Learning to fish is more valuable than getting a free meal, because the former can feed us for a lifetime. Methods are far more valuable than objects, because objects are finite. Methods are not limited in time. We can simply employ them to arrive at our goals once and again.
The essays by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) include an important hidden message: Keep your eyes open and stay alert. Don’t accept things without questioning, especially if they look too good to be true. Look beyond the obvious, especially when people tell you that there are no alternatives.
Montaigne’s hidden message is about self-reliance, alertness and method. His essays illustrate his thought patterns and help readers acquire the habit of looking at the whole picture. I find it particularly impressive when Montaigne applied his method to seemingly innocuous subjects.
Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On Names” where he starts with the anodyne remark that some heirs fail to honour their family name.
Their ancestors had become famous thanks to their heroic or courageous actions, but the heirs do not care. Would it no make more sense, asked Montaigne, to name individuals after their own deeds.
Montaigne points to an Central African tribe called Yoruba, where children are named after something that they have done themselves or after the circumstances surrounding their birth.
For instance, the Yoruba could name a child “the one that came first” (the primogenitor), indicating that he was the first child to be born to those parents.
Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On Names”
Montaigne’s disquisition starts quietly, but then his method kicks in and widens his field of vision. Why should we judge a person at all by the name he carries? Should we not rather rate each person according to his own merits?
Names inherited from ancestors or given in infancy should not grant recipients an aristocratic halo, argues Montaigne. He is right, but even nowadays, if we meet someone who carries a famous name, we tend to feel curious at the very least. We ask ourselves is the concerned person is related to the historical character that had made that name famous.
When Montaigne’s hidden method kicks in, the essay begins to question all denominations that elevate individuals to higher fame or social position.
To which extent does it make sense to revere the heirs of a political leader such as Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), or people who had attained today an academic qualification or degree but show little wisdom in their own affairs?
Montaigne keeps widening his field of vision, and begins to question to the practice of categorizing individuals due to their religious, economic or political standing.
When we begin to regard ourselves as exemplary individuals, Montaigne remarks, we are just one step away from categorizing others as the opposite. If we continue along that line, we might generate a great deal of irritation, but does it serve a good purpose?
Montaigne goes as far as questioning the practice of placing people into professional groups (peasants, bakers, butchers and soldiers, for instance) and assume that all group members have the same ideas, the same ambitions, and the same skills.
Montaigne’s literary legacy: asking the right questions
Let us look beyond the obvious, ask the necessary questions and check the answers carefully, admonished Montaigne. Since there were still remnants of a powerful censorship in France, I must point out that Montaigne worded his questions cautiously.
Instead of engaging in a frontal attack against the dominant ideas, Montaigne undermined them by pretending ignorance or disorientation. He raised his questions carefully, but conveying a hidden message nonetheless.
Montaigne often resorted to historical examples as a method for looking at whole picture. We tend to grow emotional when we discuss affairs that are close to our heart here and now. I am in agreement with Montaigne that historical excursions help us look beyond the obvious.
What is the point of mentioning Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) in Montaigne’s essay “On Names”? Precisely to avoid a direct confrontation with the dominant opinions.
Instead of exercising criticism himself, Montaigne pretends that Anaxagoras had questioned the names (terminology) used in his century. If the famous philosopher Anaxagoras had done so, should we not do the same?
Montaigne comes to a conclusion that simply enunciates the thesis implicit in his questions. Let us not judge individuals by their names alone (or by their physical appearance, religion or social position).
Impact of Montaigne’s literary legacy
Let each person earn his own fame (“make his own name”), argues Montaigne. Let’s not be blinded by external details that can easily distort our perception. It is us to each person to seek the truth and discard superficial impressions.
The essay conveys its hidden message (Montaigne’s thought method) through its structure and tone. Let’s look at the whole picture before making up our mind. Let us not get distracted by details that are more decorative than substantial.
Montaigne’s literary legacy is present in many seventeenth-century authors. The philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) employed in his works a similar questioning method. He called for readers to consider their inner world to ascertain the truth of philosophical statements.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) in his late decades is also employing rhetorical questions reminiscent of Montaigne’s. I’m referring in particular to the soliloquies in “Hamlet” or the self-reflections of Prospero in “The Tempest.” Their philosophical speeches would have perfectly fit in Montaigne’s essays.
Montaigne’s literary legacy is rendered valuable by a hidden message that can only be imbibed, not memorized. We cannot gain wisdom by rote repetition because a thinking method can only be learned by asking questions.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”