Summary
Montaigne encounters a conjoined twin being displayed for money - a baby with a normal head and body joined to a headless torso. Instead of gawking or making moral judgments, he observes clinically and then asks deeper questions: What makes something 'monstrous'? The child can walk, babble, and nurse like any other baby. The only difference is an extra body attached. Montaigne realizes that we call things 'monsters' simply because they're unfamiliar, not because they're actually unnatural. He argues that from God's perspective, infinite variety is normal - we just don't see the bigger picture. Our shock comes from limited experience, not from witnessing something truly wrong. He shares another example of a shepherd born without genitals who lives a full life, challenging our assumptions about what constitutes completeness. The essay reveals how quickly we judge what we don't understand, and how our definitions of 'normal' are often just habits of seeing. Montaigne suggests that nature contains endless variations we haven't encountered yet, and what seems impossible to us might be perfectly ordinary in the grand scheme. This isn't just about physical differences - it's about how we approach anything unfamiliar in life, from people to ideas to circumstances.
Coming Up in Chapter 87
From observing physical differences, Montaigne turns to exploring emotional ones. In the next chapter, he examines anger - that familiar monster that lives inside all of us, asking why some people explode while others stay calm.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(~500 words)
F A MONSTROUS CHILD This story shall go by itself; for I will leave it to physicians to discourse of. Two days ago I saw a child that two men and a nurse, who said they were the father, the uncle, and the aunt of it, carried about to get money by showing it, by reason it was so strange a creature. It was, as to all the rest, of a common form, and could stand upon its feet; could go and gabble much like other children of the same age; it had never as yet taken any other nourishment but from the nurse’s breasts, and what, in my presence, they tried to put into the mouth of it, it only chewed a little and spat it out again without swallowing; the cry of it seemed indeed a little odd and particular, and it was just fourteen months old. Under the breast it was joined to another child, but without a head, and which had the spine of the back without motion, the rest entire; for though it had one arm shorter than the other, it had been broken by accident at their birth; they were joined breast to breast, and as if a lesser child sought to throw its arms about the neck of one something bigger. The juncture and thickness of the place where they were conjoined was not above four fingers, or thereabouts, so that if you thrust up the imperfect child you might see the navel of the other below it, and the joining was betwixt the paps and the navel. The navel of the imperfect child could not be seen, but all the rest of the belly, so that all that was not joined of the imperfect one, as arms, buttocks, thighs, and legs, hung dangling upon the other, and might reach to the mid-leg. The nurse, moreover, told us that it urined at both bodies, and that the members of the other were nourished, sensible, and in the same plight with that she gave suck to, excepting that they were shorter and less. This double body and several limbs relating to one head might be interpreted a favourable prognostic to the king,--[Henry III.]--of maintaining these various parts of our state under the union of his laws; but lest the event should prove otherwise, ‘tis better to let it alone, for in things already past there needs no divination, “Ut quum facts sunt, tum ad conjecturam aliqui interpretatione revocentur;” [“So as when they are come to pass, they may then by some interpretation be recalled to conjecture” --Cicero, De Divin., ii. 31.] as ‘tis said of Epimenides, that he always prophesied backward. I have just seen a herdsman in Medoc, of about thirty years of age, who has no sign of any genital parts; he has three holes by which he incessantly voids his water; he is bearded, has desire, and seeks contact with women. Those that we call monsters are not so to God,...
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of Familiar Judgment
We mistake the unfamiliar for the unnatural, judging what we don't understand rather than expanding our understanding.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to separate genuine concerns from discomfort with difference by examining our immediate judgments about what seems 'wrong.'
Practice This Today
This week, notice when you label something as 'weird' or 'wrong' - pause and ask whether it's actually harmful or just unfamiliar to your experience.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Monster/Monstrous
In Montaigne's time, anything physically unusual or deformed was called 'monstrous' - literally meaning a divine sign or wonder. People believed such births were omens or punishments from God.
Modern Usage:
We still use 'monster' to describe anything that scares us or seems wrong, from difficult people to challenging situations we don't understand.
Conjoined twins
Babies born physically connected, which in the 16th century were displayed as curiosities for money. Medical understanding was limited, so these children were seen as supernatural rather than natural variations.
Modern Usage:
Today we understand this as a medical condition that can sometimes be surgically separated, showing how knowledge changes our fear of the unfamiliar.
Natural philosophy
The 16th-century approach to understanding the world through observation and reasoning, before modern science existed. Montaigne uses this method to question assumptions about what's 'normal.'
Modern Usage:
We still use careful observation and questioning to challenge our biases about people or situations that seem strange at first.
Divine perspective
The idea that from God's viewpoint, all variations in creation are equally natural and purposeful. What seems abnormal to humans is just part of infinite divine creativity.
Modern Usage:
Like saying 'there's a bigger picture' - reminding ourselves that our limited experience doesn't define what's possible or normal.
Spectacle/Exhibition
The practice of displaying unusual people for entertainment and profit, common in Montaigne's era. Families would travel town to town showing disabled or different family members.
Modern Usage:
We still turn differences into entertainment through reality TV, social media, or gossip about people who don't fit our expectations.
Empirical observation
Montaigne's method of describing exactly what he sees without jumping to conclusions. He notes the child can walk and nurse normally despite the unusual appearance.
Modern Usage:
The skill of separating facts from assumptions - describing what actually happened versus what we think it means.
Characters in This Chapter
The conjoined child
Central figure
A fourteen-month-old baby with a normal head and body joined to a headless torso. Can walk, babble, and nurse like any other child, challenging assumptions about what makes someone 'normal.'
Modern Equivalent:
The kid everyone stares at but who's just trying to live their life
The father, uncle, and aunt
Exhibitors
Family members who travel around displaying the child for money. They represent how people commercialize difference and turn family members into sources of income.
Modern Equivalent:
Parents who exploit their kids on social media for views and money
The nurse
Caregiver
Travels with the family to care for the child, showing that despite the unusual appearance, the baby still needs normal infant care like feeding and attention.
Modern Equivalent:
The home health aide who sees past appearances to do the actual caregiving work
Montaigne (narrator)
Observer and philosopher
Watches the child with clinical curiosity rather than horror or judgment. Uses this encounter to question what we mean by 'natural' and 'monstrous.'
Modern Equivalent:
The person who asks 'why do we think this is weird?' instead of just going along with everyone else's reaction
Key Quotes & Analysis
"It was, as to all the rest, of a common form, and could stand upon its feet; could go and gabble much like other children of the same age"
Context: Describing the conjoined child's normal abilities and behaviors
Montaigne focuses on what the child can do rather than the unusual appearance. This challenges readers to see the person first, not the difference.
In Today's Words:
Except for one thing, this was just a regular kid who could walk and talk like any other toddler.
"We call that a monster which we are not accustomed to see"
Context: Explaining why people label unfamiliar things as monstrous
This reveals how our judgments are based on limited experience, not objective truth. What seems impossible is often just unfamiliar.
In Today's Words:
We call something weird just because we've never seen it before.
"What we call monsters are not so to God, who sees in the immensity of His work the infinite forms that He has comprehended therein"
Context: Arguing that from a divine perspective, all variations are natural
Montaigne suggests our shock comes from narrow perspective, not from witnessing something truly wrong. Infinite variety is the actual norm.
In Today's Words:
God doesn't think anything is weird because He created endless possibilities - we just haven't seen them all yet.
Thematic Threads
Identity
In This Chapter
Montaigne questions what makes someone 'normal' versus 'monstrous,' realizing identity categories are often arbitrary
Development
Evolved from earlier self-examination to examining how we categorize others
In Your Life:
You might realize how quickly you judge people who look, act, or live differently from you
Social Expectations
In This Chapter
Society expects certain physical and behavioral norms, creating 'monsters' out of natural variations
Development
Builds on previous discussions of social conformity pressure
In Your Life:
You might notice how social pressure makes you hide or judge your own 'different' qualities
Human Relationships
In This Chapter
The way people treat the conjoined twin reveals how difference affects human connection and empathy
Development
Extends relationship themes to include how we relate to those we perceive as 'other'
In Your Life:
You might examine how you connect with people who seem very different from you
Personal Growth
In This Chapter
Montaigne grows by questioning his own assumptions about normalcy and expanding his perspective
Development
Continues the theme of growth through self-questioning and observation
In Your Life:
You might find growth by challenging your automatic judgments about what's 'normal'
Class
In This Chapter
The conjoined twin is displayed for money, showing how society exploits those it deems different
Development
Introduced here as examination of how difference intersects with economic vulnerability
In Your Life:
You might notice how economic desperation can force people to accept dehumanizing treatment
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
What was Montaigne's reaction when he saw the conjoined twin being displayed, and how did it differ from the crowd's reaction?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Montaigne argue that we label things as 'monstrous' - is it because they're actually wrong, or for another reason?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about your workplace, school, or neighborhood. Can you identify someone who gets treated as 'different' or 'weird' simply because they're unfamiliar to others?
application • medium - 4
When you encounter something unfamiliar - a person, idea, or situation - what's your first instinct? How might you train yourself to respond with curiosity instead of judgment?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter reveal about how we define 'normal' and why protecting our sense of what's normal might actually limit our opportunities?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Track Your Judgment Triggers
For the next few days, notice when you catch yourself thinking 'that's weird' or 'that's not normal' about someone or something. Write down three specific instances. For each one, identify what made it feel strange to you and consider what you might learn if you approached it with curiosity instead of judgment.
Consider:
- •Pay attention to your physical reaction - does your body tense up when you encounter something unfamiliar?
- •Notice if your judgments are based on actual problems or just differences from your experience
- •Consider how your background and experiences shape what feels 'normal' to you
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when someone judged you for being different or unfamiliar. How did it feel? What would you have wanted them to understand about your situation or choices?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 87: The Danger of Angry Discipline
From observing physical differences, Montaigne turns to exploring emotional ones. In the next chapter, he examines anger - that familiar monster that lives inside all of us, asking why some people explode while others stay calm.
