Representations Of The Body In The Essays Of Michel De Montaigne - Case Study Example

Representations Of The Body In The Essays Of Michel De Montaigne Introduction Michel de Montaigne is hailed as one of France’s most influential thinkers of the late Renaissance.1 Montaigne who began writing in 1572 is largely credited as the founder of the essay genre.2 Much of Montaigne’s work reflects his thinking and his contribution to Renaissance enlightenment. His essays are particularly striking for Montaigne’s prevalent characterisation of the human body’s influence and the influences of the “human element” on “behaviour and thought”.3 Interspersed throughout Montaigne’s essays is the personal element in which Montaigne often injects his own personal feelings.4 It is these aspects of Montaigne’s essays that prompted Hartle to define Montaigne as an accidental philosopher because unlike an intentional philosopher, Montaigne tied his thinking to his person and individualized it in a way that was “completely and radically human”.5 In particular, Montaigne’s essays largely reflect the idea that man is comprised of two interchangeable parts: the soul and the body. A healthy and rational soul was highly dependent on a rational and healthy body.6 Thus, it can be argued that a true hero must first be possessed of a healthy body. This study examines selected essays of Montaigne and demonstrates the human and individual elements, particularly the influence of the human body in Montaigne’s thinking and how the body attains the status of hero. To the Reader Montaigne’s To the Reader serves as a caution to his audience that the essays that follow are all personal and are linked to his physical and mental form. Montaigne ensures that the reader is fully aware that he/she will be engaged in the bare and natural personification of the writer. Thus Montaigne uses references to the body to symbolize his intention to expose his unbridled thinking, but bound by restraints on freedom, he has to temper his thoughts to that degree. Montaigne therefore writes: If I had written to seek the world’s favour, I should have bedecked myself better, and should present myself in a studied posture. I want to be seen here in my simple, natural, ordinary fashion, without straining or artifice; for it is myself that I portray. My defects will here be read to the life, and also my natural form, as far as respect for the public has allowed.7 To the Reader therefore informs those who are about to read Montaigne’s essays that the writer’s body and soul is very much a part of his writing. In fact O’Neill informs that “Montaigne reads with his body”.8 It therefore follows that in reading Montaigne’s essays it is impossible to separate the author’s self in every sense of the word from language and text of the writing. To the Reader informs that the essays are personalized in that they are intended to be meaningful only to Montaigne’s family and close friends. Montaigne writes: This book was written in good faith, reader. It warns you from the outset that in it I have set myself no goal but a domestic and private one. I have had no though of serving either you or my own glory...I have dedicated it to the private convenience of my relatives and friends, so that when they have lost me (as soon they must), they may recover here some feature of my habits and temperament, and by this this means keep the knowledge they have had of me more complete and alive.9 According to O’Neill, Montaigne is putting together a scenario in To the Reader indicative of a religious mission to affectionately put and keep his soul and body conjoined in a domestic fashion. In order to accomplish this, Montaigne takes a deliberate personal tone as prefaced by the To the Reader. He is informing that although his body will depart this life, he can keep himself alive by memorializing his thoughts in his essays and portraying his natural form. This is only made possible by the bodily functions during his life time and thus it is only through a sound and active body that Montaigne’s soul can be kept alive after the body ceases to live. In this regard, it is the body that emerges as the true hero. Of Idleness Montaigne’s Of Idleness emphasizes the agency of the body in the proliferation of a sound mind. Of Idleness accomplishes this feat by symbolizing the operations of the mind by representations that are physical in nature. Thus land and the female body become metaphors for illustrations of the agency of body in the cultivating of a productive mind. Montaigne writes: As we see some lands that have lain fallow, if the soil is fat and fertile, produce innumerable sorts of wild herbs that are good for nothing, for want of being cultivated and sown with certain seeds proper for our service.10 Here, Montaigne makes a definite connection between the physical neglect and useless output. Thus by analogy, the physically inactive or the lazy human being, can expect to put forth shallow or more correctly useless or corrupt thoughts. Montaigne’s correlation between physical output and mental output thus emphasizes the significance of the body and the soul in Montaigne’s thinking. Montaigne further emphasizes the point relative to biological and mental connections by reference to the female. In this regard, Montaigne writes: Some women who have not known men, do of themselves bring forth shapeless lumps and pieces of flesh, and that to cause a proper and natural generation, it is necessary to impregnate them with another kid of seed: even so it is with our minds, which if not applied so some particular subject to check and restrain them, rove about confusedly in the vague expanse of imagination.11 It can be inferred from this excerpt from Of Idleness a belief that both the body and mind must be occupied productively in order to temper undesirable or wasteful outputs. An unoccupied body gives the mind too much time and space to wander with undesirable results. Montaigne infuses his own personal experience to emphasize the point. He writes of his own foray. He had decided to retire at home and to simply live in “seclusion” and relaxation.12 Montaigne’s intent was to simply be idle for the benefit of his own “mind”.13 Montaigne thought his mind would benefit from simply exploring and translating thoughts. However, Montaigne freely admits that he was mistaken as he soon discovered that “ever idle hours breed wandering thoughts”.14 More particularly, Montaigne explains: ...like a runaway horse, it gives itself a hundred times more trouble than it took for others, and gives birth to so many chimeras and fantastic monsters, one after another, without order or purpose, that in order contemplate their ineptitude and strangeness at my pleasure, I have begun to put them in writing, hoping in time to make my mind ashamed of itself.15 Of Idleness therefore reflects a connection between the body and the mind. The mind needs the body and the body needs the mind. However, if the body becomes idle and leaves the mind unrestrained and free to wander, the mind can wander to undesirable places. But for the body’s restraint, as in Montaigne’s own experience, there is no telling where the mind would go. Montaigne’s body restrained the mind by putting his undesirable thoughts to writing and thus reminding him of the dangers of being idle. Therefore, the body emerges as the hero in that it can give expression to dangerous thoughts but emerges as heroic if it instead quiets and contains dangerous thoughts or otherwise prevents them in the first place. That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die Montaigne’s That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die gives expression to humanist thinking toward the idea of “complexity” and “diversity” of human beings.16At the time of writing, the prevailing philosophical thought was that philosophy was about the finite and learning and understanding mortality. Thus it was not uncommon for philosophy to be about knowledge of death and preparing for death. Montaigne infused scepticism into this line of thinking by emphasizing the differences in mankind that could be exploited by the individual for maximum enjoyment in life. Essentially, That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die questions the utility of learning to die when one has yet to learn how to live.17 Montaigne’s That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die is not about the significance of the body itself, but about the significance of humanizing death. He rejected the idea of learning to die as put forth by Philosophers and sought instead to offer a human side to it. Mankind could not escape death and to sit around and worry about it was death itself. Montaigne wrote: What does it matter, you will tell me, how it happens, provided we do not worry about it? I am of that opinion; and in whatever way we can put ourselves in shelter from blows, even under a calf’s skin, I am not the man to shrink from it. For it is enough for me to spend my life comfortably; and the best game I can myself I’ll take...18 In other words, as diverse and complex as man were, death is the only certain and common feature of all mankind. Since no man can escape death, it was fruitless to attempt to escape death and even more fruitless to simply wait for it. However, we could prepare ourselves for it by accepting that it is certain to catch us at some time or another. In meantime, life is for living and not for learning to die. Therefore first and foremost, man must learn to live and to get the most out of life. Only then can man die in peace. Thus this essay, speaks to the human side of mankind and in a direct way ties in with the significance of the body and the soul as death takes the body. Prior to death taking the body, the self can enjoy life to the fullest provided the mind/soul is not preoccupied with death. Of the Power of Imagination Montaigne’s Of the Power of Imagination is a commentary on the sheer power of the imagination over both the body and the soul.19 The imagination is so powerful that it can impact the body in ways consistent with the imagination. Montaigne demonstrates this assumption though a series of case studies. For example, he depicts woman who believes that she must have inadvertently ingested a pin while eating bread. Convinced by this image, she reacts outwardly in a manner consistent with the consequences of ingesting a pin. A bystander with more insight does not see any obvious signs that the women ingested a pin induces vomiting and clandestinely places a pin in the vomit. The woman’s imagination again convinces her that she has ejected the pin and her body responds accordingly.20 Montaigne explains that this interplay between the imagination and the body is made possible because of the “narrow seam between the soul and the body, through which the experience of the one is communicated to the other”.21 Montaigne also explains the infectious nature of the imagination. The imagination of one person does not only impact the body of the person who is imagining scenarios, but it also impacts the body of others just as bodily diseases of one infects the body of another.22 One example is the case of pregnant women who can “transmit marks of their fancies to the bodies of the children they carry in their womb”.23 What can be taken away from Montaigne’s Of the Power of Imagination is the intricate connection between the body and the soul. They share knowledge and respond to that knowledge together. Although the imagination impacts the body, the body’s response validates the imagination and thus the body’s response to the imagination is demonstrative of the body’s significance. O’Neill goes so far as to state that for Montaigne, the body imprisons the soul.24 Thus the body emerges as the hero in that it serves to validate the imagination and thus the intricate bond between the body and the soul. Of Practice Montaigne questions the power of the senses and the mind as expressed in philosophy in Of Practice. Montaigne doubted that the body needed the mind’s directions to respond to danger or pain.25 This may appear to contradict Montaigne’s essay Of the Power of the Imagination in which he exemplifies the power of the imagination over the body. In Of the Power of the Imagination, Montaigne argued that the imagination could direct bodily responses. This can be reconciled with Of Practice where Montaigne argues that the body can respond independently of the body. This does not mean that the body cannot be affected by the imagination. It only means that the body can respond without directions from the mind. Likewise, Montaigne argues that the mind or the senses can feel things independently of the body and thus he is rejecting the total union of the body and the mind as projected by philosophers of his times. Montaigne provides an example of the distinct existence of the mind and the body in Of Practice in the case where the arms automatically find the stomach that is in pain. In such a case, the only communication from the mind to the body is the fact that the stomach aches. The arms will without directions from the mind find the stomach. As Montaigne explained, “there are many movements of ours that do not come from our will”.26 One example is the case of the individual who is “falling” and throws “out” his/her “arms in front” of the body, “by a natural impulse which makes” the limbs “lend each other their services and have stirrings apart from our reason”.27 As Montaigne explains: These are slight effects which the senses produce of themselves, as if by habit; what the soul contributed was in a dream, touched very lightly, and merely licked and sprinkled, as it were, by the soft impression of the senses.28 In other words, Of Practice informs that the body and bodily expressions are manifestations of living and being. The body not only gives expression to the soul, but also gives expression to the fact of living and being and as such, the body can be said to emerge as the only true hero. For as Montaigne states it is unimaginable to have soul without the benefit of a body to give expression to the soul.29 Essentially, Montaigne challenges the idea that of knowledge resigning solely in the mind and the senses and instead argues that the body is a great source of knowledge where knowledge is acquired via practice.30 Of Experience Montaigne’s Of Experience is as much a commentary on the significance of the body in transmitting knowledge as Montaigne’s Of Practice. Of Experience perpetuates the idea that only the individual has profound knowledge of his own nature and thus his own body.31 Diversity and complexity among human beings inform that it is impossible to accept the generalizations offered by philosophers as to how the senses and the individual function to produce knowledge. Montaigne informs: Whatsoever then the fruit is we may have of experience, the same which we draw from foreign examples will hardly stead our institution much; if we reap so small profit from that we have of ourselves, which is most familiar unto us, and truly sufficient to instruct us of what we want. I study myself more than any other subject. It is my supernatural metaphysic, it is my natural philosophy.32 Thus for Montaigne, the bodily experience represented the most accurate source of information and knowledge for the individual’s benefit. It was the body that experienced the world and thus informed the individual of the unique experience specific to the individual experiencing it. Generalized conceptualizations of knowledge was of little utility for individuals who experienced the world in unique and different ways. Therefore, the body, as the most important vehicle for knowledge via experience was the true hero for Montaigne. Conclusion For the most part, Montaigne’s essays establish that knowledge is intricately tied to personal experience and practice as lived through the body and shared with the mind and the senses. The individual interprets his own bodily experiences and all subsequent experiences are interpreted by reference to past experiences. The significance of the body is that experiences and practices are culled through the body. Thus the body as the main source of knowledge and truth is the hero or rather the main source of meaning and understanding for the individual. Philosophers who attempt to generalizes truth and knowledge are ignoring the unique, complex and diverse nature of humanity. This explains why Montaigne took a vastly personal approach to his essays and emphasized the significance of the body to the identification of the individual. Bibliography Claxton, E. The World’s Best Memoir Writing. Naperville, ILL: Sourcebooks, Inc. 2007. De Montaigne, M. (Author) and Frame, D. M. (Translator). Montaigne’s Essays and Selected Writings: A Bilingual Edition. USA: St. Martin’s Press, 1963. De Montaigne, M. The Complete Essays of Montaigne, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958. De Montaigne, M. (Author) and Florio, H. (Ed). The Essayes of Michael Lord of Montaigne. London, UK: Ballantyne Press, 1886. Hartle, A. Michel de Montaigne: Accidental Philosopher. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Langer, U. The Cambridge Companion to Montaigne. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Miller, P. “The Morning or the Night.” The New Republic, November 5, 2008, 34-39. O’Neill, J. Essaying Montaigne: A Study of the Renaissance Institution of Writing and Reading. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 2001. Schaefer, D. “Montaigne’s Political Skepticism.” Polity, (Summer 1979) Vol. 11(4): 512-541. Schiffman, Z. “Montaigne and the Rise of Skepticism in Early Modern Europe: A Reappraisal.” Journal of the History of Ideas, (Oct-Dec. 1984) Vol. 45(4): 499-516. Screech, M. Montaigne and Melancholy: The Wisdom of the Essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2000. Toulmin, S. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Wormser, G. “Montaigne (1533-1592).” Prospects: The Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, (1994) Vol. XXIV (1/2), 107-119. Zalloua, Z. Montaigne after Theory, Theory after Montaigne. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press, 2009. Read More