Discussing Medieval Dialogue between the Soul and the Body and Question of Dualism

This contribution is based on the rejection of medieval dualism or on distinguishing the body from the flesh, as suggested by Suzannah Biernoff (2002). This differentiation corresponds to an interpretation of the body, actually corpse, within some of the body and soul debates including the popular Visio Philiberti. Here the body is not sinful flesh, but is presented neutrally or realistically (not grotesquely), because the personality is thematized instead of the ideology. Thus in this debate, physicality is distinct from problematic weakness, and expresses the individual. This means that, unlike in the transi where the individual is transient or perishes with the decaying flesh (and finally becomes an anonymous skeleton), individuality is not fixed to the flesh or inconstant matter. Rather, it is carried by the incorporeal body or spiritual image which is autonomous or distinct from its material grounding, and so individuality is not superficial. The difference between the body and the flesh is also maintained in illustrations, although they are corporeal images, since the parchment displays the image of the individual just as skin does, however, in the preparation of parchment, the flesh was removed from the skin. Or, in the picturesque words of Giles of Rome, “liquid is taken into and poured out of a waterskin but the skin remains”,44 meaning, in accordance with Paul (1 Corinthians 15, 49), individuality is the individual form, independent of material, and therefore worth preserving. In short, not only the individuality is important, but it also has to be expressed by the image