Ancient Stoicism plays an important role in the “Essays” by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). The essays contain a large number of references to Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, two of the leading thinkers in Stoicism.

In addition, Montaigne refers on many occasions to Cato (95-46 BC), who also falls in this philosophical movement. He devoted to Cato a specific essay, which carries the title “On Cato the Younger.”

As it was his usual practice, Montaigne employs the essay’s theme as a starting point for philosophical reflection. Cato is a subject that enables Montaigne to comment about steadfastness and integrity in times of tyranny.

Montaigne portrays Cato as a the archetype of rationality, honesty and high-mindedness. His sources about Cato consist mainly of Cicero (106-43 BC), who had composed a highly favourable tract after Cato’s death.

Yet, I must point out that Julius Caesar held a determinedly negative opinion about Cato and wrote a response to Cicero. In Caesar’s response, one can read arguments opposing the views held by Montaigne, Seneca, Sallust and other Cato’s admirers.

Montaigne’s essay “On Cato the Younger” contains detailed praise for Cato’s dedication to protecting the Roman Republic from tyranny. In the Renaissance, intellectuals held the ancient Roman Republic in high regard.

High principles in Montaigne and the Renaissance

Cato’s were indeed dangerous times, where several political contenders were trying to establish a dictatorship. They fought each other to death about who should become the dictator that would put an end to the Roman Republic.

Montaigne points out that each man was being pushed by the political contenders to risk his life. If he declined his help, he would risk retaliation; but if he gave his support, he might be killed by the other candidate dictators. It was a hard choice to make.

In his essay, Montaigne recounts Cato’s choice for Pompey, and against Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), the two key contenders for the highest office. Why did Cato choose to support Pompey instead Caesar? Because he viewed Pompey as less dangerous for the stability of the Roman Republic.

Despite Montaigne’s praise for Cato’s love for the Republic and opposition to dictatorship, I wonder if Pompey (106-48 BC) would not have appointed himself dictator at the earliest opportunity. The choice made by Cato seems to rest more on expediency than on long-term considerations.

What should one do in such extreme situations, where there are two choices, but none of them is ideal. Montaigne says that Cato had remained honest and steadfast in his principles, while the Roman Republic was falling apart.

Ideals in Montaigne and the Renaissance

To prove his point, Montaigne recounts Cato’s suicide. Note that Cato decided to kill himself upon learning that Caesar had won a decisive battle, and that Pompey had been killed while trying to take refuge in Egypt.

What arguments does Montaigne employ to praise Cato for killing himself? He said that Cato made a rational, honourable choice because he did not want to live under Caesar’s tyranny. Montaigne goes as far as describing Cato’s suicide as an act of rebellion, fully aligned with ancient Stoicism.

I must contradict Montaigne here. He had read too often the praise given by Cicero to Cato, without considering alternative views. Montaigne wants to defend the ideals of the Renaissance, but when one examines Pompey’s personality and record, it becomes difficult to find the spirit of the Roman Republic.

Pompey must have been as keen on becoming a dictator as Caesar was. Possibly, Pompey was more devious, manipulative and treasonous. I fail to understand why Montaigne considers Cato’s support for Pompey equivalent to Republican ideals.

Concerning Cato’s decision to commit suicide, Montaigne presents it in favourable terms, but does not make any sense to me. Cato had supported the losing general in the civil war, and killed himself upon learning that all was lost. What’s so heroic about that?

I tend to be suspicious when encountering endless praise for an individual, without considering any alternative narrative. If we read Montaigne, we will learn that “Cato was the greatest example of resolute virtue” and “a paragon of stoic virtue,” but is it really true?

Risk management in Montaigne and the Renaissance

Cato chose to support Pompey as a lesser evil, not because Pompey was a model of Republican virtue. It is clear that Cato disliked Caesar more than he disliked Pompey, but should we endorse Cato’s choice in retrospective?

Montaigne reproduces Cicero’s interpretation by saying that “Cato chose to put an end to his life rather than see his country enslaved.” Such an interpretation is massively exaggerated.

In reality, the great majority of Roman citizens cared neither for Caesar nor for Pompey; they also perceived little difference between the decade before Caesar and the decade afterwards.

It is hyperbolic for Montaigne to call Caesar’s rule slavery. The passage from the Roman Republic to the Empire took a long time. Caesar played a major role, but did not alone shape the historical trend. There are many factors involved: cultural, economic, military, etc.

I find disingenuous for Montaigne to call Cato’s suicide “an act of resistance against Caesar’s tyranny.” What would have happened if Cato hadn’t committed suicide? Possibly, nothing. I mean, Caesar might have forgiven him or sent him into exile.

Montaigne fails to grasp the most important philosophical lesson from Cato’s story. The correct conclusion isn’t that Cato was a great hero of the Roman Republic, but that he had taken oversized risks.

By supporting Pompey instead of Caesar, Cato had a 50 per cent chance of losing everything. The odds against him were too high, and victory would not have made a large difference. I wonder if Pompey would have declared himself a dictator for life faster than Caesar did.

When faced with two pitiful, unsatisfying choices, I would not imitate Cato and pick sides. I would rather drag my feet as long as possible, and look for a third alternative.

History shows that there is little to be gained by supporting a lesser of two evils. Cato’s suicide is a compelling story, but I do not regard it as a great example of virtue. If anything, it was the foreseeable outcome of Cato’s poor risk management.

If you are interested in applying rational principles here and now to all kind of situations, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”