The insertion of personal reflections is the most innovative aspect in the essays of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). The previous centuries had relegated personal reflections to poetry. Montaigne is the first author who gave his personal views on a wide range of subjects, placing his reflections on equal level to quotations from Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero.
Since Montaigne did not possess expertise in all those areas, it is fair to question the accuracy of his personal views. I have read his essays in detail, assessing how often he got it right.
When Montaigne addressed subjects he knew well, like the education of children, his personal reflections are remarkably accurate. However, when he addressed general philosophical questions, his logic often went astray.
On too many occasions, he did not draw a clear conclusion. After examining the arguments against and in favour, he stated that the subject is too complex or that human knowledge is too limited. I find those essays particular disappointing.
Montaigne’s essay “On the inconveniences of high status”
Montaigne’s reflections grew in accuracy when he treated subjects particularly close to his heart. That’s the case of his essay “On the inconveniences of high status.” Montaigne could speak from experience because, at one time, he had occupied the highest elected post in the city of Bordeaux.
During his tenure, Montaigne had faced civil and religious strife, criticism and opposition. The job had placed him in the middle of confrontations between Catholics and Protestants. It became by far the most stressful experience of his life.
Montaigne’s personal reflections are inordinately accurate in assessing the disadvantages of high office. He speaks with an open heart of the vulnerability, risks, and reduced privacy that are associated to jobs in the public view.
The risks mentioned by Montaigne go further than the mere loss of fortune or reputation. In his essay, he repeatedly points to the risk of assassination by the opposing political faction.
Was Montaigne suffering from paranoia? Did he exaggerate the inconveniences of public office? No, I view his remarks as a fair assessment of the situation in sixteenth-century France.
Montaigne’s personal reflections on happiness
Montaigne reminds us of many public figures who, despite their immense success, met an early death. Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), for instance, was murdered at the height of his power.
By “public figures,” Montaigne does not only mean people in high offices. His concept is wider. It includes celebrities and influencers, and famous individuals of all sorts. The essential risk factor is fame, not necessarily power or wealth.
Montaigne mentions Socrates (469-399 BC) as an example: absence of power and wealth did not protect Socrates against public hatred. People in Athens disliked him because of the ideas he had proclaimed. Those had made him famous, but also vulnerable.
The stress and anxiety generated by high office can impact us negatively, argued Montaigne; he reminds us that Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) had conquered vast territories, but lost his peace of mind in the process. With his soul in turmoil and his sleep disrupted, Alexander could not call himself happy.
Universality of Montaigne’s personal reflections
Do Montaigne’s personal reflections still apply today? His examples of private disgrace after public office refer to people from many centuries ago. Is it still true that “The higher one rises in society, the more painfully he is going to be exposed to any reversal of fortune”?
Indeed, some of Montaigne’s examples are far away from today’s reality. He mentions Cato the Younger (95-46 BC) as a victim of a downfall in public office, but it is hard to imagine that someone today would imitate Cato and commit suicide.
I also regard as irrelevant today the example Cleopatra (69-30 BC), who chose to kill herself rather than fall prisoner to Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus. I cannot think of many people who would make such a choice nowadays.
Montaigne’s personal reflections are remarkably accurate on the subject of stress and anxiety. His warnings apply generally, not only to high office.
In the ancient Roman Empire, Tiberius (42 BC-37 AD) and Nero (37-68 AD) had strong reasons for their fear. In case of a palace revolt, their lives would quickly come to an end. Today, few people need to fear political assassination, but millions worry about the possibility of losing their job.
Montaigne was right to compare high offices to steep cliffs, constantly exposed to weather inclemencies. In case of storms, the office holder may suffer the consequences, although today it is unlikely for anyone to be killed after being overthrown, like it happened to the Roman Emperor Galba (3 BC-69 AD).
I must nonetheless contest Montaigne’s second conclusion, which calls for steering away from public influence and high offices. Since Montaigne himself did very well after occupying a public position, the correct conclusion should be to do it with care and have a back-up plan.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all kind of situations, I recommend you my book titled “On becoming unbreakable.”