Style is the opposite of randomness and disharmony. When we say of a person or item that “they have style,” we mean that they stand apart; that they possess characteristics making them recognisable at first sight.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) turned his philosophical convictions into a literary style, one that stands apart because of its goals, structure and logic. Montaigne’s essays possess an array of characteristics that make them unique, and convey key philosophical lessons.
In order to present those, I am going to employ an essay of Montaigne’s as an illustration. This particular essay carries the title “Tomorrow Is Another Day.” Montaigne wrote it when he was in his mid-forties. Let’s see which philosophical lessons it conveys by looking at its literary style.
Montaigne’s essay “Tomorrow is another day”
[1] Like all other essays of Montaigne’s, this one has a clear, precise focus. Montaigne did not care much for abstractions or general questions lacking practical application. His philosophy revolved around self-improvement, day by day, year after year.
The subject of this essay is anxiety, stress, preoccupation or worry. Those psychological issues have always existed, also in antiquity, although we nowadays we tend to blow their impact out of proportion.
Montaigne had a definite objective in writing this essay, that is, to find ways to reduce anxiety. He regarded himself as the archetype of the worried individual. He was always looking for ways to reduce risks, for instance, when travelling, cultivating his land, or educating his children.
The more precise our questions, the higher our chances of finding an answer, reasoned Montaigne. In the case of anxiety, Montaigne formulated the question as follows: How can we avoid unnecessary mental suffering due to our tendency to fear risks and threats that will never materialise?
Montaigne is repeating a question that Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) had already formulated in his “Letters to Lucilius.” Seneca had arrived at the conclusion that living in the present is the best approach for reducing anxiety.
I find Seneca’s conclusion rather weak and I’m happy to see that Montaigne did not limit himself to copying Seneca’s ideas. He just chose the same starting point as Seneca’s because the “Letters to Lucilius” had formulated the question correctly.
Are we doing the same in our lives? Are we formulating the questions precisely, so that we can look for workable answers? If we fail to pinpoint the problems at hand, stress will increase, and solutions will become increasingly harder to find.
Montaigne’s optimistic literary style
[2] Montaigne adopted an optimistic approach, expecting to find a workable answer. His style is practical and specific due to his positive expectations.
Those optimistic expectations set Montaigne clearly apart. He wouldn’t have accepted the attitude of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), who took for granted that the best we can do in life is to minimise, postpone, or circumvent problems, but not really solve them.
For this same reason, Montaigne was unafraid to contradict Plato (427-347 BC), Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and other philosophers from antiquity. He was seeking feasible solutions for his own problems, even if those solutions did not match the general recommendations made in the past.
As a remedy for anxiety, Seneca had recommended living in the present, but is this a valid solution? Montaigne doesn’t buy hundred per cent into Seneca’s advice.
Even if we do our best to enjoy today the company of our friends and family, will we succeed in effacing all anxiety from our minds? Montaigne acknowledges that we should learn to live without fear, but this is easier said than done.
Fortunately, he keeps digging into the subject. He remains convinced that he can figure out a solution better than Seneca’s if only because his approach is more practical, more concrete.
Montaigne’s case-oriented literary style
[3] Find a workable solution for the problem at hand, so that you can then generalise the principle. Montaigne is a master at digging for answers until he finds one that solves the issue that is bothering him. Subsequently, he is ready to turn the answer into a general principle.
In contrast to the “Nicomachean Ethics” of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Montaigne’s thinking process starts with the one and then moves to the many, instead of deducting the one solution from the many, that is, from the general principle.
Montaigne’s style shows its practicality from the start. Once he rates Seneca’s prescription as insufficient, he keeps probing for answers. He does so by looking at other authors, especially at Plutarch (46-120 AD), who had linked stress with adversity.
If we learn to deal with adversity, we can gain confidence in our ability to do well tomorrow, no matter what happens. There is no need to feel anxious when we trust our abilities to address problems when they present themselves.
Montaigne observes that, as a method for increasing one’s self-confidence, Plutarch had recommended to “learn from past experiences and accept setbacks as a normal part of life.” I find this recommendation superior than the one given by Seneca.
Anxiety cannot be conquered by living in the present and closing our eyes to the future. Humans cannot live like dogs or cats, fully occupied with the task at hand, and unaware of risks and liabilities. Self-reliance and resilience are the best methods for combating anxiety because they increase our ability to deal with adversity.
Montaigne endorsed Plutarch’s recommendation and then he had no problem to generalise it. The recipe works to get rid of everyday stress, but also in cases of high anxiety, for instance when travelling through dangerous area.
“Let’s not lose ourselves in lamentations like cowards,” says Montaigne. We should better employ our energies in increasing our resilience and self-confidence; and if things turn from bad to worse, we should just “find ways to endure the situation.”
Montaigne’s literary style reflects his thinking style. It is not the result of randomness or serendipity, but of keen reflection. It is in out interest to imitate his thinking patterns because they can render us more effective.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”