Critical thinking is the key characteristic of the writings of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), who symbolises the spirit of the Renaissance. Mind you, the social and political context at that time was very different from our century. Daring to say what you think was far from self-evident in the Renaissance.
Montaigne exercised critical thinking in his “Essays,” which address dozens of different subjects. He writes about literature, history, theology, friendship, love relationships, and his own method of writing, just to mention some of his subjects.
His treatment of all subjects is erudite and thoughtful, while keeping it entertaining and practical. His goal in reviewing the past is to draw lessons for the present and future. He employs a story from ancient Rome as an excuse to criticise his peers and speak in favour of justice and tolerance of minority opinions.
Nonetheless, Montaigne remained prudent in his opinions. You will not find in his “Essays” any direct attack against the French monarchy, its decisions or legitimacy. If you compare Montaigne with his contemporary Giordano Bruno, you’ll get the impression that Montaigne never took any personal risks.
Montaigne and critical thinking in the Renaissance
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) did in Italy what Montaigne had done in France, but taking much higher risks. Bruno didn’t content himself with raising ethical questions or commenting on history.
Instead, Bruno spoke publicly about uncomfortable subjects and put forward controversial theories. While Montaigne was studying in a private school, Bruno became a priest. At age 15, he joined the Dominican Order, and this enabled him to study theology and philosophy.
Montaigne, during his historical and theological comments, found discrepancies and contradictions in mainstream beliefs, but kept his criticism soft. He exercised toleration for errors, in the midst of a society driven by prejudice.
Bruno proved unable to keep his criticism soft and ended up leaving the Dominican convent where he lived. He then started travelling across Europe, mostly Switzerland and France. The purpose of his travels was to look for a position enabling him to earn a living, mostly teaching.
Montaigne also travelled around Europe, mostly Italy, but in his mind, he had different goals than Bruno. Montaigne was ill, suffering from kidney stones, and was trying to find a cure. He spend months at various thermal baths, seeking to reduce his chronic pain, but it was to no avail.
The Renaissance spirit combines the sharp criticism from a travelling theologian like Bruno with the hands-on approach of Montaigne. Both men embody the Renaissance, but they took very different paths.
Montaigne wrote about Virgil, Alexander the Great, ancient Rome, Troy, and other subjects in a pleasant, entertaining tone. In contrast, Bruno threw oil into the theological debate in his books “On the infinite universe” and “The expulsion of the triumphant beast.”
While Montaigne stopped short at any direct attacks on his peers, Bruno offended the Catholic hierarchy by engaging a harsh debate on astronomy. He endorsed the ideas of Nicolas Copernicus (1463-1543), that is, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth.
Montaigne and power during the Renaissance
Montaigne must have been aware of the harsh debate about astronomy, but kept silent about it. He knew that the Catholic Church adhered to the doctrine that the sun revolves around the earth. They regarded this false doctrine as essential to their claim for universal spiritual dominance.
Bruno kept going in his attacks against false astronomy. He knew of course that the whole point was not about astronomy, but about power. Between 1583 and 1591, he found sponsors favourable to his ideas in England, Germany, and Prague. His fame grew and enabled him to earn a living.
The Renaissance symbolises the border between old ideas, from the Middle Ages, and critical thinking. The border was a battle scene, where survival demanded subtlety and diplomacy.
Montaigne excelled at those, but Bruno overlooked their crucial importance. His relative success in England, Germany, and Prague have rendered him blind to the dangers threatening him. In contrast, Montaigne was always aware of the danger.
In 1591, Bruno made the dire mistake of returning to Italy, I mean, returning to Venice, because Italy did not exist at that time in history. He had wrongly assumed that, in Venice, he would safe from prosecution from the Catholic Church.
Montaigne and risks during the Renaissance
Montaigne’s prudence proved a decisive advantage. He was able to write his “Essays” and publish them freely. He even had sufficient time to revise them and prepare an expanded edition.
Conversely, Bruno ended up badly. He was arrested in 1592 and then tried for heresy. After the trial, the Catholic Church burned Bruno alive in a public square in Rome. A sad, terrible spectacle. Is this the spirit of the Renaissance?
I must underline that Bruno was hundred per cent correct in his ideas about astronomy. Unfortunately, he was more realistic about the movement of plants than about human nature.
It was not hard to foresee a brutal reaction from the Catholic Church, but Bruno had massively underestimated the strength of prejudice in his social environment.
Montaigne’s attitude during the Renaissance is teaching us a crucial lesson, especially if we compare his achievements with those of Giordano Bruno.
I formulate the lesson in this way: Success and happiness go hand in hand with rationality in all areas. It does not help if you behave rationally in one area (e.g., your profession), while refraining to do so in other areas (e.g., your health).
The Renaissance represents the dawn of rationality and the beginning of the modern world, but it was full of dangers. The world we inhabit today is no different. I commend you to use the wisdom from the past to your advantage.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy to your own situation, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”