In most writings, there is always a contention as to who is speaking in the text. Barthes in his works gives a description of transition in the role of the author from traditional to contemporary day’s demise of the author in texts. This paper seeks to compare how the ideas in Barthes’s work, “the death of the author” have been used in Montaigne’s work, “on cannibals”.
In his work ‘the death of the author’ Barthes argues that a person could never take up the obligation for a narrative in traditional societies. This was the role of a mediator who could only be attributed to good knowledge of the narrative. On the contrary according to Barthes, the ‘birth’ of the author in modern days has come with a great importance being attached to the presence of the author in texts. The representation of literature today is unfairly concentrated on the author and his attributes. The texts in most parts reveal the author’s personality, his experiences, his life and likes (Bathes, 143). In the same case, this idea as discussed by Barthes can be clearly seen in Montaigne’s work ‘on the cannibal’. In this text, the author takes preeminence and describes his experience in the text. The reader gets an impression of the author’s life and experiences just as Barthes describes. In the text for example, Montaigne asserts that;
“I had with me for a long time a man who had lived ten or twelve years in that other world which has been discovered in our time” (Montaigne, 105).
With such description in the text, the author is be directly related to activities being described. In the earlier parts of Montaigne’s work therefore, one gets an impression that it is the author’s experiences being described, just as Barthes suggests.
According to Barthes, there has been a lot of effort to decentralize the image of the author in texts and literary works over the years. Withdrawing the author from literature and texts has immensely transformed the texts in contemporary day. One can therefore read such texts without encountering the author at any level (Bathes, 145). Similarly, this idea of Barthes can be noted in later parts of Montaigne’s work ‘on the cannibal’. The author for instance gives a detailed description of the barbarians in the text. At this point, the author has been withdrawn from the happenings in the text. There is no indication therefore of the author’s relation with the barbarians. One is able to read and learn more about the barbarians without directly encountering the author in the text. This can be realized in this quote;
“If of the same age they generally call one another brothers; those who are younger are called children, and the old men are fathers to all the rest. They leave to their heirs the undivided possession of their property, to be held in common.” (Montaigne, 114)
In this case, the author has been disconnected from the text. One can form an opinion about the barbarians without necessarily relating to the author’s experiences, feelings or attitudes.
Barthes in his text the ‘death of the author’ proposes yet another idea. He argues that in cases where the author is related to the texts in modern literature, he is considered to have lived in the past. It is believed that the author only cultivates the book and he must have existed before the book to do this (Barthes, 145).
This idea of Barthes has also been used widely f in Montaigne’s work ‘on the cannibal’. In some part of the work, the author makes descriptions to suggest that he understands the instances owing to his past experience. One reading the text gets a clear impression that the author writes the text from happenings and experiences of the past. Montaigne is assumed to have existed before the time of writing the text which acquitted him with the basis for his writing. This can for example be seen in the description of the Hungarians. The author notes that;
“The Hungarians of old, who were very bellicose fighters never, pursued their advantage further once they had brought their enemy to ask for mercy. Having once atorted this mission from them, they let them go unhurt and without any ransom, compelling them” (Montaigne, 115)
In this case using the same ideas of Bathes, the reader gets an impression that the author’s knowledge of the subjects could be out of his past experience with them.
Barthes suggests in his text that the contemporary author is not related to the time before the text. The author in this instance is brought forth concurrently with the text. Everything the author writes is related to no other time than the present. The author therefore makes the narration in ‘first person’ (Barthes, 145) In Montaigne’s work, the usage of this idea can be noted repeatedly. He for example uses this idea in the description of the prisoners’ society “their men have many wives., one beautiful thing about their marriage is that whereas our wives anxiously keep us from enjoying the friendship and kindness of other women,
their wives are equally anxious to procure just those favours for their husband” (Montaigne, 117)
The reader gets a view that the author most likely exists in the same society as the subject, an idea that Barthes earlier purports.
The work of Montaigne “on the cannibal” to a large extend uses the ideas of Barthes in his work “the death of the author”. It is however important to note the differences that exists between Barthes’s ideas and Montaigne’s text. According to Barthes’s ideas, a text is not a mere line of words that conveys ‘theological’ sense. It therefore should not center at revealing the author’s message. A text, is multi-faceted space in which a mixture of writings, not necessarily original, combine and clash (Barthes, 146). The responsibility of the author is only to combine these writings so as to make sense. The author should however refrain from resting on a particular set of writing. He should imitate a motion that is always forward as opposed to original (Barthes, 146). This idea is a contrast in the work of Montaigne. In most parts of his texts, he concentrates on narrating his experience as he contacted it. He does not escape for the original case as Barthes suggests. Because of this, the author fails to combine various writings to his assumptions. For example, the author concludes on the personality and nature of a person based on the personal experience he had with that person.
“This man who stayed with me was a plain, simple fellow, and men of this sort are likely to give a true testimony” (Montaigne, 108).
Such an assumption based on a few lines of a text is however not promoted in Barthes’ ideas.
Conclusion
Montaigne in his text extensively uses Barthes ideas of the transition in the role of the author in texts and literary works. There remains a disagreement as to whether the author should be totally removed from a text. The proponents of this idea suggest that including authors limits a text while opponents feel that the author’s inclusion explains the text.
References
Barthes, Roland, and Stephen Heath. Image, Music, Text. New York: Noonday Press, 1977.
Print.
Montaigne, Michel, and John Florio. The Essays of Michael, Lord of Montaigne. London: J.M.
Dent & Sons, 1910. Print.
