Michel de Montaigne was a French nobleman and writer who invented the modern essay. He was born in 1533 at the Château de Montaigne in southwest France, near Bordeaux. His family had grown rich through the wine trade and bought their way into the minor nobility. His father had odd ideas about education. He sent the infant Michel to live with peasants for the first three years of his life, so the boy would understand ordinary people. Then he had Latin tutors speak to Michel only in Latin, so the boy grew up speaking Latin as fluently as French. The unusual education shaped him. Montaigne studied law and worked for thirteen years as a magistrate in the Bordeaux high court. He served twice as mayor of Bordeaux. He lived through the French Wars of Religion, a long, brutal series of civil conflicts between Catholics and Protestants that killed thousands and produced famous atrocities like the 1572 Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. The wars shaped his thinking about cruelty, fanaticism, and the limits of human reason. In 1571, aged 38, he retired from public life. He moved to a tower in his château, lined the walls with about a thousand books, and began to write. He called what he wrote 'essais', from the French essayer, meaning 'to try' or 'to test'. They were attempts to think on the page, not finished arguments. He published the first edition of his Essays in 1580 and kept revising and expanding them until his death in 1592. He never quite finished. The book has been read by every educated person in the West for over four hundred years.
Montaigne matters for three reasons. First, he invented the essay as a literary form. Earlier writers had written treatises, dialogues, letters, and aphorisms. Nobody had written quite what Montaigne wrote: short, personal, exploratory pieces that worked through a question by association rather than systematic argument. The form has lasted. Every modern essay, from George Orwell to Joan Didion to Zadie Smith, owes a debt to him.
Second, he placed the ordinary self at the centre of serious writing. He thought he could understand humanity by carefully examining one human, himself. He wrote about his diet, his bowels, his moods, his fears, his sex life, his memory, his books, his cat, his dying friends. He was honest about his weakness and inconsistency. The result was a new way of writing about being human: from the inside, in the first person, without pretending to be wiser than one was. Modern autobiography, memoir, and personal writing all descend from this experiment.
Third, he was a wise sceptic in a violent and certain age. His country was tearing itself apart over religious differences. People were burning each other for being on the wrong side. Montaigne kept asking how anyone could be so sure of what they believed that they would kill for it. His scepticism was not just intellectual; it was moral. He thought confidence in one's own rightness was the most dangerous thing humans were capable of. The lesson still matters.
For a first introduction, Sarah Bakewell's How to Live: A Life of Montaigne (2010) is an excellent, accessible biography organised as twenty answers to the question of how to live. M. A. Screech's Penguin Classics translation of the Complete Essays (1991) is the standard accessible English version. For a quick taste, the Penguin edition of selected essays is shorter and easier to start with. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Montaigne is a solid free starting point.
For deeper reading, Donald Frame's biography Montaigne: A Biography (1965) remains useful and is more historically detailed than Bakewell's. Frame's translation of the Essays (Stanford, 1957) is also standard. Hugo Friedrich's Montaigne (1949 in German, English translation 1991) is a major scholarly study. For the historical context, Mack Holt's The French Wars of Religion 1562-1629 (revised edition 2005) is essential background. Phillipe Desan's edited The Oxford Handbook of Montaigne (2016) is comprehensive.
Montaigne was a comfortable retired gentleman writing about pleasant topics.
He was not. He lived through the French Wars of Religion, a generation of civil conflict that killed perhaps three million people. He saw massacres, sieges, and atrocities at first hand. His own house was attacked at one point. He served as a moderate Catholic intermediary between the warring sides. The calm, conversational tone of the Essays should not mislead. Montaigne was writing in the middle of a national catastrophe. His scepticism, his hatred of cruelty, and his constant questioning of human certainty all grew out of watching people kill each other over religious differences. Reading him as a peaceful retiree misses the moral seriousness underneath the easy style.
Montaigne's scepticism means he believed nothing.
It does not. He was sceptical about human capacity for certain knowledge, especially about metaphysics, religion, and the customs of foreign peoples. He thought we held many of our strongest beliefs on weak evidence. But he was not a flat sceptic about everything. He believed in friendship, kindness, and moderation. He believed in the value of careful self-examination. He held strong moral views, especially against cruelty. His scepticism was a tool, not a position. He used it to slow down false confidence, not to abandon all judgement. Reading him as someone who thought everything was equally uncertain misses the careful, partial structure of his actual scepticism.
The Essays is a finished, polished book.
It is not, and Montaigne did not want it to be. He kept revising it for over twenty years. Modern editions show three layers of text: the original 1580 version, the expanded 1588 version, and further additions Montaigne made to his own copy before he died in 1592. He added new examples, changed his mind, and contradicted his earlier self in print. The book grew rather than being finished. This was deliberate. Montaigne thought human beings were processes, not finished products, and a book that recorded human thought honestly should also change over time. Reading the Essays as a polished completed work misses this dynamic quality. The best modern editions, like the one by André Tournon or the Pléiade, preserve the layers.
Montaigne's praise of Brazilian indigenous peoples shows he had escaped European prejudice.
His essay 'Of Cannibals' was a remarkable attack on European arrogance and a serious attempt to take indigenous customs seriously. But Montaigne had never been to Brazil. His information came from second-hand accounts, including a brief conversation with three Tupinambá people brought to Rouen. He sometimes idealised indigenous peoples in ways that did not reflect their actual lives, treating them more as symbols of natural virtue than as real people. The basic move, of using foreign customs to question European confidence, was important and influential. The specific accuracy of his picture was limited. This is a useful case in the history of how Europeans have written about non-European peoples: even sympathetic writers have often dealt in stereotypes, just kinder ones.
For research-level engagement, the Pléiade edition of Montaigne's Œuvres complètes is the standard French scholarly text. André Tournon's annotated French edition is influential and shows the layers of revision. Géralde Nakam's Montaigne et son temps (1982) treats his historical and political setting in depth. Phillipe Desan's Montaigne: A Life (2017, English translation 2017) is a major recent scholarly biography. The journal Montaigne Studies regularly publishes new work. For the Apology for Raymond Sebond specifically, the older debate between sceptical and fideist readings is summarised in Ann Hartle's Michel de Montaigne: Accidental Philosopher (2003).
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.