Before devoting time to reading a classical work, it is fair to ask about its relevance today. Why should I devote my energy to reading a classic? What lessons can I possible learn from an author who lived centuries ago?
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is one of the few classics that passes this test with flying colours. What is the relevance level of his works today? My answer is: hundred per cent; each time that I re-read his essays, I learn new things; I mean useful, practical things, not empty speculation.
I would rather prove my case by means of an example. For this purpose, I’m going to refer to Montaigne’s essay “Various events of the same counsel.” The contemporary translation of the title is “On applying the same principle to various cases.”
Montaigne’s goal is to elucidate the best method for making decisions. He was well aware that most individuals lack a fixed method for making decisions.
Sometimes, they think things through and choose the safest course of action. Other times, they trust their feelings. On other occasions, they follow someone else’s advice, or simply imitate what other people are doing.
Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, but the question in his essay is perfectly applicable today. What is the best method for making decisions? Should we stick to principles, or adopt a pragmatic, case-by-case approach?
Montaigne’s essay “Various events of the same counsel”
Let me underline that, when Montaigne wrote this essay, he was primarily writing for himself. He wanted to find an answer to this question because he considered it important for his own happiness.
If I can make better decisions, he reasoned, I’ll avoid errors and obtain better results. Can I employ the same principle each time and reach the correct decision, or is it unrealistic to expect principles to work on every occasion?
We can start the disquisition with a simple example. Should I adopt the motto “fortune favours the bold? Will this principle work every time? What about the opposite strategy?Michel de Montaigne’s relevance today Should I not rather guide my actions by prudence and circumspection?
Montaigne asked similar questions in his essay; he reviewed the virtue of generosity, comparing it to parsimony, and tried to come to a conclusion.
If we behave with extreme generosity, we are likely to make lots of friends (or at least, lots of acquittances that view us with goodwill). On the other hand, extreme generosity will consume our resources and eventually render us poor and friendless.
Since Montaigne could not arrive at a universal conclusion, he decided to narrow down his question. He opted for focusing on a specific case, hoping that it would lead to a resolution.
Let us consider the situation of soldiers in battle, Montaigne proposed. Can we tell all soldiers to follow the same principle? Should we tell them to charge the enemy lines without giving it a second thought?
No, Montaigne quickly realized that this recommendation is unlikely to lead a good outcome. A courageous, lucky soldier might penetrate the enemy lines and achieve victory, but many other attackers will perish in the attempt.
Montaigne’s assessment of the alternatives
Montaigne also considered the example of marriage. Should we choose a spouse through careful reflection, or trust our gut feeling and hope for the best?
Truth be told, many happy alliances had their starting point in a chance encounter, not in a systematic search, but there are no reliable accounts that prove one method superior to another.
After assessing the examples, Montaigne gave up his intent of finding principles of universal application. Even if we could identify one principle, he asked rhetorically, are we consistent enough to observe it every time? Would it not conflict with our character and idiosyncrasy?
What should we do if we found ourselves in the situation of Cato the Younger (95-46 BC). After carrying out for long years a determined opposition to Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), Cato witnessed Caesar emerge victorious and become the sole ruler of Rome.
Should Cato accept his defeat and submit to Caesar? He did the contrary and committed suicide even before Caesar would take any action. Montaigne was of two minds on this matter.
On the one hand, he praised Cato’s loyalty to his principles. On the other hand, he wondered if it would have been wiser to seek a compromise with Caesar.
In any case, Caesar did not live long afterwards. If Cato had hanged around for two years, he would have witnessed the end of Caesar. In retrospective, Cato’s suicide proved pointless.
To complicate things further, it is not guaranteed that wise individuals will come up with the right answer. Due to urgency or insufficient information, they might draw a false conclusion, and point us in the wrong direction.
The perennial relevance of Montaigne’s wisdom
Montaigne mentions the wisdom of Themistocles during the Greek war against Persia (499-449 BC). His decision to build a large fleet enabled the Greeks to win the Battle of Salamis, and eventually win the war.
While Themistocles was working indefatigably to convince his fellow citizens to build a fleet, other Greek leaders wanted to surrender without fighting. They viewed the Persians as too powerful, and considered Greek civilization doomed.
Montaigne ends up drawing the right conclusion. His words should be always present in our minds: “The crucial question is the same every time: What do we know?”
Indeed, we need to look at the facts objectively, pass review to the alternatives, and choose the most promising. We need to use our rationality to find the right path, irrespective of social pressures.
In the area of personal development, few authors in history supply such sound recommendations as Montaigne. His essays remain relevant today to readers willing to improve themselves by learning the lessons from prior centuries.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”