For twenty years, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent a good part of his days writing his essays. He made no planning, organization, or outline of the whole. Instead, he let his works grow organically and spontaneously. Eventually, his compiled his essays in volumes ready for publication.
Montaigne’s literary themes have been identified by critics, not by Montaigne himself. As his essays piled up over time, he returned often to certain subjects, those that appealed to him in particular. Sometimes, he addressed exactly the same subject, but from different standpoints.
Let us pass review to Montaigne’s themes and the key ideas that he conveyed in each theme.
[1] Tolerance, which he presents as relativism or scepticism. Montaigne condemned all forms of fanaticism; he disliked oral and physical aggression, and presented extensive arguments in favour of peaceful collaboration.
In his essay titled “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” he gave solid reasons explaining why the heretic Sebond had criticized mainstream Christianity. Montaigne didn’t excuse Sebond, but called for open-mindedness and tolerance.
People tend to make too much noise about their deities, just to feel self-important, but fanaticism is unwise. We should ask ourselves “What do I really know?” and realize that our beliefs might rest on shaky assumptions.
Montaigne recommended self-examination as the first step to wisdom. In this respect, he preached with example because, in his essays, he frequently retells anecdotes from his own life.
When Montaigne wrote “I study myself more than I study any other subject,” he was exaggerating only slightly. I am sure that the devoted far more time to reading Plutarch, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius than to self-reflection, but nonetheless, he did love to philosophise about his own life.
Montaigne’s self-acceptance as theme
[2] Self-acceptance: Montaigne rejected perfectionism in all shapes. He did not want to endure the stress that accompanies the desire to be perfect. There is nothing wrong with pursuing ambitious goals, but we should remain realistic.
Like modern psychologists do, Montaigne reminded readers once and again of their fallibility. “It is part of human nature to be inconsistent at times,” acknowledged Montaigne. It’s foolish to try to be superhuman, perfect, and omniscient because those characteristics are divine, not human.
Montaigne views the consciousness of our own mortality as crucial to self-acceptance. He titled one of his essays “That to philosophize is to learn to die,” meaning that, when one grasps the idea of his own mortality, he tends to become for effective, realistic and easygoing.
Instead of agonizing about our own death, we should use its inevitability as motivation to make the best of our lives, and do not worry about petty annoyances. Most inconveniences pale when confronted with the idea that, one day, our life will end.
Montaigne also mentions cultural relativism as a powerful contributor to self-acceptance. History and geography teach us that other cultures hold in high regard what our culture doesn’t like; thus, should we worry about other people’s low opinion of our shortcomings? No, we definitely shouldn’t.
Montaigne’s constant learning as theme
[3] Constant learning as a key factor to improve our success and enjoyment. I must underline that Montaigne is referring to hands-on, tangible wisdom, not to memorization.
Montaigne states his abhorrence for pedantry and pretence. Those are the opposite of learning because they convey an idea of the world that “doesn’t match reality,” affirms Montaigne in his essay on the education of children.
The goal of education, says Montaigne, is to give students a framework that helps them think for themselves; that’s also the purpose of reading and reflection; those should be practised on a regular basis, so that they can bear fruit.
Montaigne welcomes learning and education that form one’s mind without filling it with ready-made conclusions. It takes long years to acquire the ability to think critically, but those years could not be invested more profitably elsewhere.
Montaigne’s essay “On Liars”
[4] True friendship, which Montaigne regards as a source of profound happiness. At the same time, Montaigne attacks those who misrepresent facts, lie and prevaricate. For those people, it is impossible to entertain true friendships. Without honesty and integrity, it becomes impossible to build solid relationships.
Friendship cannot be forced or manufactured at one’s will. It is a process that takes time, says Montaigne, and that requires a favourable environment.
Montaigne recalls his friendship with Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563) and acknowledges that its strength depends on the individual characteristics of each party. People become friends because they are what they are, and find company that matches their ideals, interests and ambitions.
In his essay “On Liars,” Montaigne enumerates the long-term drawbacks of misrepresenting facts. Those drawbacks are so severe that eclipse any short-term gains.
Liars “undermine trust and destroy relationships,” remarks Montaigne. People will reject them as potential friends because they do not want to deal with them in the future.
Montaigne regards friendships are important values that one can only earn, not purchase. One’s virtues constitute the primal prerequisite for individual friendship and social harmony.
In Sparta, king Lycurgus (9th century BC), decreed severe punishments for liars because lack of trust can destroy society. Without truthfulness, friendship, integrity, reliability, courage, self-discipline and achievement become impossible.
Montaigne drew his insights on friendship and truthfulness from Aristotle (384-322 BC), whose “Nicomachean Ethics” tell us that, in the long term, liars will incur inconsistencies, reveal themselves, and ruin their reputation.
Montaigne’s essay “On the punishment of cowardice”
[5] Happiness, as goal of human life and as natural result of a happy lifestyle. I view this idea as the most important lesson to be drawn from Montaigne’s essays.
Montaigne wrote that “truth and simplicity provide the best guidance in life,” and followed through by adopting himself a simple and truthful lifestyle. He maintained such lifestyle day after day, for decades, until his very last day on earth.
Happiness rests on basic virtues, argued Montaigne, which don’t require suicidal behaviour. His essay “On the punishment of cowardice” acknowledges that, under certain circumstances, it makes sense for humans to avoid fighting, for instance, when a battle is hopeless because of vast numerical inferiority.
Montaigne praises bravery, but doesn’t consider it necessary for happiness. He calls for leniency for individuals who falter in situations of extreme danger. Excessive punishments do not motivate people to fight. Instead, they might prompt them to desert their obligations at the earliest opportunity.
The same goes for excessive, zealous virtue. It does not lead to happiness because it undermines the enjoyment of life. It is unrealistic to expect today’s soldiers to submit themselves to the Roman practice (1st century BC) of decimation.
Decimation means that a general would execute ten soldiers of his own army for each soldier that deserted the fight. No one today would submit himself to such strict regime, and failure would be guaranteed; the same principle applies to overzealous morality: it can never lead to happiness.
Happiness, concludes Montaigne, depends primarily on our own character, which is hundred per cent under our control; the random elements of life (setbacks, obstacles, failure) cannot be avoided, but those play a relatively small role in the long term.
We should be ready to accept the “faults of fortune” but not the “faults of character,” argues Montaigne. If we build those, a day at a time, without falling into extreme, suicidal behaviour, chances are that we will do well.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”