In our century, the protection of privacy has gained crucial importance. I cannot even count the number of celebrities that have seen their life disrupted because a journalist has intruded in their privacy.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was aware of the danger associated to popularity. He also knew the financial advantages that one can draw from it, but after careful reflection, he opted for a quiet lifestyle in the countryside.
I find Montaigne’s choice remarkable because it entailed a series of drastic changes; he had lived for decades in a sizeable city, pursued a demanding career, and interacted with hundreds of people; why did he choose to leave behind his professional ambitions?
There is a key philosophical lesson in Montaigne’s decision to embrace a quiet lifestyle, a lesson that has become very hard to learn in our century of social media around the clock. Even for Montaigne, it took a while to analyse his own thoughts and record his arguments in writing.
Montaigne’s essay “Not to Communicate a Man’s Honour”
Montaigne conveyed his reflections in his essay titled “Not to Communicate a Man’s Honour.” Actually, the essay has little to do with honour and very much to do with lifestyle choices.
I would have given it a different title, for instance, “Why we should remain discreet about our own achievements” or “Why it is wise not to blow our own trumpet.”
Montaigne employs the term “honour” as a synonym for our professional and ethical reputation. In sixteenth-century France and in the rest of Europe, an impeccable reputation was crucial particularly in commerce and banking.
The question raised by Montaigne is whether we should do our best to enhance our reputation. How much effort should we devote to responding to attacks against our honour? Should we seize every opportunity to increase our popularity?
Montaigne recommends to pursue tangible achievements, so that they can speak for themselves. It’s a massive waste of time to debate people who criticise our skills and personal qualities. Instead, let us deliver great results and those will automatically enhance our popularity.
Montaigne’s examples of high effectiveness
The Roman general Fabius Maximus (280-203 BC) endured harsh criticism in the Senate for his prudent tactics in the war against Hannibal, but over time, those tactics proved effective.
Montaigne points out that Fabius’ careful manoeuvrers kept Hannibal’s troops wondering what’s coming next, and prevent them from gaining ground. As a result, Fabius gained precious time for the Romans to recruit new legions.
The criticism against Fabius eventually subsided and people ended up acknowledging his important contribution in evicting Hannibal from Italy.
If Fabius had focused on enhancing his military prestige, he would have attacked Hannibal right away, without having first secured a tactical advantage. If Fabius had done so, he would have suffered the same crushing defeat as his predecessors.
Montaigne also mentions Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC), a Roman general accused of having mismanaged financially his campaign in North Africa. Scipio didn’t even bother to answer. Instead, he brought the military campaign to a successful end, and his victory automatically silenced the criticism.
Let us preach with example, recommends Montaigne. Why? Because people will pay more attention to what we do than to what we say. As a general rule, facts weigh more heavily than words.
Montaigne’s recipe for dealing with criticism
Quiet, resolute, focused action will outdo malign criticism. I agree with Montaigne about the principle, but in our century, it can prove excruciating to endure public, undeserved criticism.
When the Greek troops criticised Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) for keeping for himself a large part of the booty taken from Persepolis, he didn’t engage a debate. Instead, he took his share of the booty and distributed it amongst the troops.
Alexander’s quiet, resolute action restored his reputation in full, and regained him the loyalty of his troops. If he had made a long speech, arguing that he deserved his large share, nobody would have believed him. His quiet action really saved the day.
Montaigne explains the disadvantages of debating to defend our honour. Not only will people remain sceptical, but we will look weak in their eyes. The more we argue, the more it seems that we have something to hide.
The Roman Senator Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) made the mistake mentioned by Montaigne. Whenever someone dared to criticise him, Cato held a long speech in defence of his honour. Since he was often criticised, people grew tired of his speeches and started to believe that the criticisms contained some truth.
A quiet, strong performance has vast advantages over loud, resentful argumentation. Themistocles (524-459 BC) endured a great deal of criticism for failing to reinforce Athens’ walls, but his naval victory at Salamis silenced his critics.
Over time, Montaigne was proven right in his choice to quit a highly visible legal career and embrace a quiet lifestyle in the countryside.
His example and advice do not mean that we should refrain from seeking popularity and public success, but that we should think twice before we devoting our energies to that purpose.
Montaigne demonstrated the advantages of living quietly, in particular when it comes to productivity, effectiveness and real achievement.
He summarized his lesson by saying that “actions are more powerful than words” but I would complement his insight by saying that “our quiet, focused actions are more powerful than a million words about how great we are.”
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations here and now, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”