In assessing cultural influences, I find it more conclusive to look at philosophical values than at anecdotes and artifices of style. Thinkers leave behind ethical systems to live by, and the very best of those thinkers build intellectual systems to support their values.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) belongs to the group that left behind ethical guidelines, practical and tangible, but roving and disorderly. Why? Because he cared for finding the path to happiness, but not for the implicit metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics.

Due to his philosophical limitations, Montaigne has exerted a narrow influence on French literature and cultural identity. It would be an exaggeration to claim a vast influence from ideas, values and behavioural models that we can barely characterize.

I am not underrating Montaigne’s work. My goal is to place it in the right context, so that we can benefit from its wisdom. I would see little benefit in going on philosophical tangents that are only thinly related to Montaigne’s purpose and logic.

Let us take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On three good women.” Montaigne was in his mid-forties when he wrote this essay. His philosophical views were finalised and complete. In the ensuing decade, they would not evolve one inch.

Montaigne’s essay “On three good women”

Montaigne’s purpose in this essay is straightforward. He just wants to illustrate virtuous behaviour by using three prominent historical anecdotes. Before speaking of Montaigne’s influence on French literature and cultural identify, let us pass review to those three examples.

First, the widow of Ephesus. Her story was immortalized by Petronius (27-66 AD) in his “Satyricon.” Petronius tells us that, when her husband died, she felt such a profound grief that she vowed to lock herself in his tomb and starve to death.

However, she changed her mind when she met a handsome Roman soldier near her husband’s tomb. The soldier had been assigned to guard a nearby site. When he saw the widow walk by, he made a pass at her, and soon won her over.

Second, a Roman mother whose story has gone down into history as “Roman charity,” as recounted by Valerius Maximus in his “Memorable deeds and sayings” written in 30 AD.

Valerius tells us that, upon learning that her son had been sentenced by a Roman judge to death by starvation, she visited and nursed him regularly, as though he had been an infant, thus keeping him alive.

When the judge heard of her feat, he was so impressed that he praised her maternal devotion, pardoned her son and set him free. Valerius Maximus wrote down her story during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.

Third, a martyr story drawn from Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” written in 310 AD. Eusebius recounts the martyrdom of a Christian woman, who prefers to endure torture and death rather than renounce her faith.

Eusebius was referring to the religious persecutions ordered by the Roman Emperors Septimius Severus and Diocletian. He might have witnessed the tragic events himself or recorded one of the many persecutions against Christians in the third century or beginning of the fourth century AD.

Montaigne praises the three women for their loyalty, but the stories are so wide apart that one fails to see a common thread.

The Roman widow had been devoted at first, but changed her mind subsequently. The story of the Roman mother nursing her son in jail defies all credibility. Lastly, the martyred woman had been inspired by supernatural faith, not by human loyalty.

How much did Montaigne influence French culture?

Montaigne recounts the stories and praises the three women, but fails to offer ethical guidance. I think that he just liked the stories and wanted to write them down, later realizing that they do not really convey a consistent message.

In the light of the above ethical fluidity, which is typical of Montaigne’s essays, let us now discuss his influence on French literature and cultural identity.

I perfectly understand the desire of literary critics or culture historians to link new authors to old ones. It makes everything look orderly. In century A, this thing happened, which then led to this thing happen in century B, and so on.

Montaigne explored new ground, mostly in terms of style. It can be argued that he created the essay as a literary genre. Fair enough. He also employed the first person more than previous authors and recounted details from his personal life.

All that is true, but it’s a long stretch to argue that his essays influenced authors as heterogeneous as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680), Rousseau (1712-1778), Proust (1871-1922) and Camus (1913-1960).

Indeed, one could find something from Montaigne in those authors, but if we look deeply, we won’t fail to detect immense differences.

Although Pascal raised some philosophical arguments about God’s existence, he was a devout Christian to a depth unknown by Montaigne. Like Montaigne, La Rochefoucauld made witty remarks, but his cynicism would have horrified Montaigne.

Proust wrote verbose autobiographical tirades, which cannot be equated to Montaigne’s sparse, focused personal comments. Camus adopted a subjective, relativistic point of view, but his prose fails to provide ethical guidance, which was Montaigne’s primordial purpose.

It doesn’t take long to identify the large gap separating those writers from Montaigne. Their role in shaping French literature and cultural identity cannot be contested, but the attempt to put them in close connection to Montaigne opens deeper questions than it can possibly answer.

None of those authors has ever written something similar to Montaigne’s essay “On three good women.” I have mentioned this essay because it typifies Montaigne’s work, his objectives in writing, his preoccupation for morality.

Montaigne’s unique touch has not been taken over by new authors, and it would be a disservice to literature, I believe, to place Pascal, Rousseau, La Rochefoucauld, Proust, and Camus in the same category as Montaigne.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”

Related articles

Why Michel de Montaigne remains relevant today

Michel de Montaigne’s relevance today

Practical examples of Michel de Montaigne’s thoughts

Michel de Montaigne’s impact on early modern philosophy

Why Michel de Montaigne had no impact on early modern philosophy

Michel de Montaigne’s contribution to early modern philosophy