Authenticity starts and ends with critical thinking. It revolves around checking the accuracy of facts, contesting ready-made conclusions, and pursuing consistency. Truth is the outcome of authenticity, and ethics is the compilation of practical wisdom.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) pursued authenticity day after day. He devoted two decades to writing essays that, very often, questioned “self-evident” truths and came up with better conclusions.
Considering the strong social pressure exerted on writers in the sixteenth century, I see Montaigne’s essays as the archetype of authenticity. Few authors of his generation have devoted so much effort to assess opposing arguments, extract examples from history, and arrive at independent conclusions.
My favourite example of authenticity is Montaigne’s essay titled “That Men Are Justly Punished for Being Obstinate in Defending a Fort That is Unreasonable to Defend.”
In this essay, Montaigne employs his usual structure. First, he states a controversial thesis. Second, he presents anecdotes from ancient history that illustrate his thesis. Third, he reviews in detail the arguments in favour and against. Fourth, he draws a conclusion, either confirming his thesis, or proving it wrong.
Montaigne’s authenticity relies on structure. His extended assessment of historical evidence enables him to present controversial conclusions as irrefutable.
“That Men Are Justly Punished for Being Obstinate in Defending a Fort That is Unreasonable to Defend”
Even he endorses unorthodox positions, Montaigne remains credible because of his ample historical research. He resorts to his personal library, consisting of about one hundred volumes, which he had repeatedly read.
Montaigne knew his favourite Greek and Roman authors by heart, and was able to quote them off-the-cuff. I’m referring to Cicero (106-43 BC), Aristotle (384-322 BC), Plutarch (46-120 AD), Seneca (4 BC-AD 65), Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), just to name a few.
Authenticity becomes particularly strong when Montaigne combines historical anecdotes, personal experience, and moral assessment. He does precisely that in his essay “That Men Are Justly Punished for Being Obstinate in Defending a Fort That is Unreasonable to Defend.”
Montaigne mentions the pointless resistance of inadequately fortified towns against invaders, whether in ancient Rome or in the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople would have fared better, he argues, if it had surrendered in 1453.
When people opt for fighting lost battles, they are inflicting unnecessary harm upon themselves and upon their peers. There is moment to resist and fight, argues Montaigne, and a moment to acknowledge one’s defeat.
Examples of Montaigne’s authenticity in writing
Montaigne had witnessed how religious wars in France had ravaged towns and villages. Both Catholics and Huguenots had fought with ferocity, while on many occasions, they could have parlayed. They could have reached a settlement and saved the lives of thousands of people, argued Montaigne.
In ancient Athens, a similar situation had ensued during the trial of Socrates (469-399 BC), says Montaigne. He reproaches Socrates for not being flexible enough to circumvent the laws and avoid the trial.
Montaigne’s reproaches are sound, but I think that they don’t go far enough. Since Socrates was expecting to walk free at the end, I cannot blame it from withstanding the trial. If the trial had been fair, he would have been acquitted.
My reproach to Socrates is that, after being convicted in an unjust manner, he should have seized the opportunity to escape and go into exile. I regret that Socrates proved unable to accept that the trial had been a sham, and that he should run away.
We all tend to ignore warning signs when they contradict an idea or goal that we cherish, concludes Montaigne. All forms of self-delusion can prove lethal.
Montaigne asks himself if Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) could have avoided being assassinated. I would answer positively to this question. In the prior months, Caesar could have parlayed with his opponents instead of pouring oil into the fire; he could have looked for a compromise instead of antagonising them.
Authenticity in Michel de Montaigne’s conclusions
I consider this essay of Montaigne’s a salient illustration of authenticity because it defends an unorthodox insight (“better parlay than perish unnecessarily”) by means of an impressive array of historical examples and personal testimony.
As positive example of intellectual flexibility, Montaigne is mentioning Cicero (106-43 BC), who had himself praised the virtues of temperance and compromise in his essay titled “On the Republic.”
I must though clarify that Cicero was referring to flexibility in policy and implementation details, not in fundamental moral principles.
Montaigne praises the wisdom of Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) for displaying alertness and flexibility. Those enabled him to relinquish untenable positions during the Second Punic War, regroup his forces, and come back stronger in the next battle.
I agree with Montaigne that it is unreasonable to fight lost battles, and that we should look for negotiated solutions. It is tragic that some history books present quasi-suicidal behaviour as exemplary.
Montaigne formulates his conclusion carefully, and refrains from using strong words. He writes that it is “unreasonable” to keep defending the indefensible; but in some of his examples, I would have used the word “imprudent” or “reckless.”
The essay concludes with universal prescriptions that every reader should keep in mind: Inordinate obstinacy brings along its own punishments. Let’s give realism priority over delusion.
Let’s keep an open mind, so that we can learn from errors, setbacks and criticism. There is no shame in admitting that we have made a mistake. It is certainly worse to keep going in the wrong direction just because we do not want to lose face.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”