Monday, July 13, 2009
Synthesis (1)
While Montaigne, Montesquieu and Mercier write seemingly very different "travel narratives," there nonetheless remain striking similarities -- if not in the form, then in the thematic preoccupations -- between their works. Reflect upon the commonalities between the Essays, the Persian Letters, and the Tableau de Paris. In the final analysis, are these texts more similar than not? Does (apparently different) form attempt to achieve a similar end? What it, for you, the most important feature that these texts share? Please be specific in your synthesis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the three works vary in form, they’re similar in that they attempt to critique a central group based on its differences and similarities with another. This critique fosters a kind of self-reflection on the part of the reader, who, presumably, is from the central group mentioned. As shown in Montaigne’s Essays, the assumption that perceiving one as “barbarous” is relative: “So we may call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity” (Montaigne 156). Not only does Montaigne suggest the relativity of cultural perceptions, he also insinuates that the very group (Europeans) that labels others (Amerindians) as barbarous is blind to its own display of savagery. This reflects Montaigne’s effort to induce the reader into reanalyzing supposedly absolute notions (in this case, the idea that Amerindians are uncivilized in comparison to Europeans). He does not deny that Amerindians are capable of exhibiting brutality (“These nations…seem to me barbarous in this sense, that they have been fashioned very little by the human mind, and are still very close to their original naturalness”) (Montaigne 153) – he merely questions whether Europeans can judge so quickly, based on their malicious track record (“But there never was any opinion so disordered as to excuse treachery, disloyalty, tyranny, and cruelty, which are our ordinary vices”) (Montaigne 156).
ReplyDeleteThe Persian Letters, too, enhances this point that the three works collectively question absolutes. Through Usbek’s failure to maintain his authority in the seraglio, the notion that his wives are beneath him is questioned, thus dissolving the absoluteness of class power: as his dying wife Roxana writes, “I may have lived in servitude, but I have always been free” (Montesquieu 280). Therefore, because Usbek’s wife has defied her “role”, the supposed supreme authority Usbek was assigned as a Persian husband is questioned. Montesquieu shows his readers that assigned roles are capable of being broken, which could compel them to consider the justness in their situations. Therefore, the self-reflection these works induce is aimed at improving the readers’ lives via potential reform.
Finally, Tableau de Paris compares, not two distinct cultures, but rather the variety of people in a heterogeneous one. Mercier concerns himself with just about every kind of Parisian – there is no central group, no starting point for which comparisons can be made. As he states, “I have studied every class of citizen, and I have not forgotten those farthest removed from haughty opulence. These contrasts allow one to better define this gigantic capital’s moral physiognomy” (Mercier 23). As such, Mercier concerns himself with every aspect of Paris, intending to reveal to his Parisian readers more than they ever knew about their city. As such, as they become more self-aware of the beauty and ugliness of Paris, they will probably be more inclined to fix its “defects”. Through these examples, the three works described are mediums by which social reform is encouraged.
Sorry for taking so much of your time, people who read this; energy drinks go a long way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete((Forgive the deleted posts, my post came out oddly formatted.))
ReplyDeleteI believe that all the texts share an appeal to the reader to reconsider the conceptions they have formed about the society immediately around them by viewing their lives from a fresh perspective.
Montaigne's essays, he claims, are an attempt to write of himself, but they do more than simply that. As was mentioned, he is also critical of European perspective and actions. Rather than join in the praise of colonization, he instead questions its legitimacy and defends the rationalism in the natives’ response to strange unexpected guests (Montaigne 695). He introduces to his readers a new perspective, that of the "tribal" individual, and see if they still view their own actions as legitimate.
This is quite similar to Montesquieu's introduction of a Persian perspective. Through Persian eyes, many of the customs and frivolities of Paris are exposed as questionable or foolish, from Rica's critique of dinner party etiquette (Montesquieu 200) to Usbek's of the honor system of France (Montesquieu 171). By changing the perspective, readers are asked to be critical of Paris.
And yet again this is true in Mercier's Tableau as by showing the poor and the rich on an equal footing (Mercier 23, also aforementioned) he bends the presumably decently well-off reader to consider the cruelty of Paris to the poor and question their own luxury.
Also a note – I’m assuming “Fromentin, Delacroix, Gauguin” is in the category of the Dunwoodie and not in the reader? Because I don’t see it anywhere…
PS: dude, be careful with those energy drinks.
For me, the most visible commonality of the three texts is that they are all concerned with the exploits and traits of humans. They criticize mans’ destructivity and marvel at human ingenuity in varying degrees. Montaigne and Montesquieu do this via personal anecdotes, which drift from areas of religion (e.g. Usbek writing to the Mullah) to the customs surrounding a sneeze (the second paragraph of Of Coaches). Mercier has a much more systematic method to detail human activity, compiling an ethnographic encyclopedia of Paris.
ReplyDeleteBoth Montesquieu and Mercier are aiming for objectivity. They want to shed light on Paris without the distorted lens of their own partisanship. This is evident in Montesquieu’s preface, where he claims the Persians who stayed “hid nothing”(Montesquieu, 39). Mercier claims to achieve objectivity by studying a multitude of facets -“I have studied every class of citizen”, “I have varied my Tableau as much as possible”(Mercier, 23). On the other hand, Montaigne embraces his subjectivity, indicated no better than in his famous line; “I am myself the matter of my book”(Montaigne, ‘To the Reader’).
Both Mercier and Montaigne directly address the reader. This directness places them very close to the matters they are discussing, making them liable for their claims. On the other hand, Montesquieu removes himself from Persian Letters, claiming his role is “merely that of a translator”(Montesquieu, 39). This not only cleverly enhances the illusion of objectivity; it is also an act of ventriloquism.
In Mercier’s Panorama of Paris he writes: “How many eloquent scenes that strike the eye at every street crossing, and what a gallery of images, so full of striking contrasts for anyone who knows how to see and understand!”(31). I think that this quote is summative in nature of each of the travel works studied. An observer perceives something and is aware of it, but may not understand what is being perceived. If a person is preoccupied with customs or the daily habits of life, that person may not be able to identify what occurs under the surface if he or she is blindly observant or something obscures one’s view, usually one’s perception and unwillingness to be less subjective in nature.
ReplyDeleteEach author writes from a point of view that shows how blind a person can be to their own practices, and more observant of others from misunderstanding. For example in Persian Letters Usbek is constantly occupied with the both trying to understand the customs of the French government and his customs for his seraglio, not once is he self observant of himself and the parallels between the two. His perceptions complicate his ability to notice that he himself creates the identity of the “other” by distancing himself from everything that “appears” to be different.
Montaigne also writes about how one does not perceive the commonalities that are shared with others, but the differences are more visible in order to distinguish one’s self; “…each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practices; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country that we live” (Conley 80). Looking at something and calling it different just because you do not understand it does not mean that it is strikingly different.
One similarity that I noticed between the three texts was the common theme of change, particularly in the texts' forms. In Essays, Montaigne doesn't edit his writing, but rather adds to it. His writing is a reflection of him at a particular time, and any changes in perspectives in his text reflect changes in time. In Persian Letters, Montesquieu employs the letter form, which is also time-based. Letters, unlike other pieces of writing, don't necessarily need to be edited and reedited. A person can write a letter and send it, and if some change occurs with that person later on, he or she can simply write a new letter. By using letters, Montesquieu lays out changes in the story in the most direct manner possible. In the Tableau de Paris, Mercier notes that Paris is an ever-changing city, and certain matters such as fashion are impossible to pin down. Instead of constantly revising his writings, Mercier writes new observations with new titles and sections to show changes in Paris.
ReplyDeleteThough none of the three forms are the same (one is an essay, another is an epistolary novel, and the last is a tableau), all three show, rather than tell, the same theme of change. This show-not-tell quality is fundamental to each work, as it allows for and supports changes in the textual content as well. In Persian Letters, for example, one can measure the changes in the wives' behavior by reading related letters. Once trapped in a seraglio and bound to a master-husband, the wives eventually seize control by themselves and find happiness on their own terms. This happy ending would not have been as surprising or fascinating had Montesquieu not depicted the wives' once unhappy lives in previous letters. By using both form and content to demonstrate change within texts, such change is better understood.
I found that all three works’ structures are not so well-organized. If they actually are, then it should be organized in an unorganized way. This kind of “flow of thought” or “flow of scene” structure is due to their nature of writing. For Persian Letters, it is the nature of travel to be full of surprises and unexpected events.
ReplyDeleteFor Essays, it is because of Montaigne’s presentation of the genre: essay. Whereas for Panorama of Paris is that Mercier wants to presents Paris as a lively and ever-changing stage of both high and low.
If one looks at the juxtaposition of letter 1 and letter 2 in a row in Persian letters, there should arise a feeling of awkwardness because once Usbek talks about the quest for knowledge and the very next moment he is ordering the eunuch to look over his wives (depriving wives’ right for knowledge of the outside world.) Similarly, Mercier places the chapter of second-hand cloth dealers next to that of aristocrats’, creating the same kind of awkwardness and dissonance.
Also, three works are using different forms to do one same thing: discover about writer himself. Montesquieu conflicts between seizing power from women and forming a more democratic society; Montaigne’s mixed feeling for the nature and the artificial and finally Mercier’s complicated feeling for wealth and freedom… No matter what their themes are, as long as the writing continues, they are on their way of self-discovery.
Finally, in order to be a keen observer, they are all very conscious about the idea of gaze. Like the preface in Panorama of Paris (15), Popkin talks about how Mercier can maintain aloof while making comments. That happens in Montaigne’s essay too for he do not completely take a side but presenting the facts he observe. In Persian letters, gaze becomes more obvious for Usbek and Rica become the foreign bring in Paris. However, that kind of gaze only makes them more aware of their situation as foreigners. Therefore, they keep perceive Paris in an independent perspective.
Although Montaigne, Montesquieu and Mercier all use different forms of narrative, they all try to describe the relationship
ReplyDeletebetween the self and the other. More specifically, the unifying action is that they observe another culture through their
own glasses then they think about their own culture. For example, in Montaigne's text, he goes to describe the barbarism
of the people in the New Worlds or colonies. However, he then contemplates the culture that he himself comes from and then
thinks about who is really more barbaric.
Montesquieu also does this with Rica and Usbek in Persian Letters, as is evident with Rica and Usbek going around
describing Paris. Usbek also however, starts to compare thoughts and actions that Persians do, and also those that
the Parisians do. Mercier does this also by describing Paris by walking through it. Through his descriptions of Paris,
he is able to subtly comment on the lives of Parisians.
The most important feature that these texts all feature is that they all try to describe another place in relation to their own. This act of trying signify that there is some kind of difference, and for some reason it is important to know what the differences are for some greater purpose.
Despite the obvious difference in the structure of each text (i.e. Essay, epistolary novel, and tableau novel), all three works share significant similarities. All three authors problematize the apparent dichotomy between the self and the other. Montaigne’s essays demonstrate human beings’ natural tendency to call “the Other” as barbaric simply because of the apparent differences in customs and perspectives. Montesquieu illustrates the superficial dichotomy between different genders and people with different social status. Throughout the novel he emphasizes the importance of learning about oneself through the “other”. Mercier’s Tableau de Paris, demonstrates the diversity of people within the city of Paris. All three works are very time specific, meaning the development of characters can be observed as time passes. Also another point of similarity between all three works is the author’s attempt to leave out judgment and be as objective as possible.
ReplyDeleteAll three authors, though wildly different, wrote little more than observations. Mercier is the most direct in his quest to observe. He simply wrote each day his observations and revelations of the people he coexisted with in Paris. He opens his work plainly with the statement, "I am going to speak of Paris" (Mercier, 23). He seeks to observe closely and share with his readers those things they may have missed. Montaigne also seeks to observe. As he writes in "Of coaches" (Montaigne, 685), great authors need merely list the facts of both sides of an argument and their cause, if truer than its opposite, will come trough. In Persian Letters, Montesquieu uses his characters Rica and Usbek to observe his own Paris in a new light.
ReplyDeleteAnother related theme emphasized by these three authors is the concept of how little we truly know ourselves. Mercier writes, "The things we see every day are not those we understand the best" (Mercier, 23). We see ourselves every day, and yet we do not know ourselves very well. Montesquieu uses his fictitious foreigners to observe Paris show Paris a side of itself it doesn't know. Montaigne tells us our own barbarity is greater than the Amerindians though we cannot see it.
All three authors critique the Western notion of knowledge. As Shiriinn mentioned, Montaigne notes how Parisians view any culture different from their own as barbaric and proceeds to portray Parisian culture as barbaric with its separation from nature. According to him, the narrow minded Parisian view keeps Parisians from learning of other cultures. Alternatively, Montaigne suggests only an either entirely honest or entirely uneducated observer can objectively critique a culture in Cannibals. Despite this idea’s attractiveness, it seems nothing more than an impractical ideal. However, Montesquieu comes close to the latter part of this ideal when he uses the Persians as observers of Parisian culture. The distance between Persian and Parisian culture establishes a sense of objectivity in the Persian observers. In contrast, Mercier tries to fulfill the first part of Montaigne’s ideal by being a close observer and noting everything he sees without censoring unpleasant realities.
ReplyDelete