Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is the archetypical writer from the Renaissance, the archetypical example of Humanism. Nowadays, his ideas are almost forgotten. They are no longer taught in today’s education system; the study of classical Greek and Roman history, philosophy and literature are no longer a priority.
What is Humanism? The concept is related to “humanity” in the sense of ethical values, but it possesses a larger meaning. When we talk about Humanism, we mean classical learning, that is, the study of Greek and Roman antiquity.
Montaigne devoted twenty years of his life to studying and writing about Greek and Roman antiquity with the objective of drawing practical lessons. He was looking for hands-on advice to solve his own problems, and drew inspiration from ancient sources.
The subjects addressed by Montaigne in his “Essays” fall in multiple categories, namely, historical, social, health, military, family, relationships, and literary commentary. However, the underlying themes in most of Montaigne’s essays are success and happiness.
Michel de Montaigne and the humanist approach
Montaigne employed the Humanist approach in his essays, that is, a mixture of introspection, careful research of ancient sources, respect for individual liberty, and critical thinking. He quoted ancient authors to examine their ideas, not to follow them blindly.
When it comes to the Humanist approach, Montaigne can be best compared to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). I prefer Montaigne because of his practical mentality. Erasmus had a larger erudition, but often got lost in theological criticism.
Montaigne had a rather romantic view of ancient Greece and Rome. He knew in depth the works of Seneca (4-65 AD), Plutarch (46-120 AD) and Cicero (106-43 BC), but rarely took notice of the higher standard of living in the sixteenth century compared to antiquity.
He also had a tendency to exaggerate the social and political problems in the sixteenth century compared to antiquity. For instance, Montaigne often complains about “the corruption of our age” without realizing that corruption was equally high or higher in the times of Seneca, Plutarch, and Cicero.
Montaigne’s essay “On Roman Grandeur”
I consider Montaigne’s essay “On Roman Grandeur” one of the best examples of Humanism in literature. Montaigne passes review to the history of Rome, and reflects on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. I find this essay remarkable because it is drawing conclusions applicable to all societies in all centuries.
Montaigne praises the republican ideals, military discipline, and governance in ancient Rome, emphasizing the advantages of political unity in a vast territory. At the height of the Roman Empire, a citizen could move without encumbrance from Spain to Turkey, and make business under the same legal system.
However, Montaigne underestimates the advantages of life in the sixteenth century. He complaints about political disunity, widespread criminality and generalized moral decline, but fails to appreciate the innovation, liberty (especially in Amsterdam, Florence and Venice) and upwards social mobility of his time.
I endorse Montaigne’s condemnation of power seeking. It’s a fool’s undertaking to seek to dominate other people. I find the comment from Montaigne accurate, when he says that power seeking goes hand in hand with “anxiety and danger.”
Montaigne fails to realize that he is contradicting himself. If he dislikes power seeking, he should be happier to live amidst political disunity. In ancient Rome, power seeking carried far worse consequences than in the sixteenth century. The larger the territory, the wider the damage that a fool can inflict.
A naive, wide-eyed vision of antiquity permeates this essay by Montaigne from beginning to end. At one point, he refers to the ancient Romans as “good-natured, simple people” without realizing that they had relentless expanded their domains by bloody conquest.
In contrast, Montaigne refers to his contemporaries as “bad-tempered and insincere,” forgetting about the massive progress made in finance, shipping, commerce. Those are incompatible with “bad-tempered and insincere” people. It is just impossible to build large, efficient, successful organisations in that way.
Michel de Montaigne and the cyclical historical pattern
By looking at the history of the Roman Empire, Montaigne argues that all societies go through a cyclical pattern of ascent and decline. After becoming successful and wealthy, they fall into moral decay and corruption.
Montaigne’s argument is appealing, but is it really true? The process of moral decline, I submit, is not unavoidable. People do not need to become corrupted after growing successful. I do not endorse the conclusion drawn by Montaigne, but I’m aware of the need to maintain a good philosophy and culture. Those constitute the basis of civilization.
I contest the reasons given by Montaigne for the fall of the Roman Empire and for the problems in the sixteenth century. He is blaming “the desire to rise in honours and favours” for all those problems, but ambition as such isn’t the cause of trouble. Montaigne is actually referring only to malevolent ambition.
Montaigne is correct in saying that virtue (philosophy and, in particular, ethics) shapes the future of society. He draws the right conclusion from his analysis of ancient Rome, and takes active steps for promoting virtue, namely, writing about it and encouraging people to embrace it.
Studying the past, especially by reading good books, wrote Montaigne, enables to hold a conversation with the best men of past centuries. Nonetheless, it is in nobody’s interest to build idealistic pictures of the past.
Humanism calls for the study of ancient Rome and Greece to learn practical lessons. Montaigne excelled at this task. His essays are delightful to read still today, five centuries after they were written. I commend you to embracing Humanism, first as a way of thinking, and second as life-long field of study.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy here and now, I recommend you by book “Rational living, rational working.”