Especially in his earliest batch of essays, Montaigne covers a significant amount of ground on issues of military strategy and ethics. I asked chatGPT to do a deep dive on the question of whether Montaigne directly addressed the works of Machiavelli and what Montaigne scholars believe his aim was in those examinations. The following is the research complied by chatGPT, including textual sources:
Montaigne and Machiavelli: Direct Evidence and Intellectual Connections
Montaigne’s References to Machiavelli
There is concrete evidence that Michel de Montaigne was familiar with Niccolò Machiavelli’s writings, particularly The Prince. Montaigne explicitly names “Machiavelli” twice in his Essais. Both references occur in Book II (first published 1580), indicating he had read or at least closely observed Machiavelli’s work . In the essay “Observation on the Means to Carry on a War According to Julius Caesar” (Bk II, ch.34), Montaigne remarks that “’tis said that, in our times, Machiavelli is elsewhere still in repute.” He lists Machiavelli among authors whom great military leaders esteem, though he pointedly adds that Marshal Strozzi “made the best choice” by preferring Julius Caesar’s commentaries as a soldier’s bible . This passing comment shows Montaigne knew Machiavelli’s reputation as an authority on statecraft or warfare. In another chapter, “Of Presumption” (Bk II, ch.17), Montaigne directly critiques Machiavelli’s writings: “Machiavelli’s writings, for example, were solid enough for the subject, yet were they easy enough to be controverted; and they who have done so have left as great a facility of controverting theirs.” . Here Montaigne is alluding to the heated debate sparked by Machiavelli’s ideas, noting how The Prince had provoked a flurry of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals in the decades after its publication . Scholars infer that Montaigne is specifically referencing The Prince – “the main object of controversy in Machiavelli’s writings” – which by Montaigne’s time had already inspired numerous critiques in France and elsewhere . In short, Montaigne’s own text confirms he was aware of Machiavelli’s works and their contentious status, strongly implying he had read them (or at least read about them).
Indirect historical evidence supports this conclusion as well. Montaigne maintained a personal library of around 1,000 books, a remarkable collection for the 16th century . While we do not have a complete inventory of his library, Montaigne was fluent in French, Latin and Italian and read widely in contemporary histories. Modern scholars find it very likely that Machiavelli’s works were among Montaigne’s books or available to him. In fact, a 2016 issue of Montaigne Studies includes a study explicitly on “Montaigne, lecteur de Guichardin et de Machiavel,” i.e. Montaigne as a reader of Guicciardini and Machiavelli . Although Montaigne’s surviving letters and marginalia do not mention Machiavelli by name (unsurprising given Machiavelli’s controversial reputation in Counter-Reformation Europe), his own writing serves as evidence. Montaigne’s two references to “Machiavelli’s writings” in the Essais and his clear familiarity with debates about The Prince demonstrate that he had indeed engaged with Machiavelli’s ideas .
Machiavellian Themes in Montaigne’s Early Essays
Beyond name-dropping Machiavelli, Montaigne actively engages with Machiavelli’s political themes – sometimes echoing them, but more often contesting them – especially in his early essays on war and politics. Several of Montaigne’s Book I and Book II essays (1580) can be read as a dialogue with Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince and the Discourses. For example, in “Observation on Julius Caesar’s War Methods” Montaigne notes that Machiavelli’s advice was esteemed by some generals of his era . He then implicitly weighs Machiavellian strategy against classical models: Montaigne praises Caesar’s commentaries as “the true and sovereign pattern of the military art” and superior to any modern guide . This preference can be seen as a gentle swipe at Machiavelli’s The Art of War or The Prince – Montaigne implies that the timeless lessons of antiquity (Caesar, Xenophon, etc.) outweigh Machiavelli’s contemporary counsel for a “breviary” of warfare. Montaigne even recounts how Caesar used deception as a tactic – at one point Caesar exaggerated an enemy’s strength to steel his own troops’ resolve . Notably, Machiavelli too advises that a leader must at times imitate the fox (deception) as well as the lion in war. Montaigne’s inclusion of such examples shows he understood the Machiavellian principle that psychology and trickery are tools of warfare, even as he filters it through admiration of classical heroes rather than Machiavelli’s authority.
In “Of Presumption,” Montaigne’s discussion of Machiavelli goes further, addressing the reliability of political knowledge. He observes that Machiavelli’s political arguments, however “solid,” could be met with opposing arguments – and those in turn invite endless debate . “There was never wanting in that kind of argument replies and replies upon replies,” he writes, likening the proliferation of Machiavelli’s critics and defenders to lawyers quibbling ad infinitum . Montaigne’s point here is a skeptical one: in the realm of statecraft, general rules are hard to establish because for any Machiavellian rule, one can find counterexamples. He reinforces this by saying “the reasons have little other foundation than experience, and the variety of human events presents us with infinite examples of all sorts” . In other words, Montaigne doubted that Machiavelli (or anyone) could formulate a true science of politics – human affairs are too variable. This directly engages Machiavelli’s project in The Prince (to derive rational principles for successful rule) and questions it. Indeed, Montaigne explicitly rejects the idea of a fixed political science, whereas Machiavelli famously sought the “effectual truth” of political action. “Machiavelli’s arguments,” Montaigne says, “can always be refuted with contrary examples, so diverse are human affairs.” . Here Montaigne is siding against Machiavelli’s confidence in political maxims – an intellectual rebuttal couched in polite, skeptical observation.
One of the most significant Machiavellian themes Montaigne addresses is the tension between morality and political expediency – especially regarding cruelty, mercy, and the utile vs. honnête (useful vs. honorable). Machiavelli infamously argued that a prince “must learn how not to be good” and that it can be necessary to use cruelty to maintain order (so long as it’s well-used and not excessive). Montaigne’s early essays strongly repudiate such Machiavellian amorality. In his essay “Of Cruelty” (Bk II, ch.11), Montaigne unequivocally declares, “I have a hatred for cruelty, as the extreme of all vices”. In fact, Montaigne calls cruelty “la plus extrême des vices” and says he “hate[s] it… by nature and by judgment” (a stance he attributes both to feeling and principle) . This represents “his utter disapproval of all forms of cruelty.” Montaigne then contrasts Machiavellian “cruelty well-used” with an ethic of humaneness: he extols clemency through the story of Augustus forgiving Cinna (rewarding mercy with stability), but notes with sorrow that even merciful princes can fall to violent ends . The clear implication is that, even if cruelty might sometimes seem effective, Montaigne cannot endorse it – he remains committed to mercy as a virtue, even acknowledging the tragic reality that virtue may go unrewarded (an implicit dialogue with Machiavelli’s claim that excessive mercy can destabilize). Perhaps most striking is Montaigne’s famous account in “Of Cannibals” (Bk I, ch.31), where he compares the indigenous Brazilians to Europeans. He concludes that the so-called “barbarian” natives conduct war more virtuously than Europeans do: “their wars are throughout noble and generous,” whereas “tyranny and cruelty…are our familiar vices”, and “we in all sorts of barbarity exceed them.” . This passage can be read as a pointed moral rejoinder to Machiavellian realpolitik. Montaigne implies that European rulers (who at the time justified massacres and torture for reasons of state) are in fact more savage than the cannibals – a direct inversion of Machiavelli’s cool acceptance of cruelty for the sake of stability. Montaigne’s ethical humanism here stands in stark contrast to Machiavelli’s ruthless pragmatism.
Another core Machiavellian idea is the separation of utility and honor – Machiavelli taught that a leader must often choose utile (the useful, beneficial outcome for the state) over honnête (the honorable or morally right action), and he dismissed moral scruples that undermined political success. Montaigne explicitly grapples with this dichotomy in his essay “Of the Useful and the Honorable” (the very first chapter of Book III, added in 1588). There Montaigne pointedly refuses to excuse evil actions by appealing to the “greater good”. He warns against those who invoke “the common good” or “reasons of state” as a “pretext of reason” to cloak their violent or treacherous inclinations . “I see people excusing their bloody cruelty by the ‘public interest’,” Montaigne writes in effect, and he calls this a “dangerous mistake” . While Machiavelli (and later raison d’État theorists) might argue that immoral means are justified by state necessity, Montaigne rejects this, saying that such rhetoric only serves to give wicked acts a false veneer of legitimacy . In doing so, Montaigne is directly countering Machiavelli’s most infamous principle (that the ends justify the means). Montaigne’s position is that true public good can never be founded on treachery or brutality – a stance aligning him more with classical and Christian moral thinkers than with Machiavelli. It’s important to note that Montaigne wrote this in the context of France’s Wars of Religion, where both Protestant and Catholic leaders committed atrocities claiming “necessity.” His target is precisely the Machiavellian logic used by fanatics of his time. Montaigne thus emerges as a moderate skeptic who prefers ineffective virtue to efficient vice. As he says in “Of Presumption,” even a government full of imperfections is better than violent upheaval in the name of utopian change . “The worst thing I find in our state is instability,” Montaigne writes, arguing that it is easy to tear down an old order but “to establish a better regimen in the stead of that which a man has overthrown, many who have attempted it have foundered.” . This sounds like a direct commentary on would-be Machiavellian reformers (or revolutionaries): Montaigne counsels caution and continuity over radical “new modes and orders.” In essence, where Machiavelli celebrates the bold founding of new principalities, Montaigne fears the unintended consequences of political upheaval – a fundamentally different attitude toward change and tradition.
In sum, Montaigne’s early essays on military and political matters frequently reflect on Machiavellian concepts. Sometimes he seems to concede Machiavelli’s realism – for example, Montaigne acknowledges the role of fortune and circumstance that Machiavelli also emphasized, and he admits that human nature in politics is fickle and corruptible . He even shares anecdotes (Caesar’s tricks, etc.) that illustrate Machiavellian tactics. But more often, Montaigne offers a critical foil to Machiavelli. He rehumanizes Machiavelli’s cold political calculus by reasserting the claims of conscience, mercy, and skepticism about grand theories. This interplay suggests that Montaigne was not only aware of Machiavelli’s The Prince but was deliberately writing in its shadow – testing Machiavelli’s ideas against his own experience and moral judgment.
Scholarly Perspectives on the Montaigne–Machiavelli Connection
Academic research in French, Italian, and English has probed this intertextual relationship, asking to what extent Montaigne’s Essais respond to Machiavelli’s political philosophy. Scholars largely agree that Montaigne engaged Machiavelli’s ideas, often implicitly, throughout the essays. As one scholar puts it, Montaigne “discussed Machiavelli directly in The Essays in passing and shows a familiarity with the instrumental ideas of The Prince in several places” . In other words, Montaigne knew Machiavelli’s arguments well enough to invoke them even without always naming him. Pierre J. Goumarre (1973) analyzed “la morale et la politique: Montaigne, Cicéron et Machiavel,” highlighting how Montaigne’s political thought mediates between the moral idealism of Cicero and the pragmatic realism of Machiavelli . Goumarre found that Montaigne was no simple moralist: he understood Machiavelli’s lessons but refused to espouse them without reservation. In fact, Montaigne’s skeptical method leads him to scrutinize Machiavellian maxims and ultimately “adjudicate” in favor of an approach that limits reason of state by moral considerations . Thus, Goumarre sees Montaigne’s political stance as a critical response to Machiavelli, injecting conscience into Machiavellian efficacy.
Similarly, Philip Knee (2000) argues that the Essais occupy an important place in the history of political ideas precisely because Montaigne uses Machiavelli’s insights only to turn and critique them. Knee’s close reading of Montaigne finds that the French essayist “both uses and criticizes” three key Machiavellian themes: (1) the separation of the private and public spheres, (2) the idea that political order rests on custom (not absolute divine law), and (3) the relationship between morality and politics . In each case Montaigne partly agrees with Machiavelli’s diagnosis but not his prescription. For example, Montaigne shares Machiavelli’s recognition that public life often forces difficult, non-moral choices (politics as the realm of necessity), yet Montaigne ultimately rejects the notion that politics can ever be entirely amoral or scientifically codified . Knee concludes that Montaigne’s nuanced critique of Machiavelli “announces and prepares some aspects of liberal individualism.” By prioritizing the individual conscience and warning against raison d’État, Montaigne in effect anticipates a more liberal, human-centered political philosophy – a marked departure from Machiavellian statist pragmatism.
In recent years, scholars have even more explicitly framed Montaigne’s early essays as a response to Machiavelli’s Prince. Oana-Alis Zaharia (2015) published a study titled “Michel de Montaigne’s Response to Machiavelli’s Il Principe,” focusing on two Machiavellian themes: the honorable vs. useful dichotomy and the prince’s use of cruelty . Zaharia argues that Montaigne does address these themes in the Essais, often reaching very different conclusions. For instance, where Machiavelli separates virtù from conventional virtue, Montaigne ultimately insists (despite some ambiguity) on retaining a moral difference – Montaigne cannot accept that the end justifies the means in matters of cruelty . As Zaharia observes, Montaigne “adopts a different, at times ambiguous, stance” towards Machiavelli’s ideas: on one hand he acknowledges the realities of deceit and power that Machiavelli highlights, but on the other hand he is “adamant that there should be a difference” between ordinary ethical principles and the conduct of a leader . In plainer terms, Montaigne doesn’t wholly reject Machiavelli’s realism – he knows a ruler sometimes must dissemble or act decisively – but he pushes back against Machiavelli by setting limits (especially a firm prohibition on gratuitous cruelty or tyranny) . Zaharia’s work underscores that Montaigne’s early essays (like “Of Cruelty” and “Of the Useful and the Honorable”) can be read as a direct conversation with The Prince, accepting some of its “modern” insights about power while rejecting its immoral excesses. This view is supported by other critics as well. For example, John Christian Laursen notes Montaigne’s De l’utile et de l’honnête is effectively a rebuttal of reason of state doctrine, contrasting sharply with Machiavellians of his time . And Hugo Grady (2016) remarks that Montaigne’s political skepticism goes “beyond Machiavelli,” offering Shakespeare (who read Montaigne) a more human-centered vision of politics than Machiavelli’s technocratic approach . All these studies, across languages, converge on the idea that Montaigne was keenly aware of Machiavelli and crafted the Essais in dialogue with him.
In conclusion, Montaigne did read Machiavelli – The Prince included – and his writings bear direct traces of that encounter. Montaigne’s two explicit citations of Machiavelli , together with his many passages that invoke Machiavellian themes (often to critique them), serve as strong evidence of intertextual engagement. While Montaigne’s personal library catalog is lost and he was understandably cautious about overtly praising the infamous “Florentine secretary,” his Essais leave little doubt that he knew Machiavelli’s ideas intimately. The early, politically charged essays – on warfare, on leadership, on moral expediency – function in part as Montaigne’s answer to Machiavelli. Montaigne’s answer is far from a full endorsement; in fact, it is frequently a refutation wrapped in anecdotal skepticism. As one modern scholar aptly put it, Montaigne “parts ways with Machiavelli” on the fundamental question of whether politics can be detached from ethics . Montaigne’s priority is the preservation of civil peace and personal integrity rather than the Machiavellian pursuit of glory at any cost . Yet, engaging with Machiavelli was intellectually fruitful for Montaigne: it allowed him to define his own political philosophy in the Essais through comparison and contrast. Thus, through scholarly research and textual evidence we see Montaigne effectively absorbing Machiavelli’s lessons only to civilize or counterbalance them. His early essays, especially, can be read as a subtle conversation with The Prince – acknowledging its brilliant grasp of power dynamics, but urging a more restrained, humane application of political power. As a result of this nuanced engagement, Montaigne’s Essais have been recognized as one of the first attempts to domesticate Machiavellian politics within a moral framework, proving that the conversation between Montaigne and Machiavelli is a vital chapter in Renaissance intellectual history.
Sources: Montaigne’s Essays (Bk II, ch.17 and ch.34) ; Montaigne Essays (trans. Cotton) via Project Gutenberg ; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – “Montaigne” ; Ian Chadwick, “Montaigne and Machiavelli,” Scripturient blog ; O. A. Zaharia, “Montaigne’s Response to Machiavelli’s Il Principe,” Caietele Echinox 28 (2015) ; P. Knee, “Critique of politics in Montaigne and Machiavelli,” Can. J. of Political Science 33.4 (2000) ; P. J. Goumarre, “La morale et la politique: Montaigne, Cicéron et Machiavel,” in Italica 50.3 (1973) ; Montaigne Studies 28 (2016) on Montaigne and political philosophy .
Leave a Reply