supplied beside it.

There is a change involving the date. A small addition specifies 1580; that note is itself cancelled.

Most of the printed sentence has been struck through, and a new sentence written: My first books appeared in 1580. A long stretch of time has passed since then. I have grown older; I have certainly not grown an inch better.

The replacement has its own revision. I have not becomes I have certainly not. A further passage occupies the right margin.

The actions can be placed beside one another: a number changed, a note added, a note cancelled, a sentence rewritten, new wording revised, more writing supplied in the margin. This is an inventory of marks, not a calendar of their making.

What the paper can tell us

Words must be written before those same words can be crossed out. A local sequence of that kind can sometimes be read in the marks themselves. It does not follow that every intervention across the page can be arranged into a complete chronology.

What lies beside what, and what is written over what, are one kind of evidence. The year in which a stroke was made is another matter. Even a replacement can be counted as two actions—deleting and writing—or as one revision. The total follows the categories we choose; it is not a number naturally inscribed in the paper.

The added marginal passage is more than a brief note. It is a passage in its own right, with further additions and deletions inside it. Being newly written did not exempt it from being worked on again.

We do not need to invent a complete sequence to see what is remarkable. A sentence doubting his own improvement continued to bring him back to the page.

Not only his hand

One detail is often lost in the familiar picture of Montaigne at work.

The handwriting in this copy is not entirely his. Editors identify three passages written by Marie de Gournay. In one of them, on folio 42 verso, Montaigne wrote the opening word and she continued, taking down his dictation.

So this volume should not be imagined as the uninterrupted work of a solitary man shut in a tower. At certain moments, another person was beside him. Another hand held the pen.

The sentence in the margin

The marginal passage includes a thought that can be put like this: the man I am now and the man I was a moment ago are certainly two different people. Which is better, I cannot say.

The first half is familiar territory in the Essays. The second half is what matters here.

He could have said that the present man understood a little more. Coming from someone who had spent years revising his own book, the claim would hardly have sounded extravagant.

It is not the claim he left on this page.

Tidying up after an earlier self

We have all returned to something left behind by an earlier version of ourselves. Now we can see the mistaken turn, the sentence we should not have spoken. It is tempting to take that clearer view of an old mistake as evidence that this time we are seeing clearly.

It is no guarantee. The hand that comes back may improve the work or make it worse. The changes that make it worse are often made with exactly the same confidence as the ones that help.

Montaigne works repeatedly on this passage and still leaves room for the distinction: there are two people; which is better is not settled. That does not make revision pointless. It separates having revised from being entitled to certify one's own progress.

No certificate of improvement

The first publication was in 1580. The volume now in Bordeaux was printed in 1588 and preserves work done during the remaining years of Montaigne's life.

A man returns to words he has written. A date, a note, a sentence, a margin: the marks of further work are there. We need not date every stroke to see that he did not stop.

But what he leaves in the margin is not a certificate that he has become better. It is a sentence saying that he cannot tell which of the two men is better.

还是《论虚妄》这一章。这一篇只看一句话。

在一五八八年的印面上，他说的是：从头一批书出版到现在，我又老了八年，可我怀疑自己长进了一寸没有。

这句话本身已经够坦白。到了波尔多本上，它又成了一处反复落笔的地方。

这一句周围的几重手迹

数目是一处。八年被划掉，旁边写了七年。

年份又是一处。他添过一条小注，点明那是一五八〇年；那条小注后来也被划掉了。

原句的大部分印字上有了删线，他另写了新句：我头一批书出在一五八〇年。此后经了很长一段时日，我是老了；可要说长进，我确然没有一寸。

新句内部还有修改。我没有，又被改成了我确然没有。右边栏上，则另有一整段话。

这些动作可以并排列出：改过年份，补过小注，取消过小注，重写过句子，在新句里再改，也在页边接着写。这里列的是痕迹的种类，不是一份已经排定的日程。

能看出什么，看不出什么

同一处已经写下的字，后来才可能被划去。这种局部的先后，有时能从痕迹本身认出来。可不能因此把整张纸上每一次落笔都排成年月分明的一列。

哪条挨着哪条，哪条压在哪条上面，是一种证据；哪一笔落在哪一年，是另一件事。同一处替换，也可以把划和写算成两件事，或算成一次修改。数目跟着分类走，不是纸上天然长着的。

页边添上的那一段也不是一句短注。它自成一段，内部又有增删。新添上去的文字，也没有得到一次写定、不再经手的待遇。

不用替它编出一条完整的先后，一件事已经看得见：一句说自己未必长进的话，仍让他一次次回到纸上。

也不是全靠他一个人

顺带说一件常被漏掉的事。

那册书上不只有他的手。编者辨认出三处玛丽·德·古尔奈的代笔。其中一处在第四十二叶背面，蒙田写下开头那个词，其余由她接着记下他的口授。

所以，这册书不能被想成一个人关在塔楼里、从头到尾独自落下的笔迹。有过另一个人在旁边，有过另一只执笔的手。

页边那一句

那段话里，有这样一句：我如今和我方才，确是两个人。可哪一个更好，我说不上来。

前半句，是他这本书一贯的话头。要紧的是后半句。

他大可以写成：我如今比我方才明白些。一个在自己的旧书上改了几年的人这样说，听起来并不突兀。

他留下的却不是这一句。

替三年前的自己收摊子

这件事人人做过。回头去收拾自己几年前留下的一个摊子，常常看得见当时看不见的东西：哪一步想岔了，哪一句不该说。

而这不担保这一次就看准了。同一只回来的手，既可能把它改好，也可能把它改坏。改坏的那些，也是当时觉得改对了，才落下去的。

蒙田在这一处动了那么多手，页边却还留着这个意思：两个人是两个人，谁更好不知道。这不是说修改都没有用，是说修改过，和已经能够替自己判定进步，并不是同一件事。

收束

首刊在一五八〇年。今天藏在波尔多的这一册，是一五八八年的印本，保存的是他在那之后几年里继续做的事。

一个人回到自己写过的话上。年份、小注、整句、页边，各处都留下了动笔的痕迹。我们不必知道每一笔的日期，才看得见他没有就此停手。

而他留在页边的，不是一张比从前更好的凭据。是一句说自己分不清哪一个更好的话。

還是《論虛妄》這一章。這一篇只看一句話。

在一五八八年的印面上，他說的是：從頭一批書出版到現在，我又老了八年，可我懷疑自己長進了一寸沒有。

這句話本身已經夠坦白。到了波爾多本上，它又成了一處反覆落筆的地方。

這一句周圍的幾重手跡

數目是一處。八年被劃掉，旁邊寫了七年。

年份又是一處。他添過一條小注，點明那是一五八〇年；那條小注後來也被劃掉了。

原句的大部分印字上有了刪線，他另寫了新句：我頭一批書出在一五八〇年。此後經了很長一段時日，我是老了；可要說長進，我確然沒有一寸。

新句內部還有修改。我沒有，又被改成了我確然沒有。右邊欄上，則另有一整段話。

這些動作可以並排列出：改過年份，補過小注，取消過小注，重寫過句子，在新句裡再改，也在頁邊接著寫。這裡列的是痕跡的種類，不是一份已經排定的日程。

能看出什麼，看不出什麼

同一處已經寫下的字，後來才可能被劃去。這種局部的先後，有時能從痕跡本身認出來。可不能因此把整張紙上每一次落筆都排成年月分明的一列。

哪條挨著哪條，哪條壓在哪條上面，是一種證據；哪一筆落在哪一年，是另一件事。同一處替換，也可以把劃和寫算成兩件事，或算成一次修改。數目跟著分類走，不是紙上天然長著的。

頁邊添上的那一段也不是一句短注。它自成一段，內部又有增刪。新添上去的文字，也沒有得到一次寫定、不再經手的待遇。

不用替它編出一條完整的先後，一件事已經看得見：一句說自己未必長進的話，仍讓他一次次回到紙上。

也不是全靠他一個人

順帶說一件常被漏掉的事。

那冊書上不只有他的手。編者辨認出三處瑪麗·德·古爾奈的代筆。其中一處在第四十二葉背面，蒙田寫下開頭那個詞，其餘由她接著記下他的口授。

所以，這冊書不能被想成一個人關在塔樓裡、從頭到尾獨自落下的筆跡。有過另一個人在旁邊，有過另一隻執筆的手。

頁邊那一句

那段話裡，有這樣一句：我如今和我方才，確是兩個人。可哪一個更好，我說不上來。

前半句，是他這本書一貫的話頭。要緊的是後半句。

他大可以寫成：我如今比我方才明白些。一個在自己的舊書上改了幾年的人這樣說，聽起來並不突兀。

他留下的卻不是這一句。

替三年前的自己收攤子

這件事人人做過。回頭去收拾自己幾年前留下的一個攤子，常常看得見當時看不見的東西：哪一步想岔了，哪一句不該說。

而這不擔保這一次就看準了。同一隻回來的手，既可能把它改好，也可能把它改壞。改壞的那些，也是當時覺得改對了，才落下去的。

蒙田在這一處動了那麼多手，頁邊卻還留著這個意思：兩個人是兩個人，誰更好不知道。這不是說修改都沒有用，是說修改過，和已經能夠替自己判定進步，並不是同一件事。

收束

首刊在一五八〇年。今天藏在波爾多的這一冊，是一五八八年的印本，保存的是他在那之後幾年裡繼續做的事。

一個人回到自己寫過的話上。年份、小注、整句、頁邊，各處都留下了動筆的痕跡。我們不必知道每一筆的日期，才看得見他沒有就此停手。

而他留在頁邊的，不是一張比從前更好的憑據。是一句說自己分不清哪一個更好的話。

Alongside SAE · an optional marginal note与SAE并读 · 可选旁注與SAE並讀 · 可選旁注

SAE's account of meaning offers a distinction worth setting beside the marginal sentence: growth records the acquisition of a real way of responding, not an approach towards a completed self. On that account, a man who spends years revising his book does not owe himself a declaration that he is wiser than before. The comparison preserves a distinction. It does not automatically enter every later pen stroke in a ledger of growth.

SAE 的意义论里有一句，可以放在这条边注旁边：成长登记的是新取得了一种真实的处理方式，不是越来越接近一个完成的自己。按这个说法，一个在旧书上改了几年的人，并不欠自己一句我比从前明白。并读所能保留的是这个区别，不是把蒙田后来留下的每一笔都登记成成长。

SAE 的意義論裡有一句，可以放在這條邊注旁邊：成長登記的是新取得了一種真實的處理方式，不是越來越接近一個完成的自己。按這個說法，一個在舊書上改了幾年的人，並不欠自己一句我比從前明白。並讀所能保留的是這個區別，不是把蒙田後來留下的每一筆都登記成成長。

The SAE essays on meaning →进入 SAE意义论 →進入 SAE意義論 →

Text, editions & sources文本、版本与来源文本、版本與來源

Based on Essays III.9, rendered freely. A local sequence of writing and cancellation is distinguished from a complete chronology of interventions across the page. Spatial arrangement alone does not establish that chronology.

The revisions described here follow the Bordeaux Copy’s manuscript transcription for leaf 0433. The 1595 text is supplied for comparison, not as evidence of these pen marks.

据《随笔集》III.9译述。局部先写后划不等于全页各次修改的完整时间顺序；文中并列描述手迹，不据空间位置虚构写作次序。

本篇所述删改据波尔多本叶面0433的手稿转录；一五九五年版仅供对读，不视为这些改笔的证据。

據《隨筆集》III.9譯述。局部先寫後劃不等於全頁各次修改的完整時間順序；文中並列描述手跡，不據空間位置虛構寫作次序。

本篇所述刪改據波爾多本葉面0433的手稿轉錄；一五九五年版僅供對讀，不視為這些改筆的證據。