Nowadays, writers privilege structure above all. Before they write down the first word, they want to know precisely where they are going. They want to select in advance their destination and all the stops along the way.

For writing his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) embraced a different approach; he managed to supply structure and pace to his works without doing lots of advance planning.

I find Montaigne’s approach worth studying because its vast potential. It can teach us not only how to structure our essays, but also how to think on our feet when we have limited inputs, limited knowledge, and limited time.

Let me employ an example to explain how Montaigne was able to give structure to his essays with very little preparation in advance. I call Montaigne’s manner of writing “spontaneous structure.”

Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy” provides a first-class illustration of spontaneous structure. Instead of delineating one integrated argument, Montaigne starts with an anecdote, quote, or statement he endorses, and then builds on it by attacking it, defending it, and confronting it with his own experience.

In this way, he creates a spontaneous structure that can grow organically. The result is similar to a conversation between two friends. Arguments are confronted with counter-arguments and facts are weighed against other facts.

Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy”

When Montaigne feels inspired by the arguments, anecdotes and quotes, he can go on for dozens of pages; he is not worried by the fact that some subjects are more suitable than others for lively discussion. He will simply take as much as a subject can give, and then move on to the next.

Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy” starts with a forceful premise, one that was close to Montaigne’s heart. He wanted to demonstrate his belief that, when it comes to success, hard work and determination play a larger role than luck.

Good looks constitute the ultimate present from fortune. It’s a present that beneficiaries receive for free when they are born. They do not need to exert themselves, nor learn anything, nor take any kind of action.

Montaigne didn’t dispute that good looks supply advantages in life, but he wanted to defend the thesis that individuals tend to overestimate those advantages.

The purpose of Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy” is to prove that, when it comes to achieving success and happiness, it’s wiser to rely on moral virtues (honesty, steadiness, justice, etc.) than on good looks.

Montaigne takes his thesis seriously and intends to defend it forcefully. He feels deeply annoyed by people who affirm that one’s destiny is written in the stars.

He rails against the belief that success and happiness can be achieved only by people born with good looks, intelligence or wealth. He mightily disagrees with predestination and wants to encourage readers to shape their own life.

Anecdotes in Michel de Montaigne’s essays

After stating his thesis, Montaigne builds his spontaneous, organic structure by piling one anecdote upon another.

Montaigne tells us about the Roman king Numa Pompeius, who lived in the seventh century BC. Numa was reputed for his wisdom, equanimity and character strength, but if we trust the tradition, he did not possess good looks nor an imposing physical presence.

Similarly, Montaigne mentions Socrates (470-399 BC) who, according to Plato and other ancient Greek authors, possessed an unattractive appearance. Nonetheless, less than stellar looks did not prevent Socrates from becoming a major philosopher.

Also Themistocles (524-459 BC) was physically average, totally unimpressive as a warrior. Nevertheless, he was astute, tireless and fearless. He devised a strategy to defend Athens against numerically superior invaders, and then implemented it flawlessly.

Montaigne does not recount those stories for entertainment purposes. He has a point to make and his initial thesis becomes stronger after each anecdote. Besides, he has no qualms about repeating his thesis over an over. He cares less about literary elegance than about driving his point home.

“Bodily appearance,” says Montaigne, “has nothing to do with the quality of a person’s soul.” We have no control about our physiognomy, and we should not be judged by it, he argues as he reminds us about Socrates’ achievements.

Argumentation in Michel de Montaigne’s essays

Montaigne does not go into detail about how to acquire the virtues that render individuals remarkable; he fails to explain if Themistocles had acquired his astuteness through practice or if he had inherited from his ancestors; the latter would have been equivalent to inhering good looks.

Similarly, Montaigne depicts Numa Pompilius as “virtuous and wise,” but fails to explain how he had acquired those great qualities. Indeed, the ancient sources do not reveal much about Numa’s origin, but Montaigne could have developed his point.

Montaigne’s use of a spontaneous structure results in highly readable, compelling essays. I would have liked to see the key arguments expanded and systematized, but on the other hand, I realize that those constraints would have curtailed Montaigne’s literary output.

The spontaneous structure of Montaigne’s essays fulfils the purpose of confirming a pre-existing thesis. There are seldom surprises in the argumentation, but the anecdotes deliver great enjoyment and food for thought.

In his essay “On physiognomy,” Montaigne concluded that the body is not a mirror of the soul. I subscribe to his words, of course, and I think that most of readers will do the same.

When referring to the structure of Montaigne’s essays, I will paraphrase him and say that their meandering structure doesn’t always mirror Montaigne’s clear insights, nor does it detract in the least from the readers’ enjoyment.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”