In literary criticism, there is a current that regards all works of literature as autobiographical, even when the author had no intention of speaking about his own life and circumstances.

The underlying idea is that, when authors write, they cannot avoid revealing their views and personal history, their traumas and pressing concerns. Consciously or unconsciously, they are giving hints and clues about their own life.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) and his works prove this theory correct. In his essays, Montaigne addressed a wide array of subjects, but could not avoid imprinting his personality and philosophical views in every discussion, even when recounting anecdotes from ancient Greece and Rome.

Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “Whether the governor himself should go out to parlay.” The essay’s title is raising a question of political or military theory, but Montaigne makes the discussion revolve around his personal experience in public office.

I can summarise the essay in one sentence, which conveys in modern English Montaigne’s conclusion from all his years in public office: When bad turns to worse, display the utmost care so that you don’t paint yourself into a corner.

“Whether the governor himself should go out to parlay”

In order to prove his point, Montaigne uses anecdotes from ancient history. He recalls that, during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), Hannibal tricked many ancient Roman generals into fighting from inferior tactical positions, for instance, next to a river or a cliff, or facing the sunshine.

In contrast, general Fabius Maximus (280-203 BC) avoided combat with Hannibal when tactical circumstances were not in favour of the Roman troops. He had no problem to keep his legions manoeuvring around Hannibal, week after week, trying to gain higher ground or some other tactical advantage.

The strategy adopted by Fabius Maximus requires nerves of steel, but during a crisis, careful manoeuvrers will outperform reckless speed. As I said above, when situations get tough, the worst thing we can do is to paint ourselves into a corner.

Similarly, Montaigne recounts how King Pyrrhus of Epirus (319-272 BC) consumed his military resources in the Battle of Heraclea and the Battle of Asculum.

His overambitious attacks cost him thousands of troops that he could not easily replace. Although he did gain some ground, his victories proved counterproductive.

After the Battle of Asculum, Pyrrhus’ thinned army couldn’t keep the pace and had to withdraw. Shortly after, Pyrrhus gave up altogether his attempts to conquest Greece. When he passed away seven years later, he was still lamenting his failure.

Indeed, Pyrrhus had behaved recklessly and painted himself into a corner. If he had thought things out, he would not have endangered his troops for gaining a few square kilometres of barren land.

Montaigne drew insights from his own experience

On a lower scale of magnitude, Montaigne had committed a similar error during his four years as mayor of Bordeaux. His intentions had been laudable, but he had vastly underestimated the size of the problem.

Montaigne has failed in his attempt at conciliating Catholics and Protestants in Bordeaux. There was ingrained prejudice on both sides, and Montaigne’s efforts had proven to no avail.

In his essay “Whether the governor himself should go out to parlay,” Montaigne is presenting the question as an abstraction. He was not referring solely to the French religious wars in his lifetime, but to crisis situations in general.

When Montaigne asks, “what shall a governor do when his city is under siege?” he is really asking himself, “what should I have done when I was mayor of Bordeaux?”

The historical examples of Fabius Maximus and Pyrrhus of Epirus lead him to the conclusion that, whether one attempts to negotiate or not with the assailants, one should stay extremely alert to avoid being double-crossed.

Montaigne is drawing on his own experience in peace and wartime, so that his readers can learn important lessons. Let us pass review to those.

[1] When a situation becomes extremely tense, it is better to avoid one’s direct engagement, argues Montaigne; the best way is to use intermediaries to discuss the opponents’ claims, trying to find a settlement.

Montaigne warns readers against playing the role of suicidal hero. It rarely works out to expose oneself to oversized risks. It is much better to proceed carefully and prudently, defusing the tension on both sides.

Michel de Montaigne’s call for prudence

[2] We should always have a backup plan and one or several escape routes, so that we never get into a hopeless situation. In the words of Montaigne “Conducting negotiations is similar to conducting war. We should stay alert at all times, observing the opponent closely, and never assume that he is trustworthy.”

Montaigne was referring to the massacres that had occurred during the French religious wars, where soldiers had inflicted severe harm on civilians. For those victims, it would have been wiser to move away from that area at the very beginning of the hostilities.

[3] There is no shame in retreating and manoeuvring when the situation so demands, says Montaigne. Where other Roman generals had failed to contain Hannibal, the slow manoeuvres of Fabius Maximus prevented him from gaining ground.

Montaigne summarizes his insight by telling us that, in life, we should carefully weigh when to fight and when to retreat. It is foolish to attack when we are in an inferior position, but it is also foolish not to seize the opportunity for a decisive victory.

By giving us hints and clues about his own life, Montaigne is conveying a crucial message: Let us not expose ourselves to unnecessary risks because those are a mark of foolishness, not of wisdom.

If you are interesting in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “On becoming unbreakable.”