It’s a myth that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had an extraordinary interest in literary exploration. Although he used many literary quotations in his essays, those are drawn from a couple of dozen books.
Montaigne reread those books frequently, but rarely added new ones to his library. His literary explorations serve just one purpose, namely, to provide materials for his research in ethics. The latter constitutes the primary purpose of his work. The key contents of his essays revolve around ethics, not literature.
As a teenager, Montaigne had attended a school were Latin language and literature in Latin shaped the curriculum; thus, he was familiar with major classical authors writing in Latin. I am referring to Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.
In his library, Montaigne also had books from ancient Greek authors such as Plato and Aristotle. However, those books were in Latin translation because Montaigne’s knowledge of ancient Greek was fragmentary. He was unable to read Aristotle, Plato, or Sophocles in the original Greek.
I am reluctant to categorise Montaigne’s practice as “literary exploration.” He was regularly rereading of a couple of dozen books, taking notes and putting together his essays, but I fail to see in Montaigne a primary interest in literary criticism.
Montaigne’s motives for literary exploration
Montaigne tells readers very clearly that his main interest is philosophical, not literary. In his essay titled “On experience,” we can read the following statement: “The objective of writing is self-improvement.” He meant the author’s self-improvement in the first place, but readers can draw the same benefit.
The above statement by Montaigne is not an isolated case. I can point to similar ones in other essays. For instance, in his essay “On solitude,” he acknowledges that writing is a way to “explore one’s own thoughts and discover the truth.”
There is another strong argument against Montaigne’s being primarily motivated by literary exploration: in about one fifth of his essays, he is using his own personal anecdotes to support his philosophical assessment.
If my primary interest was literary exploration, I would not be placing my own personal anecdotes on the same level as quotations from works of Cicero, Plato, and Seneca. However, I would have no problem doing so if my primary interest was philosophical exploration.
That’s precisely what Montaigne did, but in a way that gave more weight to his personal anecdotes than to Cicero, Plato, or Aristotle. As a result, his essays are tainted by subjectivity.
Subjectivity in Montaigne’s literary exploration
Montaigne was aware of his subjective bias, but instead of trying to correct it, he doubled down on it. We can read in his essay “On Solitude” that Montaigne considers the purpose of writing to “find the truth within oneself.”
Nonetheless, readers can benefit from Montaigne’s research and analysis. His subjectivity, which aims at “grasping the nature of human existence,” remains within reasonable measures.
No wonder that Montaigne described his writing style as an internal dialogue. In his essay “On the force of imagination,” he notes that he writes in the manner that comes natural to him.
As a result, some Montaigne’s texts are rather chaotic. They jump from one subject to the next, sprinkling the philosophical arguments with ancient quotations and anecdotes.
Montaigne was aware that his juxtaposition of Roman and Greek sources appears disorderly at times. Thus, in the second edition of his essays, he attempted to remedy the problem.
He inserted sentences here and there to improve the logic, but left the quotations unchanged. The editorial efforts proved less effective than Montaigne had expected, but it was better than nothing. In the sixteenth century, it was cumbersome to change a book after publication.
We should also not categorise Montaigne’s editorial efforts as literary exploration; he was not performing literary criticism of the original sources; he was only trying to remedy the gaps in his arguments.
Montaigne’s essay “On the force of imagination”
I regard the essay “On the force of imagination” as the most compelling argument against Montaigne’s alleged interest in “literary exploration.”
This particular essay seems to have been written rather fast, but Montaigne let it stand, arguing that “writing style should be varied and flexible” and that he “cared more for authenticity than for literary elegance.”
Montaigne employed in this essay fewer quotations than he usually did, but plenty of anecdotes. He draw some of those from his personal experience; the others come from ancient sources.
What’s the key idea in this essay? That we can employ our imagination to influence our physical and mental state. Human beings, Montaigne argues, can affect their own health through strong beliefs.
As an example, Montaigne recounts the story of a healthy man who was always worried about falling ill. At one point, he convinced himself that he was deadly ill even if he was not showing any symptoms. Sure enough, it didn’t take long before those to appear, caused by the man’s harmful imagination.
Montaigne also gives the opposite example, when a doctor’s positive prognosis helped a patient recover practically without treatment. By making the patient believe in a quick recovery, the doctor brought it about.
I am convinced that, in this essay, Montaigne employed few ancient quotations because the subject was too innovative. He could not find any examples of auto-suggestion in Aristotle or Cicero. Thus, he argued the case by using his own anecdotes.
In terms of philosophical accuracy, the alleged “literary explorations” add little to Montaigne’s essays. By employing ancient quotations, he makes his essays entertaining, but does not become a better philosopher.
To prove my assertion, I point again to Montaigne’s essay “On the force of imagination,” which draws an accurate, fully correct conclusion without resorting to ancient sources.
After passing review to various anecdotes, Montaigne tells readers that “Our imagination often distorts reality by making things look better or worse than they really are.”
Nevertheless, Montaigne regards imagination as important, but not decisive; he is right in placing reason over imagination, and reminding readers that volition constitutes the initial step. For better or for worse, it precedes belief, thinking, and action.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to situations in every context, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”