However, according to Montaigne, this knowledge must be specifically be critical knowledge. He uses digestion as an analogy to reflect the worthlessness of book knowledge. According to Montaigne, in comparing the mind to the stomach and food as thoughts, “the stomach has not done its job if, during concoction, it fails to change the substance and the form of what it is given” (43). What we know as book knowledge is thus completely irrelevant for it fails to look at the greater picture. The critical eye is necessary in evaluating different situations (historical, scientific, etc.) in order to optimize the use of the knowledge. Rabelais, accordingly, has a similar take on the importance of acquiring knowledge. Panurge, after all, is made to be more of a satirical character than anything else because of his indolence and his disregard for the learning process. Until his visit to Herr Trippa, what Pantagruel criticizes most about Panurge’s character is that he simply takes an authority’s advice in the most literal manner, which causes him to get discouraged in his prospects for marriage. Another theme that is recurrent throughout Montaigne’s work with regards to acquiring knowledge is the idea that knowledge is something that it is a gradual process and not something that simply happens overnight. In fact, he criticizes those who believe that they have the absolute truth rather quickly, asserting that “only fools have made up their minds and are certain” (Montaigne 44). Pantagruel’s patience with Panurge all throughout Book 3 is most exemplary of the importance of understanding that learning who you are and gaining the sense of what is right and wrong through truth and reason is very gradual.
Throughout Gargantua and Pantagruel, Rabelais emphasizes what seems to be the theme of the book: “know yourself.” Montaigne indeed is no different in his beliefs on the importance self reflection and self discovery, before beginning to make any judgments as an authority. As a matter of fact, Montaigne begins his entire treatise by emphasizing that “I, myself, am the subject of this book” (3). His essays, therefore, were meant as a source of self-reflection, not necessarily to become an authority on subjects such as education of children. Although Montaigne does feel that many could learn from his own experiences, he does not intend this as the primary purpose of the book. His Essays therefore are the ultimate culmination and end product of “knowing yourself,” in written form. Self-criticism, thus, is an important part of both authors’ works. For example, Montaigne encourages students to “be satisfied with correcting himself without being seen to reproach others for doing things he would not do himself and without flouting public morality” (47). Thus, what Montaigne is asserting is that authorities do not always have to be another scholar or person: they can often be oneself. However, doing so requires much discipline and the ability to use reason to assess, analyze and evaluate one’s own mistakes.
Also, another point is the idea of doing what makes sense and what is reasonable for each individual. However, rational decisions are prevented if authorities are in that individual’s mind superior to reason. Rabelais expresses his views on this during Pantagruel’s and Panurge’s exchange on marriage. Instead of offering Panurge a definite yes or no answer, he instead constantly changes his mind whenever Panurge brings about a different situation. To some extent, the emphasis on the individual is also seen in Pantagruel’s entire speech about his hatred for debtors and borrowers at the beginning of Book 3. Although not pertaining directly to authority, they do show an idea of self-reliance (rather than dependence on any kind of authority). Finally, Panurge’s exchange with Herr Trippa is his breakthrough moment where he is finally able to stand up to an “authority” and call him an “idiot.” Through this exchange, he finally realizes the first rule of philosophy: “know yourself,” and uses this to call his predetermined fate ridiculous (307).
For both Montaigne and for Rabelais, avoiding blind acceptance of authority is of utmost importance. However, they only criticize blind acceptance and both realize the importance of learning from others’ experiences. In doing so, they both emphasize the importance of truth and reason before accepting authority. Truth and reason, after all, are the only universal qualities that man has—while intellect may be lacking for some, truth and reason are qualities which all of mankind shares to use as sources in determining what is right and wrong for each individual. Montaigne quite clearly asserts that “truth and reason are common to all: they no more belong to the man who first put them into words than to him who last did so” (44). In teaching our children, Montaigne emphasizes the importance of teaching them the importance that truth and reason have. He encourages teachers to have a student’s “virtue and sense of right and wrong shine through [his talk] and have no guide but reason” (48). Through this, Montaigne downplays the teacher’s ability of deeming what is correct and incorrect, and instead has the learning process be a trial-and-error process. Thus, the balance between both listening and speaking on the part of the student is exemplified. The Abbey at Theleme is based upon the importance of freedom of thought and free will. This is expressed most simply in the Abbey’s motto: “Do what you will” (124). Because of this freedom, it is believed that the men and women of Theleme are “instinctively impelled to do virtuous things and avoid vice” (124). This is also seen in Gargantua’s letter to Pantagruel, when he encourages Pantagruel is encouraged to take full advantage of Epistemon, his tutor, “by listening and speaking and by all the noble examples held up in front of your eyes” (158). Both of these examples are similar to Montaigne’s beliefs because they both reflect the importance of self-sufficiency and independence in thinking and action. Thus, once again, they both downplay the place of authorities in the learning process.
On the other hand, Panurge is not an expert at using reason in order to make judgments. This can be reflected through his belief that dice can predict the future. Also, although seeking the advice of the Sibyl of Panzoult was Pantagruel’s idea, he still tells Panurge to wait to make any decisions to “consider all the evidence” (285). This is to prevent Panurge for believing that because the Sibyl is indeed a witch (although there is no proof of this) for believing anything and everything that Sibyl says to be true. This, again, will also given Panurge a chance to consider reason before making a decision based on the authority’s opinion. Montaigne shares his thoughts about accepting advice from authorities through use of reason by noting that it is necessary for men to “sound out the capacity for each person…he must use what he can get, take what a man has to sell and see that nothing goes wasted: even other people’s stupidity and weakness serve to instruct him” (49). Montaigne echoes his thoughts about the importance of allowing only those who are qualified to truly be considered authorities by asserting the importance for men to “leave all that to those who make it their express profession” (63). Without set guidelines for discerning who is an authority and who is not, society becomes chaotic without any guide. While both Rabelais and Montaigne realize that it is only natural for men to look up to other men for assistance help, they encourage the importance of rationality in allowing those authorities to make judgments.
Throughout the sixteenth century, the place of authority in the average man’s life was troubling. Because of the convenience, men were less inclined to learn and think for themselves; instead, they let others think for them. Montaigne and Rableais were particularly interested in revitalizing the minds of western Europe. This would eventually pave the way to the Enlightenment period and modern thinking, even as we know it today. Without writers like Montaigne and Rabelais, there is a good chance that society would still for the most part be in a western dogmatic daze. Without Montaigne and Rabelais questioning authority, knowledge would be minimized to mere recitation more than anything else. When intellect and scholasticism begins to be trivialized, this is when society falls to those who act upon petty emotion and irrationality.
