Wisdom without controversy is soon forgotten, in the same way as one forgets unused knowledge, unused spare parts, and unused train tickets. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made a conscious decision to use controversy in his essays, precisely because he wanted the lessons to be learned and not forgotten.
Besides, Montaigne found it much more interesting to write about unorthodox, dissonant ideas; he knew all the mainstream doctrines of his century, and found them unworthy of his time. He had better things to think about and write about.
Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals,” which in today’s translations is sometimes titled “On Cannibals.” This essay is by far Montaigne’s best known work, even if it shows deficiencies in its research and logic.
Why is this essay so famous? Because it defends profoundly controversial opinions. For better or for worse, the essay about cannibals has contributed to building Montaigne’s reputation. It has prompted millions of people to read his essays and profit from their wisdom.
Michel de Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals”
Montaigne could have selected a less controversial title for this essay. For instance, he could have named it “In defence of cultural relativism” or “Social perspectives on ethics.”
Luckily, Montaigne did not choose any of those anodyne tiles. They would have condemned this essay to oblivion, and steered potential readers away from Montaigne’s writings.
The key idea of “Of Cannibals” is fairly simple. Montaigne points out that, in his century, some indigenous tribes in South America are still practising horrendous cannibalism, mostly by eating their enemies, but that Europeans are to blame for some practices that are as horrendous as cannibalism.
Montaigne is using alleged South-American cannibalism as a literary subterfuge to address controversial European issues. By pointing his finger to “those cruel South-American tribes,” he can raise his voice against European abuses that he couldn’t have addressed otherwise.
Controversy is a method for rendering the whole argument interesting, and discussing uncomfortable issues. Montaigne is referring to the appalling European habits of conducting wars for the personal gain of the instigators, or imprisoning and torturing the members of religious minorities.
In a way, argues Montaigne, cannibalism is less cruel than warfare and torture because it is not motivated by greed and self-interest.
Argumentation in Montaigne’s wisdom
Without the reference to South-American tribes, I do not see how Montaigne could have dared attack his peers, the French aristocracy that is to blame for widespread warfare and torture.
Montaigne is able to call his peers “savages” by comparing their cruel practices with those of South-American cannibals. I find it particularly clever for Montaigne to insert a disclaimer to pre-empt the possibility of being himself prosecuted as an author who is defending an unpopular thesis.
By saying that he refrains from passing judgement because the whole matter is too difficult, he pre-empts a potential legal action. He pretends to be an impartial, unprejudiced register of opinions against and in favour.
Montaigne magnifies his attacks against pointless cruelty by using historical anecdotes. He mentions the custom in ancient Sparta (9th century BC) to leave weak infants out in the cold to die, or the practice in ancient Rome (1st century AD) to have gladiators fight to death to entertain the public.
While the ancient Greeks and Romans kept practising those horrendous habits, they had no problem to call other peoples “uncivilised and cruel.”
Ethical values in Montaigne’s wisdom
For instance, when recounting his military feats in Gallia, Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) wrote in very negative terms about druids who practised ritual sacrifices, but are those less cruel than his own military campaigns?
Montaigne uses controversy to drive home his point, which is the condemnation of greed, cruelty, and pointless violence.
We should not take out of context his statement that “eating a man is no worse than eating a beast,” which is only meant to describe the mentality of South-American tribes engaging in cannibalism.
Montaigne’s wisdom is underlying the moral back and forth between cannibals, warmongers, and organizers of gladiatorial fights; he condemns them all by wondering which one is worse and more inhuman.
The essay’s conclusion is not to choose a lesser evil, but to steer away from evil altogether. Montaigne does a beautiful job of addressing a difficult subject by mixing controversy, history, and philosophy in a smooth, powerful defence of humanity.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all kind of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”