Self and Other According to Renaissance Authors

During the Renaissance, many authors struggled with the problem of self- knowledge. They constantly asked questions, trying to determine who they were and what knowing oneself really meant. Shakespeare might have put it best when he wrote, "Who is it that will tell me who I am?"[1] Although there were many who addressed this question, some of the most interesting responses came from Machiavelli, More, Luther, Montaigne and Shakespeare. Each of these authors proposed different ways to examine the self and liberate it from constraints. However, after careful assessment of their individual ideas and suggestions, it becomes clear that there are some common features held by many of the great thinkers. The best way to demonstrate this is to examine the authors in a chronological order and compare and contrast their positions on the topic of self and other.

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote his most famous work, The Prince, in 1513. As part of the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli experienced quite turbulent political conditions. In particular, he was disturbed with the state of Florence. As a result, Machiavelli had an extremely negative view of human nature. He wrote, "One can make this generalization about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit..."[2] He did not assume that human nature would improve at all, so he decided it was best to simply understand man instead of trying to change him. He proposed that the way to understand and cope with the nature of man was through the creation of political science. Machiavelli made universal rules of politics that would never have to be changed since, in his mind, the condition of man never changes. He based this science on the belief that the root love of all people is property so it was not feasible to take that away. Instead, to achieve peace, order and unity, a ruler had to put aside honestas and not concern himself with what is moral or honorable. According to Machiavelli, it was better for a ruler to be feared than loved. People have greater respect for those whom they are scared of than for those whom they love. Only a leader capable of evoking fear in his followers was necessary to make everything right, as opposed to the unification of people. Without this strong leader, harsh punishments, and strict regulation, a country was like a river that was out of control-"I compare fortune to one of those wild rivers which, when they are enraged, flood the plains, tear down trees and buildings, wash soil from one place to deposit it in another."[3] By writing this, Machiavelli was showing that countries cannot be successful if people just let fortune or God control them. In reality, dykes, or well-regulated power and strict rules, are needed to keep countries in order. In particular, Machiavelli points out that Italy is in great need of some reinforcements. Overall, Machiavelli proposed the implementation of political science to maintain peace, order, and unity for an unchanging race of inherently evil people.

While Machiavelli recommended political science, Sir Thomas More suggested new social conditionings. More, a Christian humanist, differed from Machiavelli in that he believed in the human potential for improvement. Instead of disregarding honestas, like Machiavelli did, More believed in proving or persuading something by showing it is both honestas and utilitas. In other words, he wanted to show that it was both moral and useful. He uses this method constantly throughout his book, Utopia, written in the year 1516. In Book One of Utopia, More writes about a familiar conversation that raises many serious problems. More was unsatisfied living in a society where punishments were not effective, kings were interested only in new land, and there was a severely unequal distribution of wealth. Then, in Book Two, he describes a traveler's tale that describes an imaginary place in which these problems are solved. Thus, More successfully uses both literature and rhetoric to demonstrate his ideas and beliefs.

More started off Utopia by talking about exploration. He does this to show that encounters with others should be reason to question oneself. When Rafael explored new lands, he found many practices that seemed strange to him. However, after further examination, he also discovered several regulations that he thought might be useful for reforming European society. For example, Rafael found that the Utopians handled penalties for crime in a far better way than Europeans did. By including this point, More showed his contempt for the current methods of punishment that Machiavelli had previously endorsed. More thought that punishing people by killing them was not either honestas or utilitas. The Bible says that it is wrong to kill, so the punishment of death was not moral and the fact that crime continued showed that the penalty was not fixing anything. Throughout Book One, More used persuasion to show that Europe was in need of reform and by looking outward to other places it would begin to find answers.

More continued in Book Two by explaining Utopia, where everything was perfect and all of Europe's problems were solved. There, law and order were preserved and peace was kept. This was achieved through the removal of all privately owned land and the implementation of a new economic system where everyone was on the same level. According to More, by doing this, the Utopians eliminated pride, the root evil of all men. More wrote, "Pride, like a hellish serpent gliding through human hearts-or shall we say, like a sucking fish that clings to the ship of state? -is always dragging us back, and obstructing our progress towards a better way of life."[4] However, unlike Machiavelli, More did not believe that man was naturally evil at all. Instead, he thought it was entirely circumstantial that man was greedy and obsessed with pride. Thus, by eliminating the ownership of private land and reducing everyone to the same economic condition, greed and pride would be eliminated and society would be almost perfect. Even though this meant that almost all personal freedoms had to be eliminated and everyone had to conform, people could still be individuals by what they thought and read. More thought that new social conditionings used by Utopians provided "...the happiest basis for a civilized community, but also one which, in all human probability, will last forever."[5]

Martin Luther focused much more on the individual, contrasting with the collective society that More proposed. Luther, a theologian and Christian thinker, wrote Christian Liberty in 1520. In this book, Luther emphasized the empowerment of the common man. He thought that true faith was private and within one's self. Therefore, rituals and ceremonies were unnecessary and ineffective. To legitimatize the self, one had to wed his soul with Christ. According to Luther, without Christ, the soul was full of sins, death and damnation. This is similar to Machiavelli's view of human nature that all men are inherently evil. However, Luther did believe that with faith, the soul would wed with Christ, and Christ would take upon himself all that was his bride's and give the soul all of His grace, life, and salvation. Therefore, like Machiavelli, Luther did not think that free will or fortune was alone strong enough to guide men. For Luther though, instead of strict rules and regulations based on political science, the dyke that controlled the river was grace. He explained, "Who can understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich and divine bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems her from all her evil, and adorns her with all his goodness."[6]

Luther was also a firm believer in dualism. To him, man's body and soul were separate. The body was "the other self" that needed to be controlled. If left idle, the body would take over the soul altogether. However, by doing socially constructed works that the individual chose, this could be controlled and bodily appetites could be suppressed. These works alone though, could not be expected to be enough. One could only truly do good works if the word of God was inside of him. Furthermore, good works were useless without grace. Overall, a person needed to have a private relationship with God to receive the grace that would guide the soul. Then, through good works, the body would be controlled.

Michel de Montaigne was yet another Renaissance author who advocated private time. In his work entitled The Essays, Montaigne stressed that time alone gave free reign to the self. He personally let his thoughts go astray for a while during his own private time and he became acquainted with himself. However, like Luther and Machiavelli, he realized that there needed to be some direction as well. Without directing the goal and having some sort of plan, thoughts would go everywhere.

Montaigne was also responsible for a radical revival of skepticism. After examining many previously accepted philosophies, Montaigne concluded that there was no way to group everyone together. In his essay called On the Inconstancy of our Actions, Montaigne wrote, " ...but given the natural inconstancy of our behaviour and our opinions it has often occurred to me that even sound authors are wrong in stubbornly trying to weave us into one invariable and solid fabric."[7] Machiavelli was one of these authors who attempted to set rules that would apply to everyone, but Montaigne disagreed and maintained that there was no way to create a political science that would apply to all people. Thus, Montaigne also would have disagreed with More who proposed grouping everyone together and applying one set of rules and regulations for all.

On the other hand, More and Montaigne had similar attitudes towards the toleration of others. Just as More was tolerant to other civilizations that lived differently than Europeans, Montaigne was tolerant towards cannibals even though their practices seemed bizarre to many. Montaigne professed that humans should be open-minded about all of the matter within us.

Montaigne went on to address the issue of authority. He felt that it should be held by love instead of by fear. On fear, Montaigne said, "I myself have seen many men truly driven out of their minds by fear and it is certain that, while that fit lasts, fear engenders even in the most staid of men a terrifying confusion."[8] Then, when talking about affection of fathers for their children, Montaigne wrote,

"I condemn all violence in the education of tender minds which are

being trained for honour and freedom. In rigour and constraint there

is always something servile, and I hold that you will never achieve by

force what you can achieve by reason, intelligence, and skill."[9]

This was completely different from Machiavelli's viewpoint that it was best to be ruled by fear, because that is what people respond to best. Clearly, Montaigne had a bit more optimism about human nature than Machiavelli did.

Montaigne's method of discovering himself was revolutionary. He refused to accept things simply as they were told. Instead, he "ripped off masks" and formed his own opinions based upon his personal experiences. By self-observation and the assessment of others, he determined that there could be no universal rules to live by and that man should listen to his conscience and use reason instead.

An examination of King Lear by William Shakespeare reveals that Shakespeare read and was perhaps influenced by Montaigne. Like Montaigne, Shakespeare agreed that authority should come from love and not from fear. Cordelia, the daughter of King Lear, refused to publicly acknowledge her love to her father. She remained firm in her beliefs and showed in the end that there was an eloquence in silence. According to Shakespeare, it was not possible to put the intimate self into words. Shakespeare also incorporated masks into his play. By questioning and examining things and people closely, masks were constantly being denounced and exchanged. Skepticism was necessary to find the real truth.

Shakespeare also showed in King Lear how other people sometimes lead to personal insight. At one point in the play, King Lear sees Edgar/Tom as an alter ego. This is quite possibly the first insight that King Lear has about himself. By seeing someone else who has lost everything, Lear decides that he must bring himself down to nature. By doing this, he realized that it was simply human condition that everyone shared. Finally, instead of being in isolation, he became joined in communion with himself. If he had not taken the time to understand Edgar/Tom, he might never have realized this and been able to come to peace with himself.

After reading these five Renaissance authors, it is clear that there was no one answer to the question that Shakespeare posed. Each author took a different approach at examining the self and liberating it from constraints and root evils. However, I personally was most affected by Montaigne and I believe that he came up with the best method of finding out who we really are.

The skepticism and questioning that Montaigne used seemed to be a really effective starting off point. Often times it is easy to simply accept what has been taught to you without even knowing why. However, by questioning everything, one is able to find out the truth on his or her own. As Montaigne pointed out, everyone is different. Thus, it only makes sense that there should be a individual process of observation, experience, and question to find out who you really are.
It was also interesting to me the way that Montaigne described the conscience of man as an alter ego. He wrote, "So wondrous is the power of conscience! It makes us betray, accuse and fight against ourselves."[10] The conscience wars against all of us, trying to help us do the right thing and it by itself is ultimately the best punishment. Many people would prefer a Machiavellian punishment of physical pain to the conscience and mental torture. Therefore, our conscience is a powerful instrument in telling us who we are it helps us to overcome root evils or those taught to us by society.

Lastly, I really enjoyed Montaigne's bee metaphor, which sums up his entire philosophy. Like bees building their own hives, each individual constructs himself uniquely. Any question that has to do with the self must ultimately be answered by the self. Outside experience and observation are helpful in aiding one, but in the end, it must be the person who puts everything together to determine who they really are.

Works Cites

1. Shakespeare, King Lear, Act I, sc. 4; in the New Folger Library edition, Barbara Mowat and Pual Werstine eds. (New York: Pocket Books, 1993) p. 57.

2. Machiavelli, The Prince; in the Penguin Classics edition, George Bull translator. (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1999) p 54.

3. Machiavelli, p. 79-80

4. More, Utopia; in the Penguin Classics edition, Paul Turner translator. (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1965) p. 131

5. More, p. 131

6. Luther, Christian Liberty, Harold Grimm, editor. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957) p. 15

7. Montaigne, The Essays: A Selection; Penguin Classics edition, M.A. Screech, translator. (New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 1991) p. 124

8. Montaigne, p. 13

8. Montaigne, p. 153

9. Montaigne p. 146

10. Montaigne, p. 144