Our reading group on 18th January was led by Eleonora Terleckienė, who chose ‘Off the Human Track: Montaigne, Deleuze, and the Materialization of Philosophy,’ by Hassan Melehy. Eleonora prepared the following prompts:

Melehy’s chapter, published in the edited volume Early Modern Écologies. Beyond English Ecocriticism (edited by Pauline Goul and Phillip John Usher, Amsterdam University Press, 2020), explores how contemporary theory intersects with early modern French literature, particularly within the topic of ecocriticism.

This volume was inspired by Louisa Mackenzie’s observation that a more critical question is ‘What can early modern French literature do for ecocriticism?’ rather than ‘What can ecocriticism do for early modern French literature?’ By contemplating ecocritical paradigms and literature, the editors and authors reframe the concept of theory’s ‘application’ to early modern texts and the connection between the ‘ancient’ and the ‘modern’. Melehy’s article (which serves as a threshold of the book) not only summarizes the critique of relationship between theory and its ‘application’ but also proposes a method for reading early modern French literature and contemporary theory in dialogue.

Although I am not an expert in philosophy or ecology, the juxtaposition of contemporary theory with early modern thought is important to me. Especially given the division between these approaches in my academic circles, where theorists are often regarded with skepticism. Melehy’s article (and the whole book, actually) might inspire us to think about this from our own perspective and how appliable it might be to our own research.

Prompts:

1. How do you perceive Melehy’s attitude towards the intersection of contemporary theory and early modern literature? What are your thoughts on his suggested model, inviting ‘a communication with the past that challenges any notion that the present dominates it’? Do you find it useful?

2. Is the shared interest between two authors or their shared interest in an idea a strong enough argument on its own? Couldn’t this easily turn into a comparative case?

3. What role does ecocriticism have in the article? How is it defined in the text? And is the analysis of Montaigne’s text convincing?

4. What are your overall impressions of the article? Did it surprise, excite, or maybe irritate you? Was it easy to read and follow the main ideas?

For a monthly reminder of upcoming reading groups, you can sign up to our mailing list.