In reading these first few essays, I was intrigued by the difference between Montaigne's purpose and that of Boccaccio, Dante, or earlier authors we have read. In his statement "To the Reader," Montaigne expresses that he is writing not for personal glory or for "serving you" i.e. the reader, but rather so that his family can remember him. To me, this is the least hubristic and most selfless motive thus far, and additionally, most reminiscent of dedications on more modern works, which are often to family members or friends. In his essay on the imagination, Montaigne provides additional insight into his intent. He is notably unconcerned with hard facts and explicit truth, proclaiming that "fabulous incidents are as good as true ones" (46). This is logical given that his purpose "would be to tell what might happen" (47) rather than to record physical events. He is interested in patterns of human behavior, rather than explicitly in facts and concrete events. As my mom says, "I'm not interested in facts, only opinions," which seems quite similar to Montaigne's perspective. However, Montaigne in a way redefines what truth actually is: he says that because he doesn't invent examples, "I surpass the most faithful historians in scrupulous reverence for truth" (47). In this view, anything that is naturally thought up by a human mind is a form of truth, but examples concocted for didactic purposes are not. I'm not sure whether this perspective marks a more general shift from interest in history to interest in philosophy, but it is nonetheless notable. A final observation regarding Montaigne's purpose is his lack of hubris. Much as Boccaccio deemphasizes his own talent, Montaigne states, "I have no proper skill in composition or development" (47). This humble statement echoes his earlier claim that he is writing only so that his family can remember him, rather than with the intention of preserving himself and his honor through his writing (as Ovid does).
Related to Montaigne's views about truth are his insights on imagination. I found it interesting that he describes the transformative power of imagination, such as a man turning into a woman on his wedding say, or a bullfight spectator sprouting a horn (38). While Ovid describes love as a transformative power, Montaigne's depiction of imagination's ability to create physical change shifts the emphasis from love, a somewhat external force, to the immense power of the human mind. On the other hand, Montaigne comments on our inability to control physical organs, particularly libido, saying "Does it always desire what we wish it to desire? Does it let itself be guided, either, by the conclusions of our reason?" (43). By commenting about the almost complete lack of control we have over our physical bodies, Montaigne draws attention to the limitations of human consciousness. In this way he is somewhat similar to Augustine: human intellect is not enough. The prowess of human intellect is further diminished by Montaigne's inclusion of animals in these descriptions. He says that "even animals can be seen, like us, to be subject to the power of the imagination" (45). Montaigne doesn't hesitate to draw parallel between us and animals, unlike in previous works in which a comparison or transformation of human and animal marks a regression to baseness and loss of civilization. According to him, imagination is not a uniquely human ability, and animals have a level of consciousness similar to humans and volitional power of imagination as humans (ex. the cat who can kill the sparrow just by looking at it, 46). On the flip side of this, our inability to control our desires is also shared with animals.
On a different note, Montaigne's views on trickery are very different than Boccaccio's. He says, "I am enemy to all subtle deeds of deception . . . if the action is not wicked, the way to it is" (41). In this view, the ends do not justify the means, because Montaigne places so much weight on the power of thought and imagination. It is logical that because he is more concerned with ideas and behavior than with events themselves, he would judge trickery more harshly regardless of the outcome because it represents a perversion of what he views as most important.
One final comment on the essay "On Idleness": I was somewhat shocked by Montaigne's description of how "women, of themselves, sometimes bring forth inanimate and shapeless lumps of flesh, but to produce a sound and natural birth must be fertilized with different seed" (26). After reading Boccaccio, in which women are equally capable of complex thought, if not socially equal, to men, this seems to represent a regression in the views of women.
No comments:
Post a Comment