When Michel del Montaigne (1533-1592) developed a deep interest in history, he was following a cultural trend. There are many examples from the sixteenth century of people trying to make sense of their world by studying history, especially the history of ancient Rome and ancient Greece.

In the Renaissance, learned people purchased copies of the works Seneca, Plutarch, and Cicero, and actually read them. It was considered a great investment of one’s time to learn Latin and devote the evenings to reading the classics. Why? Because they contain lots of wisdom and practical advice.

Montaigne carried out his classical studies in his own way. I mean in a rather chaotic, haphazard, learn-as-you-go manner. It did not appeal to him to spend months reading Seneca, then go to Cicero, etc.

Instead of opting for a systematic approach, Montaigne took the path of variety and entertainment. Like other amateurs of history, he wanted to draw practical lessons from his studies, but at the same time, he wanted to enjoy the ride.

In this respect, Montaigne constitutes an exception to the rule. I do not know of any other Renaissance intellectual who said determinedly no to a systematic, rigid approach. It requires lots of self-confidence to trust oneself to find the best way to learn, instead of following the trodden path.

Montaigne and Petrarch in the Renaissance

Until Montaigne, there was only one way to approach the study of the classics, that is, the way of maximalism. In today’s language, I would employ the term micro-management. I mean the obsession to check every detail and investigate every little variation.

Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374) exemplifies the maximalist approach to studying the classics. He preceded Montaigne by a couple of centuries, but still, belongs to the Renaissance period as much as Montaigne does.

Like Montaigne, Petrarch studied law in France. Petrarch’s parents were Italian, but they had moved to Avignon in France because the Pope (one of them, because they were two Popes claiming the title) had moved to Avignon.

Subsequently, Petrarch returned to his homeland to deepen his law studies at the University of Bologna. At that time, law studies meant the study of ancient Roman law, especially from compilations made by Theodosius and Justinian.

Montaigne had completed his law studies as fast as he could in order to get a job. He wanted to be financially independent. He found a solid position in Bordeaux as legal counsel and did not look back to the University. He had better things to do.

Petrarch found himself unable to choose a clear path. With his extensive legal qualifications, he could have landed a good position in Bologna, Florence or Venice, where merchants had a steady need for legal counsellors.

Instead, Petrarch abandoned his legal studies in Bologna, returned to Avignon and became a cleric. Historians say that he wanted to achieve financial stability. If that was the case, his decision was deeply irrational. He could have earned a much better living as a lawyer in one of the trading cities in Italy.

Montaigne and classical sources in the Renaissance

Montaigne kept reading the classics in his spare time. It was a hobby and he kept it as such. His job as a lawyer provided a steady income and personal freedom. He could purchase books as he wanted, even if those were expensive.

Petrarch found plenty of time to read the classics while he was in the convent. His lifestyle was unexciting, unpromising, and constrained. He fell in love with a married woman named Laura and wrote poems in her honour. At that point, I think, he must have regretted his career choice.

Montaigne purchased as many books as he could afford. His interest in the classics grew as time went by. The more he read, the more practical lessons he learned. He realized that Seneca, Cicero and Plutarch, just to name a few Roman authors, had been facing essentially the same problems as he was facing.

Petrarch had little money to purchase books (hand-written, because the printing press had not yet been invented), but in a decade, he managed to collect works from Cicero and other ancient Roman writers.

Montaigne’s practical approach in the Renaissance

From his research, Petrarch ended up writing a volume of biographies (“Illustrious men”), which offers a strong contrast with Montaigne’s “Essays.”

Where Petrarch had been accurate in facts and quotations, Montaigne is more lackadaisical. Montaigne’s goal is to find a short-cut to wisdom without caring too much about the details.

Both Montaigne and Petrarch left an indelible mark. Both men embody the best of the Renaissance, but bring us different philosophical lessons.

I submit that Petrarch paid a too high price for accuracy and structure. He was crowned Poet Laureate in Rome in 1341, but is that sufficient compensation for a rather miserable life. Did he actually draw practical lessons from reading Cicero?

My preference is to endorse Montaigne’s approach. Instead of talking about self-reliance, he demonstrated it every day. He did something better than writing about illustrious persons: he became one himself.

If you are interested in applying rational philosophy to your own life, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”