In his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) pursued a single goal. He just wanted to figure out how to live each day in the best possible manner. The question underlying his works is always the same: What should I do now?
Montaigne’s literary output becomes easily comprehensible if we keep in mind its purpose. Otherwise, it seems chaotic and arbitrary, as though the author was waking up each morning in total ignorance of what he had done the day before.
I regard literary analysis as a tool, not as a goal in itself. The whole point of studying an author’s style is to grasp his thought patterns.
Montaigne wrote primarily to understand himself, and solve problems in the present and the near future. His literary style is the expression of his philosophical exploration, his hesitations, and his enlightenment.
The elements of Montaigne’s literary style correspond to the steps in his thinking. He first asked the question and identified the most promising response; then he played with arguments or anecdotes until those would point in the right direction.
Montaigne’s essays: elements of literary analysis
I define Montaigne’s literary style as: ask, reply, argue, and justify.” Until that moment, philosophers refrained from taking sides until they had thoroughly analysed a problem.
Montaigne breaks with the tradition of Augustine (354-430 AD) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) because of his time pressure. In contrast to his predecessors, he wants to come to a workable answer quickly and with a minimum of research.
Let’s examine the four key elements of Montaigne’s literary style, that is, ask, reply, argue, and justify.
[1] Montaigne doesn’t always formulate his questions in full length. A couple of dozen times, he gave essays a succinct title such as “Of Friendship” or “Of Cannibals.” Nonetheless, those titles are simply summarizing the underlying ethical questions.
“Of Friendship” is asking “What’s the best method to make great friends?” and “Of Cannibals” is asking “To which extent should we condemn people who endorse appalling ideas?”
I could give dozens of examples, but I will restrict myself to a couple of them. Montaigne’s essay “Of Death” is asking how we should look at the fact that our lifespan is limited; and his essay “Of Studies” is asking “which practical benefits we draw from reading and expanding our knowledge?”
Literary analysis and Montaigne’s thought patterns
[2] More often than not, Montaigne takes sides shortly after enunciating his question. In his essay “Of Cannibals,” he aims at justifying the insight that “We tend to call uncivilised people who behave differently from us.”
Similarly, his essay “Of the Education of Children” calls for teaching children to think critically instead of forcing them to memorize their lessons.
Montaigne never explained how he outlined his essays, but his literary style mirrors his thought patterns. After picking up a subject of interest, he immediately came up with a hypothesis and then scrutinised the arguments for and against it.
The practice of answering a question before examining the evidence is tantamount to putting the cart before the horses. As a result, Montaigne gets it terribly wrong from time to time.
For instance, in his essay “Of Sadness,” he takes the stance of categorizing sadness as “a spiritual sickness that makes the patient behave like a fool.” Montaigne takes sides and attempts to justify his position, but fails to conceptualize the differences between rational and irrational emotions.
Montaigne’s habit of anticipating the answer is to blame for his best and worst essays. It makes the former look clairvoyant and insightful, while plunging the latter into irreparable error.
As an example of Montaigne’s inglorious premonitions, his essay “Of Innovation” expresses suspicion towards any sort of innovation. He ends up categorizing innovation as “a sure path to misery.” So much for clairvoyance and insight.
Argumentation and conclusions in Montaigne’s essays
[3] A lively, entertaining argumentation is the third element of Montaigne’s literary style. He loves retelling anecdotes from history, but if he cannot find suitable ones, he recounts stories from his own life.
The library in Montaigne’s farmhouse had dozens of books, not hundreds. My estimation is that the total number of books must have been around one hundred. That explains while some anecdotes appear repeatedly in his essays: He did not have any more research materials.
For instance, the trial of Socrates (469-399 BC) comes up in many of Montaigne’s essays, but emphasising each time details or perspectives that fit the essay’s purpose. The same applies to the references to Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563), such as in the essay “Of Friendship.”
When it comes to retelling historical anecdotes, Montaigne favours colour over precision. He has no problem emphasising the emotional details in the stories, as long as those details help him convey his message.
[4] The conclusions at the end of Montaigne’s essays are not surprising to the reader (except in rare occasions) because they flow naturally from his initial question, preliminary response, and argumentation.
At the end of an essay, Montaigne seldom comes up with an insight that he has not belaboured in the prior pages. He shows a great talent in rephrasing his initial question, and closing the matter convincingly.
In “Of Friendship” for instance, Montaigne analyses in great detail his memories of Etienne de La Boetie. He wants to find out how their friendship developed to the point that he came to regard his best friend as “more valuable than a brother.”
Montaigne’s literary style can be studied by reading any of his essays, but for those who are unfamiliar with Montaigne, I recommend starting with his essay “Of Cannibals” because it is clearly showing the four-step structure.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”