South Atlantic Modern Language Association

Montaigne's Italian Voyage: Alterity and Linguistic Appropriation in the "Journal de

voyage"
Author(s): Melinda A. Cro
Source: South Atlantic Review, Vol. 78, No. 3/4 ([2013]), pp. 150-166
Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43739220
Accessed: 03-01-2018 15:24 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

South Atlantic Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to South Atlantic Review

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Montaigne's Italian Voyage:
Alterity and Linguistic Appropriation
in the Journal de voyage

Why the do the

human weimagination?
human travel? imagination?
Many greatWhat is Many
narratives tellitofabout great the narratives journey that tell of so the captures quest
the quest
for something, whether it be a treasure, a thrill, or merely an oppor-
tunity for greater self-discovery. Western literature is full of tales
where the hero sets off on an epic adventure with far-reaching impli-
cations. The allure of discovering new lands and of profitable gains
have pushed explorers to travel the globe, challenging the limits of the
possible. The impetus for travel is hardwired within humanity. It is a
need that human beings seek continually to serve - we yearn to define
the boundaries and limits of the known in order to venture beyond
into the unknown, surpassing our ancestors. Moreover, experience is
the best teacher - there is no better way to know another land and
people (and even oneself) than to travel and explore. Given human-
ity's innate curiosity and desire for new experiences, it should come as
no surprise that travel would form a central theme in the human ex-
perience, an experience often shared through the act of writing. This
is especially true of the Renaissance, the age of discovery. Numerous
récits de voyage of the period tell of travels to the New World and
encounters with the other while the imaginary voyage to utopia as a
means for social criticism was developed.
It is within this context that Michel de Montaigne undertook his own
voyage of discovery at the age of forty-seven. In June of 1580, Montaigne
left his castle and set out on a seventeen-month voyage across France,
through Switzerland, Germany, and Austria, and down into Italy where
he spent the majority of his time. He did not return to France until
November of 1581, and then only because he was summoned to take on
his new role as mayor of Bordeaux. While in Italy, Montaigne not only
partook of the healing waters of the various thermal centers but experi-
mented with the language, composing a significant portion of his travel
journal in Italian. Moreover, the author of the Essais was confronted with
the other and recorded his impressions in an intimate travel diary unlike
any other of the period. The Journal de voyage provides the reader with a
practical account of the author's perception and toleration of the other,
questions theoretically considered in the Essais. It is the purpose of this
150

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

study to examine Montaigne's perception of the other in the Journal de

voyage. The relation between the self and the other is a key concern in
Montaigne's Essais.1 However, the question is truly brought to the fore
in the travel journal where the author is actually faced with the other in
the form of the Swiss, Germans, and Italians. The role that alterity plays
and the importance of the bilingual nature of the travel journal form the
primary points of inquiry for this analysis.

Alterity: Encountering the Other in the Renaissance

The Renaissance was not only a period for the rise of the individual
but for the discovery of the New World and an extension of the view of
the world and the other. This reality is attested to by the proliferation
of travel logs of trips made not only to the Americas, but also to the
Middle East and the Orient; and the development of utopias, imagi-
nary lands that in their idealistic structure underlined the inherent
weaknesses of the real and facilitated social criticism of the status quo.2
The most important formative event for the Renaissance and the
development of travel literature during that time was, of course, the
discovery. The New World extended the boundaries of the known and
its discovery not only fired the imaginations of authors but shaped the
foreign policy of many European nations. Ships were dispatched to lay
claim to lands and peoples in a fashion that would come under scrutiny
during the eighteenth century.3 Many of these travelers or explorers
belong to the category of "voyageur-conquérant" (traveler-conqueror)
that Eva Kushner proposes in her analysis of the treatment of the other
in various texts, both travel accounts and utopias (291). Her reference is
primarily to those, like Columbus, who seek to claim lands and riches
for the Europeans; however, we might extend the definition, describ-
ing not only those explorers seeking to claim new lands and riches for
the "Old World," but those who seek to convert the other to the "true"
religion (whether it be Catholicism or a form of Protestantism), thus
conquering the soul of the other while the former conquers the body.
Interactions with the other in travel accounts are often problem-
atic in nature. Many Europeans assessed the other from a Eurocentric
point of view. This tendency was not reserved solely to those travel-
ling to the New World. Kushner tells of Jerónimo Lobo who traveled
to Ethiopia. In his travel account, he casually declares "Nous ne ren-
contrâmes jamais de gens, et d'ailleurs nous ne voulions pas en ren-
contrer."4 Lobo does not include as "people" the Muslims, negotiators,
and merchants he has met thus far! André Thévet, a Franciscan monk
who chronicled his travels through Greece, Palestine, Egypt, and Syria

151

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro
in his Cosmographie de Levant (1554), exemplifies one whose view of
the other is conditioned by his European viewpoint: "le discours euro-
péen conditionne la rencontre, mais cette fois, dans un sens favorable
à l'étranger" (Kushner 289). In truth, it is favorable to the foreigner
(the Turk) due to Théveťs own bias: Thévet notes that the Protestant
is more dangerous than the Turk, indicating that for Thévet it is the
Protestant who is the actual other: "Et pour dire la vérité, un Turq na-
turel ne moleste pas volontiers un Cretien, ains plutost lui fera caresse
& bon recueil. Mais certes les Cretiens reniez sont pervers & dangereus"
(Thévet 183). Interestingly, for Thévet the true threat is the Christian
other, a reflection of the tumultuous period in France and the violence
leading up to the wars of religion (1562-1598).
Three contemporary theoreticians have examined this problematic
of the encounter of the other: Tzvetan Todorov, Stephen Greenblatt,
and Julia Kristeva. Their work is particularly important to the under-
standing of the construction of the other during the Renaissance.
Tzvetan Todorov, author of La conquête de l'Amérique (1982), notes the
importance of a system of signs for Europeans and indigenous popu-
lations alike. The Europeans took advantage of this system, reinter-
preting the signs to facilitate their domination and conquest. Stephen
Greenblatt, in Marvelous Possessions (1991) examines the means by
which conquerors lay claim to the New World. Finally, Julia Kristeva, in
Etrangers à nous-mêmes (1988), examines alterity from a different per-
spective; she proposes that the other is inherent within us all and thus
to know the other is an attempt to better understand the self (289-292).
The part of the self that we associate with the other, however, is typi-
cally viewed negatively and is rejected, leading to racism or xenophobic
reactions. This process of discovery leads to a theater wherein the other
is explored: "Elle explore certains textes de la Renaissance, époque de
l'émergence de ce sujet individuel, comme un théâtre de l'expérience de
l'autre" (Kushner 292).
Kushner proposes that Montaigne takes part in this theater of the
other, not solely as a spectator but as a participant: "Témoin et acteur
à tour de rôle" (293); the use of the word "témoin" or "witness" under-
scores the act of observation that is so intrinsic to Montaigne's expe-
rience. This is, of course, where Montaigne differs from the travelers
mentioned above, and where his experience of the other, too, is differ-
ent. The avoyageur-conquéranť has often a specific purpose in travel-
ing - to gain a commodity (whether it be land, citizens, or souls - and
the use of the commercial metaphor is, I feel, quite appropriate, given
the commerce engendered by the discovery) on behalf of a larger social
institution that extends beyond the self. Montaigne, however, does not
fit into such a category. Despite unsubstantiated speculation that his

152

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

journey was actually political in nature (there was some supposition

that he might have been on a mission to meet with the pope on behalf
of the king of France although that has largely been dismissed by
scholars today5), Montaigne himself reveals, in his diary, a much more
personal reason for the trip - his health. Montaigne suffered from
extremely painful kidney stones and hoped that the thermal waters
he visited along the way might help ease his pain. Actually, Margaret
Healy argues that the journal was, in part, an added means of heal-
ing, indicating that Montaigne "[. . .] was likely experimenting with
the healing potential of narrative as early as 1580 in his Travel Journal "
(232). Monga adds to this consideration of his health the fact that
Montaigne recognized the didactic promise of travel and indicates that
learning and intellectual curiosity as well as health concerns propel the
essayist to make the trip (438).
Montaigne, of course, was aware of the travel accounts of the dis-
covery; indeed, they may well have served as a model for him in his
writing (Bideaux 454). This might account for his examination of the
other in the Essais in "Des Cannibales" (I31). Therein, he purports to
have heard from a man who traveled with Villegaignon to Brazil in
1557 of the native peoples he encountered while there and their can-
nibalistic tendencies, although he never uses the term "cannibales"
within the essay. The author sets forth a consideration of the other
and questions whether or not it is truly the other who is savage or the
Europeans; for Montaigne, the other is closer to natural man, hence
closer to a golden age ideal of man rather than belonging to the cur-
rent corrupted civilization.
Both Todorov and Stegagno Picchio examine Montaigne's view
of the other through the Essais. Stegagno Picchio examines the por-
trayal of the other in "Des Cannibales" (1:31), focusing on the etymol-
ogy of certain lexical choices and demonstrating an inherent duality
in Montaignes structure: "If the word cannibales never appears else-
where than in the title of Montaigne's essay, its eponym, the binary
opposition barbarian vs. non-barbarianf constitutes the very backbone
of the work" (80). The choice of "Des cannibales," rather than "De la
vanité" (111:9) as ls often quoted in relation to Montaigne's travels, is
of particular interest for our purposes. The latter essay appears in the
third book and tells of Montaigne's love of travel but was written after
his voyage. "Des Cannibales" was written between 1579 and 1580 and
was published in the first edition of the Essais that appeared in 1580
(Stegagno Picchio 71) prior to Montaigne's trip, the very edition that
Montaigne presented to the king, Henry III, and to Pope Gregory XIII
during his travels. I believe this is an interesting place to begin because

153

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro
it informs the reader of the author's mindset prior to putting into prac-
tice what he professed theoretically.
As Todorov has indicated, Montaigne's view of the other and his
treatment of alterity in the Essais is contradictory. Todorov establishes
what seems to be a desire on the part of Montaigne to profess a relativ-
ist attitude towards the other (116) and indicates that this attitude is
the basis of his toleration for others (118). The latter tolerance leads
Montaigne to see himself as a citizen of the world (119-20), however
Todorov questions the truth of this purported relativity. Montaigne
often uses the arguments or examples of the ancients to justify behav-
ior in the other that society deems problematic or condemns (such as
polygamy or cannibalism as is the case in the essay "Des Cannibales"),
indicating that Montaigne is actually a universalist, albeit an uncon-
scious one (125). He does not judge the other by the standards of cur-
rent society, but he does measure their practices according to those
of the ancients, whom he holds in high esteem. Nonetheless, in com-
parison with the views of other writers of the time, Montaigne not only
implores the reader to seriously consider the question of savagery given
the current violence in France due to the wars of religion, but also dem-
onstrates his willingness to listen and learn from the other, to attempt
to understand rather than dismiss out of hand the actions because they
differ from the cultural norms of his own society.
Todorov asks an interesting question which propels the current con-
sideration: "But if Montaigne has never perceived others, what is the
value of his toleration?" (126). My proposal is that we use the Journal de
voyage as a means to answer this question. To do so, however, requires a
careful consideration of the journal itself and the act of its composition.

The Journal de voyage: Composition, Writer, and

Purpose
Discovered by l'abbé Joseph Prunis in 1770 at Montaigne's chateau
(Rigolot v), Montaigne's journal was most likely not intended for
publication, an affirmation that perhaps helps to explain the more
utilitarian nature of the text (xviii). The voyage itself is one that is
very much in line with the time: the Renaissance marks a period of
great interest on the part of the French in Italy as a destination - wars
were fought to possess her lands, aristocrats and monarchs travelled
to her flourishing city-states to experience her art and culture; and
philosophers, poets, and scholars were inspired by her literature and
the humanistic discoveries of classical philosophy, art, and litera-
ture. The voyage to Italy became a central experience in the develop-
154

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

ment of the French Renaissance. Trips to Italy at this time were fash-
ionable, especially since the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559 and
the pax hispánico ensured that routes were more secure, permitting
safer travel (Rigolot vi). In addition, following the tradition begun
by Francis I and continued by his daughter-in-law Catherine de
Médicis, Henry Ill's mother, there was a great appreciation of Italian
art, literature, architecture, and language at the court of France, dic-
tating the cultural standard for the rest of the nation.
To give a rough idea of his itinerary: Montaigne departed on June
22, 1580, from his chateau de Guyenne and went to Paris to the court
of Henry III to present him with a copy of the first edition of his
Essais. From Paris, Montaigne proceeded to Switzerland, arriving in
September of 1580. Montaigne's was a leisurely pace - he was inter-
ested in stopping at places of beauty or renown as well as sampling
the thermal centers en route. He arrived in Germany in October and
crossed Germany, Austria, and the Alps for three weeks before continu-
ing on towards Italy. He remained in Italy for a year, from the end of
October 1580 to the end of October 1581. Much of his time was spent in
Rome, from the end of November 1580 to the middle of April 1581 and
then again for the first two weeks of October 1581 prior to beginning
the return trip home.
The first part of the voyage was recorded by his secretary. We have
no information as to who the secretary was; we can only note that he is
responsible for about 45 percent of the text, those entries detailing the
trip from France through Switzerland and Germany, over the Alps, and
into Italy. Montaigne dismissed him in late January or early February
of 1581 while in Rome and undertook the composition of the rest of the
journal himself. He was not enthusiastic about doing so: "Ayant donné
congé à celuy de mes gens qui conduisoit cette belle besoigne, et la
voyant si avancée, quelque incommodité que ce me soit, il faut que je la
continue moy mesme" (109).
The section by the secretary is an interesting read, in particular due
to the mixing of «je». At times "je" refers to the secretary and Montaigne
is referred to in the third person; at times the "je" refers to Montaigne
himself and records his observation more directly. The secretary is dili-
gent in his duty, recording carefully the details of Montaigne's cures. At
Plombières, for instance:

Au fond de cette vallée naissent plusieurs fontaines tant froi-

des naturelles que chaudes. L'eau chaude n'a nulle senteur ny
goust, et est chaude tout ce qui s'en peut souffrir au boir, de
façon que M. de Montaigne estoit contraint de la remuer de
verre à autre. [. . .]

155

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro

La façon du pays, c'est seulement de se baigner deux ou

trois fois le jour. Aucuns prennent leur repas au bain, où
ils se font communément ventouser et scarifier, et ne s'en
serve qu'après s'estre purgés. S'ils boivent, c'est un verre ou
deux dans le bain. Ils trouvoient estrange la façon de M. de
Montaigne, qui, sans medicine precedente, en beuvoit neuf
verres, qui revenoient environ à un pot, tous les matins à sept
heures [. . .] (9)

Later, the secretary specifies the totals for their time in Plombières:
"M. de Montaigne beut onze matinées de ladite eau, neuf verres
huict jours et sept verres trois jours, et se baigna cinq fois. [. . .] Il n'y
cogneut nul autre effe que d'uriner" (12). What is interesting is the
way in which the secretary characterizes the view of the inhabitants
of Plombières when considering Montaigne's conduct in the waters:
they find it strange. Montaigne maintains this balanced view of self
and other in his own section.
Of the 55 percent that Montaigne wrote in his own hand, the first
24 percent is written in French; the following 29 percent is written in
Italian; and the final 2 percent (the journey home) is written again
in French (Rigolot xiii). Montaigne professes a certain false modesty
when using Italian; however, contrary to his disputations, he knew
Italian well. The Essais are littered with references, both direct and
indirect, to Italian sources. He read Guicciardini's Storia d'Italia in
the original Italian (1572) and his references and allusions to Italian
works denote one who read with great attention and understanding
(Garavini 117). As Fausta Garavini notes, "[...] la connaissance que
Montaigne avait de l'italien, connaissance livresque, était profonde
et telle qu'elle lui permettait d'en saisir les nuances" (117). The nature
of the register he uses in the Journal is one that recalls the oral, is
influenced by Tuscan expressions, and at times inserts French words.
However, it is highly understandable and Montaigne truly embraces
the language in his composition.
The physical reality of the diary's composition is essential in one's
understanding of the author's approach. The Journal de voyage paints
an intimate portrait of the protagonist, one that is immensely realistic
and analytical as the author records changes in his physical condition
and observes the culture that surrounds him. Through a careful con-
sideration of the Italian language portion, one may better understand
the way in which Montaigne's writing and use of Italian informs the
reader's understanding of this cultural encounter with the other.

156

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

Montaigne: Traveler-Writer-Observer
Montaigne's journal is not that of a traveler-conqueror. Rather,
Montaigne might be better characterized as a voyageur-observateur or
traveler-observer. Michel Bideaux offers the term "voyageur-scripteur"
(465) to describe Montaigne, but such a categorization emphasizes
the act of writing whereas it might be more pertinent to emphasize
the act of viewing. As Bideaux and Lestringant remark, the nature of
the text is fragmentary: Bideaux characterizes the journal6 as having
an "esthétique du discontinu" (455) and an "aimable désordre" (456)
while Lestringant affirms that Montaigne's writing, like his physi-
cal itinerary, is reminiscent of "vagabondage" and emphasizes the
moment, the immediate, the present (637). These characteristics
differentiate the journal from those travel accounts written by other
travelers to Italy at the same time. However, the fragmentary nature
of the text is not the sole variance from the form deemed acceptable
for the travel journal.
Montaigne's journal does not meet the expectations of later travelers
(Monga 439), nor does it conform stylistically to travel journals of the
period (440-41). As Monga establishes in his careful survey of various
travel journals written by travelers to Italy from 1575 to 1603, the trav-
eler of the period is supposed to focus on minute details of geography
and identification of the most important monuments, recalling any
historical or literary facts that may be pertinent to the sites described
(440). Rigolot echoes this observation, pointing out that while travel
guides of the time are concerned with what is "digne du mémoire,"
Montaigne "se méfie de toutes considerations générales. C'est le singu-
lier qui l'intéresse: non pas ce qu'il aurait dû voir mais ce qu'il a vu réel-
lement - au risque d'omettre d'importants lieux de mémoire comme la
place du Dôme à Milan, qu'il passe allègrement sous silence" (xx). No
personal observations or intimate details need (or even should) enter
into the travel journal - rather, it is to remain a purely intellectual ac-
tivity, but one focused upon observation.
In the last point alone does Montaigne conform somewhat to the
"rules" of the genre - he is a detailed and careful observer. This em-
phasis on sight echoes the scientific method of the period, a hierarchy
placing emphasis first on sight, then on hearing, then on reading ("visa,
audita , lecta") (Lestringant 623). Montaigne for this reason distrusts
cosmography as being at once too all encompassing, thus surpassing
the knowledge of any one man, and not relating what the author has
actually seen (Lestringant 625). This distrust is made explicit in "Des
Cannibales," where Montaigne confesses to being skeptical of witness-
es who may embellish the truth of what they have actually seen. In fact,

157

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro
he praises his man who tells him of his first-hand experiences because
he is "simple":

Cet homme que j avais, était homme simple et grossier, qui

est une condition propre à rendre véritable témoignage ; car
les fines gens remarquent bien plus curieusement et plus de
choses, mais ils les glosent ; et pour faire valoir leur inter-
prétation et la persuader, ils ne se peuvent farder d'altérer
un peu l'Histoire ; ils ne vous représentent jamais les choses
pures, ils les inclinent et masquent selon le visage qu'ils leur
ont plu ; et, pour donner crédit à leur jugement et vous y at-
tirer, prêtent volontiers de ce côté-là à la matière, l'allongent
et l'amplifient. Ou il faut un homme très fidèle, ou si simple
qu'il n'ait pas de quoi bâtir et donner de la vraisemblance à
des inventions fausses, et qui n'ait rien épousé. (205)

He continues with a similar wish for cosmographers and topographers:

Ainsi je me contente de cette information [de mon homme],

sans m'enquérir de ce que les cosmographes en disent. Il nous
faudrait des topographes qui nous fissent narration particu-
lière des endroits où ils ont été. Mais, pour avoir cet avan-
tage sur nous d'avoir vu la Palestine7, ils veulent jouir de ce
privilège de nous conter nouvelles de tout le demeurant du
monde. Je voudrais que chacun écrivît ce qu'il sait, et autant
qu'il en sait, non en cela seulement, mais en tous autres
sujets. (205)

Montaigne clearly values the sight (or what his man observed) and
what he himself hears from his witness over what he reads in a cos-
mographer's book. He values history and believes that the best his-
torian is the witness of the moment who participated actually in the
events, and longs for that type of authority in reading not only of his-
tory but of travel as well.
In contrast to Montaigne, Thévet exemplifies the type of travel style
that was so accepted at the time - he recounts his present experiences,
but always in relation to antiquity or other learned reading. This prac-
tice of recalling the past, the knowledge that one has of the area that
one is visiting, was indeed considered good practice for keeping an
orderly travel journal wherein one is to recall all the information one
knows of the area and describe it in detail without allowing personal
recollections or experiences of the present to distract from the task at
hand (Monga 440-441). However, in recording all the recollections of

158

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

the past the traveler risks losing the present and might even invent to
fill in the gaps, real or imagined, in the account. Such is the concern
that Montaigne has for this approach; one wonders continuously as to
the veracity of the observations.
Rather than call upon the past, Montaigne remains grounded in the
present: careful observation and recording of data characterize many
of Montaigne's entries, in particular those regarding his health. When
there is not something of interest to the author, he skips it. Truly, the
most detailed information is normally associated with his health.
Given the precise and meticulous descriptions of his physical condi-
tion, Montaigne's journal might be considered a "journal de santé" or a
health log of sorts. He measures the amount of water he intakes, times
how long he is in the water, and even records his own observations
about his "evacuations": "Queste tre libre d'acqua credo che le smaltii al
bagno, dove pisciai assai volte, e poi sudai un poco più del solito [. . .]"
(177). The details might seem extreme to the modern reader, perhaps
even extraneous, but their inclusion underlines the purpose of this
journal as a personal record, one that is immensely intimate in nature
and thus distinct from the accepted style of the period. Montaigne is
fascinated both by the exterior landscape of the Italian countryside and
the waters of the thermal baths as well as his own interior landscape,
that of his body, a landscape that is ever present and influential given
his constant illness, the very reason for his presence in Italy in search of
a cure (Majorano 498-99). One might also go further and suggest that
the control Montaigne exerts in writing about his condition reflects the
patient s desire to exert a similar control over the disease itself.
One cannot help but be struck by the modernity of Montaigne's ap-
proach. This is not the extreme demésure of Rabelais's Gargantua or
Pantagruel ; rather, it is a scientific approach to the author's illness, fol-
lowing a careful methodology: first, he tries a cure, recording carefully
each aspect of the process; then, he records the results, both physical
and psychological, before judging whether or not to continue and eval-
uating the merit of the thermal spa waters in that particular location.
The methodology he utilizes recalls the scientific method of the time,
the one he values so highly, of visa, audita, lecta. In "Des Cannibales,"
when he has not seen the New World, he relies on the witness and
first-hand accounts to which he has access rather than the accounts
written by cosmographers. Now, in the Journal de voyage , he privileges
sight above the other senses. Indeed, Majorano notes a preponderance
of forms of voir in the Journal (493-4), making of the text a senso-
rial experience and reminding the reader that the physical reality of
Montaigne's illness also informed the way in which he experienced the

159

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro
location and the people - to the point that he even borrowed the lan-
guage of the other to fully express the self.

Approaching the Other through Linguistic

Appropriation: A Multisensory Experience
Returning to Kushner's affirmation that Montaigne was not only a
witness but an actor in the theater of the other (292), we must con-
sider what action he took as a result of his encounter with the other.
The clearest outcome of this interaction is the choice to utilize the
language of the other to express the self- i.e. to compose his journal
in Italian while in Italy. His utilization of the scientific method of trial,
observation, and then conclusion parallels the act of writing in Italian
that Montaigne follows. Consider how he begins the Italian section:
"Assaggiamo di parlar un poco questa altra lingua massime essendo
in queste contrade dove mi pare sentire il più perfetto favellare della
Toscana, particolarmente tra li paesani che non l'hanno mescolato et
alterato con li vicini" (167). The verb "assaggiare" is best translated
as "essayer" in French or "to try" in English.8 The lexical choice re-
minds the reader inevitably of the author's Essais , a new form of writ-
ing and the establishment of a new genre in French literature. The
author is underlining that this is an attempt , a try at something new.
Moreover, this incipit provides the reader with lexical clues as to the
author's writing process - he will try to use the language ("assaggiamo
di parlar"), then observe and draw conclusions ("mi pare") based on
his experience. Of particular importance is the mode that Montaigne
indicates for the communication of this new language - he uses the
verb "parlare" meaning "to speak" rather than "scrivere" (to write).
Hence, Montaigne is attributing a certain orality to his text and cre-
ates of the journal a bilingual and intercultural dialogue.
Inherent in Montaigne's writing is an emphasis on both orality and
spontaneity of linguistic production that mimics spoken Italian. The
choice of the word "favellare" meaning "to tell" or "to speak" betrays the
author's interest more in the oral language and on producing compre-
hensible Italian. He is inspired by that which he hears all around him.
As Rigolot explains, "On tente un essai ( assaggiamo ) de peu de durée
(un poco) en recourant au langage parlé (parlar). Voilà un incipit qui
connote les insuffisances heureuses et éphémères de la spontanéité"
(xxiv). He reminds the reader of Montaigne's definition of the ideal
language in the Essais : "Le parler que j'ayme, c'est un parler simple et
naïf, tel sur le papier qu'à la bouche" (I, 36, 171 a). For Montaigne, lan-

160

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

guage was to communicate, and that was his primary goal in writing
the journal: to communicate in Italian (xxv).
Montaignes linguistic method parallels the scientific method he
utilizes when approaching a cure. For example, in the Italian section
he describes the Bagno di Bernabò, named for the doctor from Pistoia
who was healed by these same waters. Immediately upon playing and
trying with the new language, he tries a new source, hoping for a cure.
The lexical choice of "assaggiare" underlines the nature not only of the
writing but of the journey itself, an attempt to learn more about his
surroundings and himself while looking for healing. His writing ap-
proach mirrors the scientific methodology he follows in order to better
understand his illness and the effects the cure produces.
The orality of the senses is aligned with the consumption of the
waters - thus the author emphasizes the multi-sensorial nature of ex-
perience. He bathes in the water. He consumes the waters. He sees the
waters. Sight, taste, and touch are all evoked in his description of his
cure. Hearing is implied in the emphasis on the orality of the text and
the inherent dialogue between languages and cultures (French and
Italian), between self and other. Another connotation important to
note here of "assaggiare" is the culinary - it can be used in the context
of trying food (indeed, this is its primary meaning). This choice of verb
is quite interesting. It evokes an image not only of attempting some-
thing new, but of actually tasting the Italian language on the tongue,
just as he tastes the water, consuming the other in a cannibalistic meta-
phor for appropriation. However, just as Montaigne sees the act of can-
nibalism as not all bad, so here this act of adoption is a positive one.
Through this desire to observe and to experiment with the means of
expression of the other, Montaigne continues to learn about and dis-
cover the other and, ultimately, the self.
The emphasis on the spoken, the spontaneous, and the pres-
ent echoes throughout Montaigne's journal. As one scholar notes,
Montaigne, immersed in Italian language and culture, writes for five
months, and "[. . .] mimetizzandosi con i suoni del territorio, assume le
sembianze dell'italiano, per mutare condotta e convertirsi al francese,
sulla strada del ritorno, non appena varcato il confine" (Majorano 491).
Rather than toying with the concerns of typical travel guides, discuss-
ing famous sites and the history surrounding them, the author focuses
upon what he actually saw, heard, and experienced, and what strikes
him (Rigolot xx). Unlike the works of prominent cosmographers of the
period, like Sebastian Münster with whom he was familiar, Montaigne
sought to record that which he knew from experience. Lestringant pro-
poses that cosmographers at the time desired to have something akin
to God's view of the universe; perhaps the immensely realistic empha-
161

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro

sis by Montaigne upon his most intimate and mundane physical situ-
ation could be seen as an attempt on his part to emphasize the human
over the divine and to recall the proper focus upon a more scientific
and human approach. Perhaps his ever-present medical condition was
key in encouraging Montaigne to focus on the present and on what he
has seen, recognizing that one can only draw conclusions based upon
one s own experiences.
This is not to say that Montaigne ignored details - he was just more
selective about what he included and how he included it. Majorano
notes a tripartite approach to descriptions of the landscape, always in
a binary coupling: (1) Italian landscape compared to Italian landscape;
(2) Italian compared to French landscape; and (3) Italian compared to
other landscapes ("ailleurs") (496). This methodology evokes that of
the levels of relation between the self and the other that Todorov iden-
tifies in the Essais : "1) the relation between us and others: the manner
in which a community perceives those who do not belong to it; 2) the
relation between I and the other (autrui): the very existence of beings
other than myself, or of a social dimension of man; 3) the other in the
self: multiplicity and heterogeneity internal to the subject" (113).
Montaigne follows this same approach as he observes cultural dif-
ferences. The differences he notes are immensely varied in nature; they
range from the mundane and informative (for example, "La libra d'Italia
non è che di 12 onde" (168) - the comparison here is implicit to the
French pound which weighed 16 ounces) to the personal and anthro-
pological (for example, "Questi contadini, e le lor donne, sono vestiti
da gentiluomini. Non si vede contadina che non porti le scarpe bian-
che, le calzette di filo belle, il grembiale d'ermesino di qualche colore:
e ballano, fanno capriole e molinetti molto bene" (170)). Montaigne
carefully observes his own interactions with the Italians and examines
the differences between his native culture (culture maternelle) and the
foreign culture (culture étrangère). These cultural comparisons remind
the reader that Montaigne was constantly in the act of comparing his
surroundings with his own homeland, always faced with the other and
relating it with the self.
Montaignes cultural examination extends beyond the setting and
the self to those he meets as is evident through multiple references to
"paesani," and "contadini." These references evoke Montaigne's prefer-
ence in "Des Cannibales" for the simple witness, valued over the "fins
gens" who cannot recount clearly what they observe without editing.
Moreover, Montaigne uses the term "l'opinione publica" (167), a term
that D'Ancona identifies as being used for the first time in Italian in
this text. Such lexical choices betray an interest in community and
in the culture of the many individuals who make up the complicated
162

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review

and fascinating fabric of a society. In confronting the other with the

self, Montaigne alternates between critical and favorable opinions. For
example, commenting upon the lack of clocks in the area, the target
culture comes up short in the author's estimation: "Il mancamento
d'oriuoli eh e in questo loco, et in la più parte d'Italia, mi pareva molto
discomodo" (177). Yet, immediately following this affirmation, when
describing a statue of the Madonna and the setting in which it is placed
at one of the spas, the author is in awe:

Al bagno c'è una Madonna [...]. Non si può assai lodare, e

per la bellezza e per l'utile, questo modo di cultivare le mon-
tagne fin alla cima, facendosi in forma di scaloni delli cerchi
intorno d'esse, e l'alto di questi scaloni adesso appoggiandolo
di pietre, adesso con altri ripari, se la terra di sé non sta soda
(177)

The phrase "per la bellezza e per l'utile" inevitably reminds the reader
of the aesthetic principles of combining that which is pleasurable with
that which is useful. This beautiful efficiency incites the writer's ap-
preciation and perhaps hints at the author's own preference for such
a symmetry in his own writing.
While these encounters are outward in motion, extending from the
self beyond, Montaigne also examines interactions from the reverse
perspective of the other towards the self, recording the reaction of
locals to the French habits: "Si stupivano i medici di vedere la più parte
di nostri Francesi bere la mattina, e poi bagnarsi il medesimo giorno"
(177). This reciprocal view - the self observing the other and the other
observing the self - is characteristic of the cross-cultural encounter, a
reality captured through Montaigne's conscientious accounting of his
experiences and echoed in his linguistic and structural choices. Such
a reciprocity in perspective is often missing from most travel accounts
of the period.
Given the complexity of the narrative and structure of the journal,
it seems counterintuitive that it was not intended for publication.
Nonetheless, despite this lack of explicit intention to publish, there
was an intended reader of the journal, and that reader was Montaigne
himself. We know from the manuscripts that he went back, re-read
his entries, made corrections in the margins, and added informa-
tion where he saw fit. In a sense, the emphasis on the oral nature of
language, on the inherent dialogue between author and reader is
maintained here if we recognize that Montaigne was his own reader.
Through the use of Italian, the author maintains a bilingual dialogue
with himself. Furthermore, the duality of his approach, mirroring the

163

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro

contemplation of his interior landscape with his surroundings, re-

minds the reader that for Montaigne language was communication; it
was always, by nature, a dialogue.
Just as he confronts his own language with that of his surround-
ings, Montaigne examines Italian culture through comparisons with
his own and other cultures, all related to his own primary experience.
The process of continual observation and comparison and Montaigne's
fascination with the exterior landscape and culture is paralleled in the
author s fascination with the interior landscape of his body. In com-
posing his journal, Montaigne interiorizes the other through a system-
atic assimilation of the means of expression of the other. The senso-
rial experience evoked in the scientific method (sight, hearing, read-
ing) is echoed in the cures that Montaigne undertakes and conditions
his interaction with the other. Just as Todorov and Kristeva indicate,
Montaigne finds the other in the self but he goes a step further - rather
than leave off at the step of recognition, Montaigne takes action. He
acts upon the perceptions and observations he has made and immerses
himself in the other in as many senses as possible. Montaigne "tastes"
the other, interiorizes the other, and expresses himself as both other
and self through his linguistic choices. In the Journal de voyage, alter-
ity is not a static or intellectual concern but rather a living reality that
defines the nature of the text and the author himself.

Notes
i. For more on the relation between the self and the other, see Tzvetan
Todorov, « L'Etre et l'Autre : Montaigne » in Yale French Studies 64 (1983) :
113-144. Print.

2. Examples of well-known travel accounts of the time include André Thévet's

Cosmographie de Levant (1554), Thévet's Les Singularitez de la France ant-
arctique (1557), Jean de Lery's Histoire dun voyage faict en la terre du Brésil
(1578). Examples of Utopian texts (including those that play with the genre)
are More's Utopia and Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel
3. Denis Diderot is an excellent example - in his Supplément au Voyage de
Bougainville (1772), he takes on the role of an elder Tahitian and warns his
people of the misery that their "discovery" by the Europeans will bring to
them: "Pleurez, malheureux Otaïtiens, pleurez, mais que ce soit de l'arrivée et
non du depart de ces hommes ambitieux et méchants" (39).
4. Cit. in Kushner, p. 286.

5. See Donald M. Frame's "Note on the Travel Journal" for further details (861).

6. It is important to note that when discussing the journal, the critics cited fo-
cused upon the sections of the journal written by Montaigne himself and not

164

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Review
those preliminary sections written by his secretary. I maintain this emphasis
on the portion written by Montaigne himself.

7. This is perhaps a not too subtle reference to André Thévet.

8. Both François Rigolot and Fausta Garavini have remarked the word choice
as important as the incipit of the work.

Works Cited
Bideaux, Michel. "Le Journal de voyage de Montaigne: un "Essai" sur l'Italie?"
Montaigne e l'Italia : atti del congresso internazionale di studi di Milano-
Lecco. 26-30 Oct. 1988. Geneva: Slatkine, 1988. 453-467. Print.

Diderot, Denis. Supplément au Voyage de Bougainville. Ed. Michel Delon.

Saint-Amand, France: Gallimard, 2003. Print

Frame, Donald M. Note on the Travel Journal. The Complete Works of

Montaigne. By Michel de Montaigne. Trans. Donald M. Frame. Stanford,
CA: Stanford UP, 1957. 861-866. Print.

Garavini, Fausta. "Montaigne, écrivain italien?" Etudes Montaignistes en hom-

mage à Pierre Michel Paris: Champion, 1984. 117-129. Print.

Healy, Margaret. "Journeying with the 'Stone': Montaigne's Healing Travel

Journal ." Literature and Medicine 24.2 (2005): 231-249. Print.

Kushner, Eva. "'Subjectivité' et 'altérité' chez quelques voyageurs du

XVIe siècle." Travel Writing and Cultural Memory. Proceedings of the
XVth Congress of the International Comparative Literature Association
" Literature as Cultural Memory. " Leiden 16-22 Aug. 1997. Ed. Maria Alziro
Seixo. Vol. 9. Amsterdam : Rodopi, 2000. 281-293. Print.

Lestringant, Frank. "Montaigne topographe et la description de l'Italie."

Montaigne e l'Italia : atti del congresso internazionale di studi di Milano-
Lecco. 26-30 Oct. 1988. Geneva: Slatkine, 1988. 623-642. Print.

Majorano, Matteo. "Paesaggi interior nel 'Journal de voyage."' Montaigne e l'I-

talia : atti del congresso internazionale di studi di Milano-Lecco. 26-30 Oct.
1988. Geneva: Slatkine, 1988. 491-501. Print.

Monga, Luigi. "Itinéraires de Français en Italie à l'époque de Montaigne."

Montaigne e l'Italia : atti del congresso internazionale di studi di Milano-
Lecco. 26-30 Oct. 1988. Geneva: Slatkine, 1988. 437-452. Print.

Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de. Les Essais. Ed. P. Villey et Verdun L. Saulnier.
<www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/montaigne>. Web. 21 July
2015.

- . Journal de voyage. Ed. François Rigolot. Paris: Presses Universitaires de

France, 1992. Print.

Rigolot, François. Introduction. Journal de voyage. By Michel de Montaigne.

Ed. François Rigolot. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992. v-xxxvi.
.Print.

165

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Melinda A. Cro
Stegagno Picchio, Luciana. "The Portuguese, Montaigne and the Cannibals
of Brazil: The Problem of the 'Other'." Portuguese Studies 6 (1990): 71-84.
Print.

Thévet, André. Cosmographie de Levant. Ed. Frank Lestringant. Geneva: Droz,

1985. Print.

Todorov, Tzvetan. "L'Etre et l'Autre: Montaigne." Trans. Pierre Saint-Amand.

Yale French Studies 64 (1983) : 113-144. Print.

About the Author

Melinda A. Cro is currently an Assistant Professor of French and the French Language
Program Coordinator in the Department of Modern Languages at Kansas State University.
She earned her doctorate in 2010 from The University of Georgia. Her research interests
focus in particular on early modern French and Italian literature. She has published
a monograph ( Armas y Letras: la Conquista de Italia (1405-1625), Madrid: Fundación
Universitaria Española, 2012) as well as articles in Moreana and Romance Notes.

166

This content downloaded from 150.182.182.59 on Wed, 03 Jan 2018 15:24:42 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms