We readily inquire, “Does he know Greek or Latin?” “Can he write poetry and prose?” But what matters most is what we put last: “Has he become better and wiser?” We ought to find out not who understands most but who understands best. We work merely to fill the memory, leaving the understanding and the sense of right and wrong empty.

[Nous enquerons volontiers, Sçait-il du Grec ou du Latin ? escrit-il en vers ou en prose ? mais, s’il est devenu meilleur ou plus advisé, c’estoit le principal, & c’est ce qui demeure derriere. Il falloit s’enquerir qui est mieux sçavant, non qui est plus sçavant. Nous ne travaillons qu’à remplir la memoire, & laissons l’entendement & la conscience vuide.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist

Essays, Book 1, ch. 24 (1.24), “Of Pedantry [Du pedantisme]”(1572-1578) [tr. Screech (1987), ch. 25]
    (Source)

This chapter was present in the 1580 edition, and was expanded in succeeding ones. In the case of this passage, the words "and the sense of right and wrong" were added in the 1595 ed.

The 1595 ed. and beyond labeled this as ch. 24; the 1588 ed. used ch. 25. Different translators may vary.

(Source (French)). Alternate translations:

We are ever ready to aske, Hath he any skill in the Greeke and Latine tongue? can he write well? doth hee write in prose or verse? But whether hee bee growne better or wiser, which should bee the chiefest of his drift, that is never spoken of, we should rather enquire who is better wise, then who is more wise. We labour, and toyle, and plod to fill the memorie, and leave both understanding and conscience emptie.
[tr. Florio (1603), ch. 24]

Men are ready to ask, does he understand Greek or Latin? Is he a poet or prose writer? But whether he is the better or more discreet man, though it is the main question, is the last; for the inquiry should be, who has the best learning, not who has the most.
We only take pains to stuff the memory, and leave the understanding and conscience quite unfurnished. [tr. Cotton (1686), ch. 24]

Men are apt presently to inquire, does such a one understand Greek or Latin? Is he a poet? or does he write in prose? But whether he be grown better or more discreet, which are qualities of principal concern, these are never thought of. We should rather examine, who is better learned, than who is more learned.
We only labor to stuff the memory, and leave the conscience and the understanding unfurnished and void.
[tr. Cotton/Hazlitt (1877), ch. 24]

Men are apt to inquire, "Does such a one undersdtand Greek and Latin? Is he a poet, or does he write prose?" But the main point, whether he be better or more discreet, we inquire into the lastd. The question should be, Who is the better learned? rather than, Who is the more learned?
We labor and plot to stuff the memory8 and in the meantime leave the conscience and the understanding empty.
[tr. Rector (1899)]

We readily ask ourselves: "Does he know Greek or Latin? Does he write in verse or in prose?" but whether he has become better or more thoughtful -- that is the principal thing, and that is left in the background. The enquiry should be, who is best learned, not who is most learned. We labour only to fill the memory, and we leave the understanding and the conscience empty.
[tr. Ives (1925), ch. 25]

We are eager to inquire: “Does he know Greek or Latin? Does he write in verse or in prose?” But whether he has become better or wiser, which would be the main thing, that is left out. We should have asked who is better learned, not who is more learned.
We labor only to fill our memory, and leave the understanding and the conscience empty.
[tr. Frame (1943), ch. 25]