The literary style of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) teaches us key lessons in the field of self-improvement. I mean lessons of universal validity, lessons that anyone can put into practice right now.
Literary critics have analysed Montaigne’s works from the standpoint of tone, subjects, and structure. I am however going to concentrate on Montaigne’s philosophical style and refer to all other aspects along the way.
I am convinced that philosophy is the driver of Montaigne’s literary style. His philosophical search determined his tone, the choice of subjects, and the structure of his works.
Thus let us pass review to Montaigne’s philosophical style, underlining the practical lessons for today’s readers. If we put into practice those lessons, chances are that we’ll make fewer mistakes and better decisions.
Goal-orientation in Montaigne’s literary style
[1] Montaigne had established a clear objective for himself before committing any words to paper. I don’t subscribe to the hypothesis that, for practically two decades, he was choosing random subjects and writing about them just because he found it enjoyable.
Nobody in his right mind would keep going with full energy for twenty years, day in and day out, if he didn’t have a precise objective in mind.
Montaigne’s key objective was philosophical enlightenment, first of all for himself, and indirectly, for his readers. Let’s bear in mind that, during his initial decade of writing, he couldn’t be even remotely sure that he would find readers for his works.
No wonder that literary critics describe Montaigne’s style as reflective and prone to self-examination. Indeed, Montaigne is the archetype of the philosopher qua writer.
However, Montaigne decided not to emulate Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), finding them too repetitive and imprecise.
On the one hand, Seneca used to repeat himself ad nauseam in his “Letters to Lucilius,” frequently returning to the same subjects. Was Seneca writing all those letters because he had nothing better to do?
On the other hand, Marcus Aurelius wrote his “Meditations” as a personal diary, without any intention of having them read by other people. His scribbles were never intended to become a book. This explains why part of the text meanders and rambles, trying the patience of today’s readers.
Montaigne’s goal was different from Seneca’s and Marcus Aurelius’. Montaigne resembled them in his intense dedication, but he alone regarded writing as tool for enlightenment.
Unlike Seneca, he wasn’t primarily aiming at teaching other people, and unlike Marcus Aurelius, he was not making untidy, dishevelled notes. I place Montaigne above them because he is conducting a long-term, ambitious self-improvement program.
Montaigne researched and wrote each day for two decades, almost without fail. Should we not commit ourselves to taking some kind of daily action in our pursuit of self-improvement?
Curiosity in Montaigne’s literary style
[2] Montaigne was remarkably curious. In the whole history of philosophy and literature, few authors have displayed such high level of energy in their quest for truthfulness.
Note that, in this discussion, I refrain from using the term “scepticism” when describing Montaigne’s occasional failure to reach a conclusion because I find the term demeaning.
We should not call Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) an sceptic because, in his autobiographical “Confessions,” he does not pass judgement on every person and event he mentions. It’s perfectly fine for Rousseau to refrain from passing judgement when he did not have the complete picture.
Montaigne did exactly the same as Rousseau in this respect. He deployed reasonable efforts to analyse each subject, assess the arguments in favour and against, and come to a conclusion.
Nonetheless, in view of the vast number of subjects handled by Montaigne, it’s no wonder that he proved sometimes unable to take sides.
He was curious about all fields of human activity: What is the best education method for children? How should we select our friends? How to deal with ageing and sickness? What’s the best approach for dealing with conflict?
Montaigne handled all those subjects and many others. Each essay he wrote addresses a specific question, and each time, it’s clear that Montaigne did his best to come to a conclusion.
Let us not call him a “sceptic” because he sometimes chew more than he could digest. If anything, we should praise and imitate Montaigne’s curiosity and daring in the pursuit of self-improvement.
Practical optimism in Montaigne’s literary style
[3] Montaigne was a practical optimist. He viewed all issues as solvable with the sole exception of severe illness and death. His optimism rested on his own experience of solving all kind of problems.
I mean solving problems in his profession (he had practised law for a decade), his family, his farm, religious questions, his stint in public office (as mayor of Bordeaux), and others.
In contrast to great philosophers like Plato (427-347 BC) or Aristotle (384-322 BC), Montaigne never aspired to develop a comprehensive system of ideas.
Montaigne was willing to take over the key insights of those system-builders because he wanted to solve real-life problems. The structure of all his essays revolves, from beginning to end, around finding the answer to some question or conundrum.
I call Montaigne a practical optimist because of his search for feasible solutions without demanding them to be perfect or universal.
Plato and Aristotle are sometimes pessimistic about human nature. They criticize ignorance, short-sightedness, corruption, and waste, and question if those can be eradicated. In contrast, Montaigne conveys the joy of solving practical problems. His success enables him to look confidently at the future.
Let me underline that, before Montaigne, no philosopher or writer had displayed such level of practical optimism. Plutarch (46-120 AD) had recounted a thousand anecdotes, but failed to convey practical optimism.
Literary critics call Montaigne’s style “conversational,” but they seldom explain why. I don’t think that Montaigne chose to write in a conversational style just to differentiate himself. His style is simply the reflection of his practical optimism. He just wanted to address the questions at hand fast and effectively.
Should we not imitate Montaigne and discard constraints in style or shape that slow down our progress? Our pursuit of self development can be accelerated by focusing on the essentials.
If you are interested in applying rational principles in daily life here and now, I recommend you my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”