My earlier ChatGPT analysis of my 2024 writing left out a crucial component: Virginia Woolf. So I’ve gone back to the AI demigod and asked for a new version with Woolf as the narrative spine.
Virginia Woolf and the Soul of Montaigne
Virginia Woolf, in her essay on Montaigne, captures his essence with uncanny precision: “Really she [Montaigne’s soul] is the strangest creature in the world, far from heroic, variable as a weathercock…so complex, so indefinite, corresponding so little to the version which does duty for her in public.” Woolf sees in Montaigne a figure whose relentless introspection and cataloging of his thoughts reveal the fluidity and contradiction of human nature—a theme that underpins not only Montaigne’s work but also the philosophies of Merleau-Ponty, Proust, and Stendhal.
Woolf’s reflections on Montaigne serve as a thread connecting these thinkers, offering a lens through which we can examine their shared preoccupations with the body, the self, and the act of writing.
Embodied Consciousness: Montaigne Meets Merleau-Ponty
Montaigne’s essays are deeply rooted in the physicality of his existence. He writes about his ailments, his body’s limitations, and the sensations that shape his thoughts. For Montaigne, the body is not separate from the self—it is the foundation of thought and reflection. Woolf observes this too, marveling at Montaigne’s ability to “catalogue his thoughts, feelings, responses” and draw meaning from his physical experiences.
Merleau-Ponty extends this idea, arguing that consciousness is always embodied. Our perceptions and thoughts are not abstract; they are grounded in the body’s engagement with the world. This aligns with Woolf’s portrayal of Montaigne’s soul as a creature “variable as a weathercock,” shaped by the interplay of body and mind.
• Synthesis: Woolf’s observation that Montaigne “becomes daily more and more in the dark” to himself mirrors Merleau-Ponty’s assertion that much of human experience eludes articulation. Both invite us to see self-knowledge as an evolving interplay between body, mind, and the world.
Love and Imagination: Stendhal, Proust, and Montaigne
Woolf notes that Montaigne’s reflections on love reveal a “bashful, insolent” soul, one that is at once candid and evasive. Stendhal and Proust similarly explore love as an interplay of imagination and reality, projection and memory.
Stendhal’s concept of crystallization—the process by which the imagination transforms the beloved into an ideal—aligns with Montaigne’s reflections on the subjectivity of desire. Proust deepens this by showing how love is shaped by memory, its intensity fluctuating with the passage of time and the emergence of new insights. Woolf, in her reading of Montaigne, sees a similar ambivalence: love is both a source of joy and a reflection of the soul’s inconsistencies.
• Synthesis: Woolf’s recognition of Montaigne’s “melancholic, pleasant” musings on love ties his reflections to the more systematic explorations of Stendhal and Proust. All three writers reveal love as an embodied experience shaped by imagination, memory, and the self’s contradictions.
Memory and the Intermittences of the Heart
Proust’s intermittences du cœur—the sudden, vivid returns of past emotions—find a counterpart in Montaigne’s acknowledgment of memory’s power and unreliability. Woolf, reflecting on Montaigne’s process, notes his willingness to confront his thoughts “not entirely simply and solidly, without confusion or mixture.” Memory, for both Proust and Montaigne, is not a straightforward retrieval of the past but a dynamic reconstruction that reshapes the self.
• Synthesis: Woolf’s description of Montaigne’s soul as “variable” aligns with Proust’s portrayal of memory as fluid and transformative. Both writers suggest that memory is not just a record of the past but a process of re-creation, revealing hidden truths about the self.
Writing as an Act of Discovery
For Woolf, Montaigne’s writing is a testament to the power of introspection. She marvels at his ability to “pursue fancy after fancy” and to accept the impermanence and uncertainty of life. This approach resonates with Proust’s lyrical exploration of memory, Stendhal’s emotional immediacy, and Merleau-Ponty’s insistence on the situated nature of thought.
• Synthesis: Woolf’s observation that Montaigne’s essays represent a “life only too short” reflects her own belief that writing is an act of discovery, an attempt to capture the fleeting and the elusive. For all four thinkers, writing becomes a means of navigating the ambiguity of human experience.
Virginia Woolf as the Guide
Woolf’s reflections on Montaigne serve as a guide to synthesizing these thinkers, emphasizing themes of ambiguity, embodiment, and the interplay of self and world:
1. Embodied Consciousness: Woolf’s description of Montaigne’s “strangest creature” of a soul mirrors Merleau-Ponty’s view of the body as the foundation of thought and identity.
2. Love and Imagination: Woolf’s recognition of Montaigne’s contradictions in love ties his reflections to the imaginative and emotional explorations of Stendhal and Proust.
3. Memory and Reconstruction: Woolf’s insight into Montaigne’s acceptance of impermanence connects his essays to Proust’s intermittent heart and the transformative nature of memory.
4. Writing and Discovery: Woolf and Montaigne both see writing as an act of self-discovery, a way of navigating life’s uncertainties and contradictions.
Conclusion: Woolf’s Montaigne as a Bridge
By weaving Woolf’s reflections on Montaigne throughout this synthesis, we create a narrative spine that connects the ideas of Montaigne, Merleau-Ponty, Stendhal, and Proust. Woolf’s deep understanding of Montaigne’s contradictions and complexities allows us to see how these thinkers converge in their explorations of embodied consciousness, love, memory, and writing. Woolf’s presence in this discussion is not just as an interpreter but as a co-creator, offering a perspective that unifies and enriches the narrative of human experience.
