Montaigne, a prominent figure of humanism in Renaissance, offered unique and complex opinions on human emotions that can be speculated and evaluated through his essay, “How We Weep and Laugh at the Same Thing.” Upon reading the essay, I took notice of the several textual allusions Montaigne includes in this essay. Firstly, he refers to the historical figure Antigonus, and his enemy King Pyrrhus. Montaigne also mentions the similar relationships between Duke René of Lorraine and Duke Charles of Burgundy, Count de Montfort and Charles de Blois, and Caesar and Pompey. Though the specific historical facts escape this essay, when analyzing Montaigne’s take on human emotions the focus is placed on one constant variable: when faced with the death of their enemies, these leaders were confronted with sadness rather than satisfaction. Montaigne speculates how this overlap of emotions—happiness and sadness; laughing and weeping—is a complexity of the human mind. He begins his speculation by arguing against the notion that these leaders were “masking” their real feelings, in order to appear sympathetic. Montaigne thought that while we are capable of masking our emotions, humans “ought to consider when judging such events how our souls are often shaken by conflicting emotions” (Montaigne 263). I think that by analyzing this overlap of emotions through the lens of historical leaders that experienced it, Montaigne created the perfect example. This is because as those leaders strived to conquer lands and expand their power, they were inevitably confronted with enemies. As a result, the only outcome for either party was the death of themselves or of their enemy. We cannot say that they were happy with the death of their enemy, because they showed sadness when confronted with this death. We also cannot say that this sadness was merely a mask of their happiness. Montaigne’s use of this historical lens is nearly a perfect example of conflicting human emotions.
Montaigne continues this speculation into his own personal experiences, specifically with his “manservant.” Upon this transition into his personal experience, Montaigne offers his thoughts on how our perspective is constantly changing, and in turn how this affects our emotions. He shares another great example of conflicting emotions when he writes:
When I rail at my manservant I do so sincerely with all my mind: my curses are real not feigned. But once I cease to fume, if he needs help from me I am glad to help him: I turn over the page. When I call him a dolt or a calf I have no intention of stitching such labels onto him for ever: nor do I believe I am contradicting myself when I later call him an honest fellow. No one characteristic clasps us purely and universally in its embrace. (263-264)
This particular example highlights Montaigne’s point of perspective. I think he is establishing the idea that though our emotions constantly fluctuate, this does not mean that one way we feel has any superiority over the other. Our emotions may grasp us in one moment, but as time passes these feelings shift. A person cannot be defined by a singular moment, because we are far more complex as we are constantly changed by our experiences. Furthermore, Montaigne continues the conversation on perspective as he writes, “Nothing has changed; but our mind contemplates the matter in a different light and sees it from another aspect: for everything has many angles” (265). Going back to the example of historical figures, I think this is how the leaders felt as they saw their dead enemy. When confronted face-to-face with the death, they see it through a new perspective. This is why they weep; they are experiencing the death of their enemy as if it was their own.
This essay dives into intriguing aspects of human emotions, and Montaigne offers a unique and complicated perspective. When taking a look at Montaigne’s overall view of emotions in relation to humanism, the depth of his understanding reveals even more complexity. Throughout all his essays, Montaigne establishes a distinction between exterior feelings and what is hidden internally; that our deepest feelings may be concealed as we put on a “mask,” and what appears to affects us greatly only impacts our true self scarcely (Schmitter). The intellectual journey Montaigne takes us on is truly a fascinating one, and I enjoyed analyzing and contemplating his essay, “How We Weep and Laugh at the Same Thing.”