Man is Meant to Act and Not be Acted Upon

Having written, in his parting memoirs, a chapter On Physiognomy, we have good reason to presume that Michel de Montaigne had a personal opinion concerning physiognomy, or body-typing.  This opinion was evidently strong enough in his mind to sanction the inclusion of such a chapter.  Perhaps the popularity of physiognomy in France at the time, and in the classical texts that Montaigne had referenced throughout his life, helped to spurn these passions.  The assumption that whether one trusts anything is often relative to what that thing says about him is the basis for this analysis.  If this assumption holds true for Montaigne, comparing what he may have been told about himself from contemporary and classical physiognomists with how he describes himself in his Essays might show some of what his underlying influences were when writing this chapter.

I therefore shall ask the questions: How did Montaigne see himself?  How did his contemporary physiognomists tell him to see himself?  Did he agree with that contrast?  How did that affect his views or trust of physiognomy?

Physiognomy is the study of the correlation between body-type and personality.  This includes three similar, but distinct categories.  There are those that say:

1. “Pinocchio has a long nose; therefore he is a liar,” or, “The Lord, by divine providence, makes sure that all liars are born with long noses.”  This is the most commonly addressed type of physiognomy within Montaigne’s work.
2. “Pinocchio is a liar, so his nose grew longer.”  We express this idea in our culture when we say, “he was sad, so he got sick,” “his face looked hardened,” or simply “she glows.”
3. “Society trained him to be a liar due to its distrust of those with long noses.”  This is the least controversial explanation for physiognomy.

Montaigne showed a strong belief in the first type of physiognomy.  There is also reason to believe that he showed some faith in the other two.

1. “Pinocchio has a long nose; therefore he is a liar,” or, “The Lord, by divine providence, makes sure that all liars are born with long noses.”  In France at the time, and many times since, physiognomy was popular as a dream of law-enforcement agencies.  If it were possible to predict the crimes, the response could be more effective and less disruptive to the innocent.  The major antagonist of Les Misérables is a police officer whose goal it is to catalogue and categorize all citizens, not just by their crimes, but also by their nature.  Montaigne wrote with the aim of helping others avoid the pitfall of thinking physiognomy was a necessarily accurate omen.  He described physiognomy, as a science, as something not to be disregarded altogether, yet not 100% accurate.

A person’s look is but a feeble warranty;
and yet it is something considerable too.
(Cotton translation)

Those who did not share these moderative views on physiognomy have used them at times to justify hate-crimes, as was the case in WWII.  Within the military, law-enforcement, and athleticism, certain aspects of physiognomy are still used as standard.

What, then, would be the use of physiognomy to Montaigne?  Why would he study it?  Montaigne believed there was a certain statistical significance to the ominous aspects of physiognomy, although he admitted that it did not take into consideration man’s will or his ability to repent.  He implies that a trained professional physiognomist may often be able to predict the winner of a battle simply by judging who has the appropriate and “royal-looking” characteristics.  These characteristics would not be based on opinions of the physiognomist, but a complex and learned taxonomy.

Socrates asked the question “Is piousness just or is justice pious?”  Similarly Montaigne could ask, “Are the handsome handsome because they are righteous or are the righteous righteous because they are handsome?”

Aristotle says that the right to command belongs to the beautiful…  (Screech translation, p1200)

It appears that some faces are blessed, others unblessed, and there is I think an art which can distinguish between the debonair face and the simple one, the severe and the harsh, the sullen and the chagrined, the arrogant and the melancholic, and such other pairs of qualities.  Some forms of beauty are not merely proud but haughty; others are gentle, and others still are lifeless.  As for forecasting the future from them, such matters I leave undecided.  (Screech, 1201)

Again he makes specific mention that while an amateur physiognomist, like himself, may be tempted to equate his personal definition of beauty with righteousness.  He distinguishes that the “art” is not about judging the qualities, rather solely to note them.

Montaigne stylistically played the role of critic to himself.  As a skeptic, he could not disregard nor accept the portentous nature of physiognomy without some training.  Therefore he balances all his comments with opposing arguments.  Herein he moderates all his positive examples by comparing them to stories of Socrates.  Screech tells us that there was a prevailing mood in France that Zopyrus the Physiognomist was the greatest of his day, for he accused Socrates of being “a bad person and a born womanizer,” to which Socrates plead guilty (Screech, 1173).  [It could be argued that Socrates would plead guilty to that accusation independent of whether it was true according to the connotations of the word.]  Because of his comments and the prevalence of that view in 16^th century France, we will assume that Montaigne thought similarly concerning Zopyrus.

[Socrates] chanced to have so ugly a face and body… so unbecoming to the beauty of his soul, he who was so much in love, so madly in love, with beauty.  Nature did him an injustice there.  There is nothing more probably than the conformity and correspondence of the body and the mind.  (Screech, 1198)

Here Montaigne says that Nature committed the injustice, not Socrates.  “Nature” was often used interchangeably with “God.”  Surely, this comment would have stirred some discussion, especially if quoted out of context.  Montaigne and his contemporaries repeatedly reverenced Socrates, and for him not to have a flawless physiognomic report was a threat to one of their cultural anchors, eliciting a backlash similar to when an American argues whether George Washington had slaves.

Was one of the motivations for the murder of Socrates, merely that he was powerful, and his disposition denoted that he could not be trusted with power?  In other words, was he killed because he was ugly?  [Was Christ killed for the same reason?  Montaigne probably did not know to, and was probably not referencing, our interpretation of Christ having “no beauty that we should desire him.”  (Isaiah 53:2)]

One aspect studied by physiognomy is the tendency to automatically trust those who look trustworthy.  Montaigne categorized the trusting of one who looks like a mother as such an instinct.  It is a natural instinct, falling under the category of Natural Physiognomy (that Nature sets your countenance in advance to reflect who you are and who you will become.)  A mother cannot perform her duties without infinite trust from her children.  Thus, Nature makes sure she has every physical advantage in that regard.  At the same time, “motherhood softens a woman.”  This also attempts to explain why we are attracted to those with smooth skin and symmetrical faces.  By giving these differences, Montaigne again means to keep the reader from using physiognomy solely as a way of declaring someone “good” or “bad,” but as corresponding to his or her role.  A mother may be evil, but still look motherly.

We cannot go wrong by following nature.  (Screech, 1201)

[For] there are favorable physiognomies, so that in a crowd.  Of victorious enemies, you shall presently choose, among men you never saw before, one rather than another, to whom to surrender, and with whom to entrust your life; and yet not properly upon the consideration of beauty.  (Cotton)

If my task were to administer floggings, I would do so more severely to criminals who belie and betray the promises which Nature had planted on their features:  I would inflict harsher punishment on malice in a man who looked debonair.  (Screech, 1200)

This quotes raise another issue altogether.  There is evidence within these quotes and others within this essay that Montaigne questioned heavily whether it is right for us to perform outside accordance with our physiognomic destinies.

Contemplate yourself.  You will find within you Nature’s arguments concerning death—true arguments, most fit to serve you in your need.  (Screech, 1176)

Montaigne has written many times before this essay, for example in the essay On Cannibals, that man is never more in harmony with nature than when he shows faith through performing according to his role rather than according to his cultural training.

We make, methinks, a mistake, in that we do not enough trust heaven with our affairs, and pretend to more from our own conduct than appertains to us: and therefore it is that our designs so often miscarry.  Heaven is jealous of the extent that we attribute to the right of human prudence above its own, and cuts it all the shorter by how much the more we amplify it.  (Cotton)

I have, as I have said elsewhere, as to my own concern, simply and implicitly embraced this ancient rule, “That we cannot fail in following Nature,” and that the sovereign precept is to “conform ourselves to her.” I have not, as Socrates did, corrected my natural composition by the force of reason, and have not in the least disturbed my inclination by art; I have let myself go as I came; I contend not; my two principal parts live, of their own accord, in peace and good intelligence, but my nurse’s milk, thank God, was tolerably wholesome and good…  That reason which straightens Socrates from his vicious bend, renders him obedient to the gods and men of authority in his city; courageous in death, not because his soul is immortal, but because he is mortal….  (Cotton)

And yet I fancy that those features and molds of face, and those lineaments, by which men guess at our internal complexions and our fortunes to come, is a thing that does not very directly and simply lie under the chapter of beauty and deformity, no more than every good odor and serenity of air promises health, nor all fog and stink, infection in a time of pestilence.  Such as accuse ladies of contradicting their beauty by their manners, do not always hit right; for, in a face which is none of the best, there may dwell some air of probity and trust; as on the contrary I have read, between two beautiful eyes, menaces of a dangerous and malignant nature.  (Cotton)

I cannot often enough repeat how great an esteem I have for beauty, that potent and advantageous quality; [Socrates] called it “a short tyranny,” and Plato, “the privilege of nature.”  We have nothing that excels it in reputation; it has the first place in the commerce of men; it presents itself in the front; seduces and prepossesses our judgments with great authority and wonderful impression.  (Cotton)

Montaigne spends a lot of time acknowledging that a man’s personality is not necessarily exactly equal to his physiognomic portent, but he also seems to believe that our place in this world should not be questioned.  If the Lord made you a thief, it is your role.  On Cannibals is largely about this exact subject, that the untrained man is pure, and harmonious with himself and others.

Learning certainly does us a good service by instructing us very precisely about the dimensions of all [d]evils…  What a pity if a little of their size should escape our sensations and our knowledge!  (Screech, 1189)

Whether evils is translated as a noun or a participle make a tremendous difference; for evils as a participle involves physiognomy, the facial features of devils.  Evils as a noun is probably referring to Dante’s dimensions of Hell.

1. The second type of physiognomy, “Pinocchio is a liar, so his nose grew longer.”  We have the expressions in our culture “His face was hardened” and “She glows.”

We, and also Montaigne, believe these to be outward expressions of internal thoughts.  Consider this common parable from Abraham Lincoln.

This is the story about the politicians from his own state of Illinois coming in and putting great pressure on him to name a certain man as postmaster for Chicago, a post very important in the whole patronage picture then, as it is today.  And Mr.  Lincoln said, “No, no.  I’m sorry.  I just won’t consider that.  I won’t make that appointment.” They were very unhappy about this.  It meant a great deal in terms of the new Republican Party.

So finally the one senator and the congressman came to him and they said, “Now, we have just come to get your answer, and you haven’t got a good answer.  You might just as well give in to us.”

He replied, “No, I won’t do it.  I won’t do it and I’ll tell you why.  I don’t like his face.”

They said, “There, you see.  That is the most frivolous kind of an answer.  You just don’t have an answer.  A man is not responsible for his face.  He can’t help how he looks.”

“No,” Lincoln tipped back in his chair, and with that wonderful art of contemplative, reflective manner, said, “No, I’m sorry; that’s a good answer.  Every man is responsible for his face after he is forty years old.”

(BYU Speeches of the Year, “October 17, 1960, Marquis W.  Childs, The Political Picture”)

Similarly, many health disciplines are based on ideas of correlative body parts.  Such are the fields of acupuncture, iridology, and certain aspects of neurology.  A stimulus in one part of the body often/always yields a reaction in another part of the body.  A prick in a certain lobe of the brain makes the patient’s hand twitch.  The physiognomist’s question, then, is whether strengthening the hand would then strengthen the corresponding point in the brain.

James E Loehr EdD, wrote a great book in the field of body-mind-spirit-harmony in the field of Sports Psychology called Toughness Training for Life.  Similar to Yogism, he believes that all mental actions are stored in the body, and all physical actions affect the mind.  Like many physiognomists, he believes that controlling the outside will affect the inside, and vice versa.  If we are unhappy, we should smile, not just for psychological affirmation, but for the Pavlovian chemological reactions that result.  He believes that biologically we must become happy if we smile.

It is difficult to find comments from Montaigne which directly support this view.  Perhaps he evidenced belief in this idea through the earlier-quoted remark “I have not, as Socrates did, corrected my natural composition by the force of reason…”  Did he mean physical composition?

1. It is also crucial to recognize the most overlooked, but also the least controversial angle from which one may approach a study of physiognomy.  “Society trained him to be a liar due to its distrust of those with long noses.”  We see this with the minority population of any culture; be it a racial, ethnic, or other type of minority.  Because they look different, minorities are distrusted, and are expected to act the part.

‘Ipsi animi magni refert, quali in corpore locati sint: multa enim e corpore existunt, quae acuant mentem: multa, quae obtundant.’  [It matters much to souls in what sort of body they are lodged; for many of the body’s qualities serve to sharpen the mind, and many others make it obtuse.]  The author here is talking about unnatural ugliness and physical deformity.  But we also use ugliness to mean an immediately recognizable uncomeliness, which is lodged primarily in the face and which we often find distasteful for quite trivial causes: for its colouring, a spot, a coarse expression or for some inexplicable reason even when the limbs are well-proportioned and whole.  In that category was the ugliness which clothed the most beautiful soul of La Boëtie.  Such surface ugliness, imperious though it may be, is less harmful in its effects on a man’s mind and is not, in people’s opinion, by any means a certain prognostic.  The other kind, which is strictly speaking deformity, is more substantial and more inclined to turn its effects inwards.  The shape of the foot is revealed not only the a shoe of fine polished leather but by any close-fitting one.  (Screech, 1199)

Here he says that we should be careful not to confuse “natural ugliness” with that which is caused by something external.  If a man’s chin is dented with a board, it usually does not have the same effect as were his chin dented before birth, although it may have some of the same effects.  It evidences the third type of physiognomy by implying that it has some effect in terms such as “imperious though it may be,” which gives the deformity the power to control the mind.

So how did Montaigne see himself, and was that in accordance with his physiognomic training?

The difficulty of experimenting with physiognomy from an untrained perspective is that the quantitative measurements become qualitative, since I do not know enough physiognomic jargon to analyze quantitatively.  As with Montaigne, the physiognomist’s taxonomy necessarily were only attempted through my opinions.  I know what a “long nose” is in my culture, but with no anthropological significance.  This still allows the third type of physiognomy, but, as Montaigne’s essay showed, we are prone to always try the first.  So whether Montaigne’s nose is long or thin is up to me to decide, while a professional would have an educated point of reference from which to decide.  So feel free to disagree with me on the labels I have used.  I edited out The Mouth and The Chin altogether, because I did not trust my ability to evaluate on those notes.

One problem I did not anticipate was that all the pictures of him look different.  When the third portrait was drawn, he was older and had gained a lot of weight.  His activity-level probably plummeted when leaving the military, causing some weight-gain.  There is also a burst in weight at his age.  Whether his earlier or later look matched his personality cannot be known, except perhaps through physiognomy.  Many would argue that they both matched his personality perfectly—that when the personality changes the look must also, and vice versa.  For this reason I have included the descriptions of a triangular face and a round face.  All other descriptions are those which I feel apply to him, as evidenced by the above pictures.

He said,

I have a face, which, both in beauty and as it is interpreted, is of good augury—and that makes quite a contrary show to that of Socrates.  It has often befallen me, that upon the mere credit of my presence and air, persons who had no manner of knowledge of me, have put a very great confidence in me, whether in their own affairs or mine; and I have in foreign parts thence obtained singular and rare favors.  (Cotton)

The triangular face (pictures 1 & 2):
[The triangular face] is the symbol of mentality, denoting the quick and sometimes deep thinker.  In either case, it represents a mind to which ideas are as real as actualities—a person who will not be satisfied until those dreams become tangible achievements.

Many intellectuals are a strong triangular type, but this type is by no means confined to scholarly pursuits.  Anything demanding brainwork is attractive to them.  They may have inventive, scientific or legal minds; or they may simply be attracted to fields where their analytical ability and their unusual memories will serve them to the full.

The round face (picture 3):
Almost completely circular, this easygoing type likes comfort, luxury, and good times.  Sometimes the round face is elongated, but if the curve is continuous, it means the same.  However, a person of this type seldom becomes lazy or indolent except when he can afford it…

Though people of this type may be indulgent both to themselves and to their friends, they have a strong sense of values, which is often accompanied by sound judgment, a combination that spells success.  They have keen insight into the abilities of other persons, which makes them good middlemen in many transactions.  Their sense of justice enables them to recognize another person’s needs and desires without overlooking their own.  Balancing of one purpose against another is one of their fortes.  They are good advisers and know bow to settle issues to the satisfaction of all.

Men of this type show a quiet confidence and rise to high positions in business and social life, but usually with very little fanfare.  They are apt to sit back and let others take the credit while they reap their own share of the profit and establish themselves still more strongly.

Forehead:
When high, this denotes a strongly mental type; if wide, a tendency toward theory and philosophy, hence the expression “highbrow.”  High but narrow, an analytical scientific mind…

Eyebrows:
If light or pencil-thin show a fastidious but sometimes fussy nature.  Curved eyebrows show a more-inquiring type…  Arched eyebrows indicate an imaginative nature.

Eyes:
Eyes, when roundish, show a trustful, often naive person.  Shape, good-humor, yet with a canny outlook and readiness to rumors.

Wide-open eyes show a friendly, confiding person.

Narrowed with a keen, retentive observer, often suspicious and inclined to misgivings.

Vertical Nose:
[The vertical nose] shows a steady nature, with a willingness to accept routine.  They would rather work on a problem than waste time in useless conferences.  Given a task, they will go through with it, if given reasonable time.

If large, an aggressive nature, with a liking for things.  A thin nose nervous type, easily annoyed…  A long nose betokens a careful, won position.

Ears:
When set close to the head, the ears show a person who is generally satisfied with things as they are, a careful planner, who saves for the future.

(excerpted from Physiognomy: Character Analysis from the Face, Head, and Other Features; http://brezy.com/face/; Sabrina; 1999)

Although all of the above statements are true, individually they could still be coincidental.  Taken together, there is a definite statistical significance.  If only 2 opposing personality traits were given to each of the above body parts, with 6 body-parts discussed, there would still be a 1:2⁶ or 1:64 chance of all the portents being the same.

Let’s see then, if the interpretations we just read from an amateur physiognomist has any relation to how Montaigne describes himself in the following paragraphs.

And in truth I am naturally very little inclined to suspicion and distrust; I willingly incline toward excuse and the gentlest interpretation; I take men according to the common order, and do not more believe in those perverse and unnatural inclinations, unless convinced by manifest evidence, than I do in monsters and miracles; and I am, moreover, a man who willingly commit myself to Fortune, and throw myself headlong into her arms; and I have hitherto found more reason to applaud than to blame myself for so doing, having ever found her more discreet about, and a greater friend to my affairs, than I am myself…  (Cotton)

If my face did not answer for me, if men did not read in my eyes and in my voice the innocence of my intention, I had not lived so long without quarrels and without giving offense, seeing the indiscreet liberty I take to say, right or wrong, whatever comes into my head, and to judge so rashly of things.  This way may, with reason, appear uncivil, and ill adapted to our way of conversation; but I have never met with any who judged it outrageous or malicious, or that took offense at my liberty, if he had it from my own mouth; words repeated have another kind of sound and sense.  Nor do I hate any person; and I am so slow to offend, that I cannot do it, even upon the account of reason itself; and when occasion has required me to sentence criminals, I have rather chosen to fail in point of justice than to do it: ‘Ut magis peccari nolim, quam satis animi ad vindicanda peccata habeam.’  (Cotton)

The phrasing of these two paragraphs sound unlike Montaigne’s other writings.  In contrast, they sound like he was using “physiognomic terms,” like he was referring to something written about himself, or memorized jargon.  If he is in fact quoting someone else, that would evidence that these things are not only his beliefs, but those beliefs which have been corroborated through his studies.

Montaigne felt that physiognomy judged him accurately, and therefore believed that a professional physiognomist could approximate anyone’s base nature thereby.  He warns us continually not to judge people on how they look, but to consider one’s look as one of many factors.  I believe a major motivation for Montaigne writing this chapter within his Essays was to dissuade those who did not have any training from using the title “physiognomy” to justify their hate-crimes.  To accomplish that he continually referenced Socrates, who “looked bad” but was an idol of Montaigne’s culture.

That portrait of Socrates which his friends have bequeathed to us receives our approbation only because we are overawed by the general approval of them.  It is not from our own knowledge, since they do not follow our practices:  If something like them were to be produced nowadays there are few who would rate them highly.  (Screech, 1173)

May we assume that Montaigne means to analogize the path of acceptance of Socrates with that of physiognomy in general, for surely “if something like [physiognomy] were to be produced nowadays there are few who would rate [it] highly.”

Montaigne evidences some ethical questions about physiognomy.  Surely it was often as unpopular a notion then as it is now.  He knew from personal experience that those without substantial training will rarely consider the error-factor, and thereby will develop prejudices from their readings.  Montaigne did not believe that physiognomy would hold any weight in the future unless preserved correctly.  He believed that those who claimed to use it needed to study more, and the untrained needed to quit using it as a justification for their racism.  This was his goal in writing this paper.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Montaigne, philosopher of life, part 1: How to live | Sarah Bakewell (guardian.co.uk)

Tags: France, George Washington, Law enforcement agency, Michel de Montaigne, Philosophy, Police, Police officer, Psychology, United States, Writing