On Solitude with Michel de Montaigne

Great Literature , Thoughts , Philosophy

Re-reading and dissecting Michel De Montaigne’s essay ‘On Solitude’

“Let us leave aside the usual long comparison between the solitary life and the active one. And as for that fine adage under which greed and ambition take cover—that we are born not for our private selves but for the public—let us boldly appeal to those who have joined in the dance; let them cudgel their conscience to see whether, on the contrary, the titles, the offices, and all the bustling business of the world are not sought to gain private profit from the public. The evil means men use in our day to get ahead show clearly that the end is not worth much.”

Michel de Montaigne is suggesting that instead of debating the merits of a solitary life versus a busy, public life, we should consider the motivations behind the pursuit of public life. He challenges the idea that we are born for the public good, suggesting that greed and ambition often hide behind this noble sentiment. He suggests that those who are engaged in the public life should examine their consciences to see whether their actions are really benefiting the public or serving their own self-interest. Montaigne goes on to argue that the means that people use to get ahead in the world today are often immoral, and that the ultimate goal of gaining public titles and offices is not worth the cost of these immoral actions.

“Let us reply to ambition that it is what gives us a taste for solitude. For what does it shun as much as society? What does it seek as much as elbow-room? Ways of doing good or evil can be found anywhere, but if Bias of Priene was right in saying that the worse part is the larger one, or Ecclesiastes was right in saying ‘Not one man in a thousand is good’—‘Good men are rare; about as many as gates in the walls of Thebes or mouths to the fertile Nile’—then there is a great danger of contagion in crowds. One must either imitate the wicked or hate them. Both these things are dangerous: becoming like them because theyare many, or hating many of them because they are unlike oneself”.

He continues to explore the idea of why people might prefer solitude to being in society. He argues that ambition, or the desire for success and achievement, is what makes people seek solitude. Ambitious people want to avoid society as much as possible because they see it as an obstacle to their success. Montaigne goes on to explain that while good and evil can be found anywhere, there is a greater risk of being influenced by bad behavior when in large groups of people. He quotes a few authors who suggest that good people are rare and that most people are not good, and therefore being in a crowd increases the risk of being influenced by bad behavior. He argues that when people are in a large group, they may either be tempted to imitate the bad behavior of others or become angry and hateful towards those who are behaving badly. Both of these reactions, Montaigne suggests, can be dangerous because they can lead to bad decisions and harm to oneself or others.

Who was Bias of Priene?

Bias of Priene was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived in the 6th century BC. He was one of the Seven Sages of Greece, a group of wise men who were renowned for their wisdom and teachings. Bias was known for his aphorisms, or short statements that express a general truth or idea. One of his most famous aphorisms is “The most dangerous thing in the world is a tyrant’s gratitude.” This quote is often cited as a warning about the dangers of relying on the favor of those in power. Montaigne may have been familiar with this quote and used it as an example of the kind of wisdom that can be found in ancient texts.

“Sea-going merchants are right to ensure that dissolute, blasphemous or wicked men do not sail in the same ship with them, regarding such company as unlucky. That is why Bias joked with those who were undergoing the perils of a great storm with him and calling on the gods for help: ‘Be quiet’, he said, ‘so that they don’t realise that you are here with me.’ And (a more pressing example) when Albuquerque, the viceroy in the Indies for King Manuel of Portugal, was in great peril of a shipwreck at sea, he took a young boy on his shoulders for one purpose only—so that in their linked perils the boy’s innocence might serve him as a warrant and a recommendation to divine favour, so as to bring him to safety.

Montaigne gives examples of why some people are careful about who they associate with, especially in dangerous situations like being at sea. He says that sea-going merchants are right to be careful about who they allow on their ships, as they consider it unlucky to have dissolute, blasphemous, or wicked men on board. Montaigne then shares a story about Bias, who joked with his fellow sailors during a storm, saying that they should be quiet so that the gods wouldn’t notice that they were in the same boat with him. This suggests that Bias believed that having certain people on board a ship could be seen as bad luck or bring danger to everyone.

Montaigne then shares a more serious example, where a Portuguese viceroy named Albuquerque was in danger of a shipwreck at sea. To increase his chances of survival, Albuquerque took a young boy on his shoulders with the hope that the boy’s innocence would serve as a “warrant and a recommendation to divine favour,” or in other words, that the boy’s goodness would appeal to the gods and help them both survive. This story shows that people may believe that the company they keep can have an impact on their safety and well-being, and that they may try to associate with those they believe are good or innocent in order to increase their chances of success.

“It is not that the wise man cannot live happily anywhere, being alone in a crowd of courtiers; but if he has a choice, he says, he will avoid the very sight of them. He will endure it if need be, but if it is up to him he will choose solitude. He does not see himself as sufficiently free of vice if he still has to contend with the vices of others. Charondas chastised as evil those who were convicted of keeping evil company.

Montaigne is saying that wise people can be happy anywhere, even in the midst of a group of courtiers (people who attend a royal court). However, if given the choice, they would prefer to avoid the company of such people altogether and choose solitude instead. The reason for this is that they don’t want to be around people who have vices, or bad habits and behaviors, because they don’t feel completely free of vice themselves if they have to deal with the vices of others.

Montaigne then gives an example of Charondas, who was an ancient Greek lawmaker. Charondas believed that people who associated with evil companions were also guilty of wrongdoing, and he would punish them accordingly. This shows that even in ancient times, people recognized the influence that others can have on their behavior, and that it’s important to be careful about the company you keep.

“There is nothing as unsociable and sociable as man— one by his vice, the other by his nature. And Antisthenes does not seem to me to have given an adequate reply to the person who reproached him for associating with the wicked, when he replied that doctors live well enough among the sick. For if they improve the health of the sick, they impair their own health by contagion, constantly treating diseases.”

In this paragraph, Montaigne is reflecting on the dual nature of human beings. On one hand, people are naturally sociable creatures and seek out the company of others. On the other hand, people can also be unsociable due to their vices, or bad habits and behaviors.

Montaigne then references a philosopher named Antisthenes, who was criticized for associating with wicked people. Antisthenes had replied that doctors can live well among the sick, suggesting that he could live among the wicked without being influenced by them.

However, Montaigne disagrees with Antisthenes' argument. He points out that doctors who treat sick people are actually putting themselves at risk of getting sick as well. Similarly, when someone associates with wicked people, they put themselves at risk of being influenced by them and potentially adopting their vices. Therefore, Montaigne seems to believe that it’s important to be careful about the company you keep and not to be overly confident in one’s ability to resist the influence of others.

MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT SOLITUDE IS

“Now, the aim of solitude is, I think, always the same: to live more at leisure and at one’s ease. But people do not always find the right way to this. Often they think they have left business behind when they have merely changed it. There is hardly less trouble in governing a family than in governing a whole country. Wherever our soul is in difficulties it is all there. Domestic tasks are less important but that does not make them less demanding. Anyway, by ridding ourselves of the court and the market-place we do not rid ourselves of the principal torments of our life: ‘It is reason and wisdom that take away cares, not villas with wide ocean views’ (Horace). Ambition, greed, irresolution, fear and sexual desires do not leave us because we change our landscape. ‘Behind the horseman sits black care’ (Horace). They often follow us all the way into the cloisters and the schools of philosophy. Neither deserts nor rocky caves nor hair-shirts nor fastings disentangle us from them. . . . Socrates was told that some man had not been improved by travel. ‘I am sure he was not,’ he said. ‘He took himself along with him.’ ‘Why do we leave for lands warmed by a foreign sun? What fugitive from his own land gets away from himself?’ "

Michel de Montaigne discusses the misconception that solitude will automatically lead to a more peaceful and relaxed life. He argues that people often believe that by leaving the court and the marketplace, they will be able to rid themselves of the principal torments of their life, such as ambition, greed, fear, and sexual desires. However, he says that these torments will still follow us even if we change our surroundings.

Montaigne suggests that the aim of solitude is always the same: to live more leisurely and at ease, but that people do not always find the right way to achieve this goal. He points out that domestic tasks can be just as demanding as the tasks in the court or the marketplace. Even if we retreat to deserts, rocky caves, or monasteries, we cannot disentangle ourselves from these torments.

Montaigne cites Socrates, who was told that some man had not been improved by travel. Socrates replied that he was not surprised because the man took himself along with him. Montaigne concludes by asking why people leave for lands warmed by a foreign sun and why a fugitive from his own land cannot get away from himself.

In this paragraph, Montaigne is explaining that simply removing oneself from the external world, such as withdrawing from society or moving to a new location, is not enough to achieve true solitude. Instead, one must also unburden their soul of the weight that is weighing it down. Montaigne uses the metaphor of a ship’s cargo being less troublesome when it is settled, and compares it to a sick person who is harmed by being moved about. Just as it is necessary to settle the cargo in a ship and let it be, a sick person should be left undisturbed to allow their illness to heal. Similarly, to achieve true solitude, one must withdraw from the internal conditions within oneself, such as negative emotions, anxieties, and burdens. It is necessary to sequester oneself and repossess oneself, in order to find peace and tranquility in solitude.

“I have broken my chains”, you say. But a struggling dog may snap its chain, only to escape with a great length of it fixed to its collar’ (Persius). We take our fetters along with us. Our freedom is not complete; we still turn our gaze towards the things we have left behind, our fancy is full of them. ‘But unless the mind is purified, what internal combats and dangers must we incur in spite of all our efforts!
“How many bitter anxieties, how many terrors, follow upon unregulated passion! What destruction befalls us from pride, lust, petulant anger! What evils arise from luxury and sloth!’ (Lucretius). It is in our soul that evil grips us; and it cannot escape from itself: ‘The soul is at fault that never escapes from itself’ (Horace). So we must bring it back and withdraw it into itself. That is true solitude. It can be enjoyed in the midst of towns and of royal courts, but it is enjoyed more conveniently alone.”

In this paragraph, the author discusses the idea that simply breaking free from external constraints does not lead to true freedom or solitude. Even if one physically removes themselves from society or removes external restraints, they may still be bound by their own internal struggles and passions. The author argues that true solitude requires more than just physical separation, it requires a purification of the soul and a withdrawal from one’s own internal struggles and passions. The author notes that pride, lust, petulant anger, luxury, and sloth can all lead to bitterness, anxieties, terrors, and destruction. The soul, according to the author, is often at fault for these struggles, and it cannot escape from itself. Therefore, true solitude involves bringing the soul back into itself and withdrawing it from the distractions of external life. The author suggests that true solitude can be found even in the midst of towns and royal courts, but it is most conveniently enjoyed alone.

SOLITUDE AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY

“Now, since we are undertaking to live alone, and do without company, let us make our contentment depend on ourselves. Let us cut loose from all the ties that bind us to others; let us gain power over ourselves to live really alone—and to live that way at our ease. After Stilpo had escaped from the burning of his city in which he had lost wife, children and goods, Demetrius Poliorcetes, seeing him with his face undismayed amid so great a ruin of his country, asked him if he hadn’t suffered any harm; he replied that No, thank God, he had lost nothing of his own. The philosopher Antisthenes put the same thingamusingly: a man should provide himself with provisions that would float on the water and could swim ashore with him from a shipwreck.”

Michel de Montaigne is discussing the idea of contentment and self-reliance when living alone. He suggests that to be truly content living without company, we must detach ourselves from the ties that bind us to others and gain power over ourselves to live alone comfortably. Montaigne cites two examples to illustrate his point: Stilpo and Antisthenes. Stilpo, who had lost his wife, children, and possessions in a fire, remained undaunted and untroubled. When asked if he had suffered any harm, he replied that he had lost nothing of his own. Antisthenes, on the other hand, humorously suggested that a man should prepare provisions that could float on water and be carried ashore in case of a shipwreck. The underlying message here is that true contentment comes from relying on oneself rather than external factors or other people.

“Certainly, a man of understanding has lost nothing if he still has himself. When the city of Nola was sacked by the barbarians, the local bishop Paulinus—having lost everything and been taken prisoner—prayed thus to God: ‘Lord, keep me from feeling this loss. You know that they have not yet touched anything of mine.’ The riches that made him rich and the good things that made him good were still intact. That is what it is to choose wisely the treasures that can be secured from harm, and to hide them in a place that no-one can enter and that can be betrayed only by ourselves.

Montaigne tells the story of the bishop Paulinus, who was taken prisoner and lost everything when the city of Nola was sacked by the barbarians. Despite his losses, Paulinus prayed to God to keep him from feeling the loss, as he knew that his true riches and goodness were still intact within himself. Montaigne uses this story to illustrate the idea that the true treasures of life are those that cannot be harmed or taken away by external forces. He suggests that we should focus on securing these treasures, which can only be betrayed by ourselves, and hiding them in a place that cannot be entered by anyone else. In other words, the most valuable things we have are internal, and we should strive to protect and cultivate them.

‘We should if possible have wives, children, property and, above all, good health; but we should not be attached to them in such a way that our happiness depends on them. We should set aside a room behind the shop—just for ourselves, entirely free—and establish there our real liberty, our principal retreat and solitude. Here our ordinary conversation should be between us and ourselves, and so private that no outside association or communication finds a place in it; talking and laughing as though we had no wife, no children, no possessions, no retinue, no servants, so that when the time comes to lose them it will be nothing new for us to do without them. We have a soul that can turn in on itself; it can keep itself company; it has the means to attack and the means to defend, the means to receive and the means to give. Let us not fear that in this solitude we shall be crouching in tedious idleness: ‘In lonely places, be a crowd unto yourself’ [Tibullus]

In this paragraph, Michel de Montaigne is suggesting that while it is desirable to have a wife, children, property, and good health, we should not be so attached to them that our happiness depends on them. He recommends setting aside a private room or space for ourselves, where we can enjoy our true liberty and solitude, completely free from outside association or communication. Montaigne suggests that in this space, we should talk and laugh as if we had no wife, children, possessions, or servants so that if we were to lose them, it would be nothing new for us to do without them. He believes that we have a soul that can turn in on itself, keeping itself company, with the means to attack and defend, receive and give. Montaigne assures us that we need not fear that in this solitude we shall be crouching in tedious idleness, but rather encourages us to be a crowd unto ourselves, quoting the poet Tibullus. In summary, Montaigne is advocating for the importance of having a private space where we can connect with ourselves and be self-sufficient, independent of external factors or influences.

“Among our customary actions not one in a thousand concerns ourselves. That man you see there scrambling up the ruins of that battlement, frenzied and beside himself, the target of so many arquebus shots; and that other man, all covered with scars, faint and pale from hunger, determined to die rather than open the gate to him; do you think they are there for themselves? They are there for someone they have perhaps never seen, someone who, plunged in idleness and pleasures, has no interest in what they are doing.
This fellow, all dirty, with running nose and eyes, whom you see coming out of his study after midnight—do you think he is looking in his books for ways to be a better, happier, wiser man? That is not the story. He will teach posterity how to scan a verse of Plautus, and how to spell a Latin word, or die in the attempt.

In these two paragraphs, Michel de Montaigne is criticizing the idea that people often act not for themselves, but for the benefit of others, even strangers. In the first paragraph, he describes two men who are risking their lives in battle, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of someone who does not even know them. Montaigne is suggesting that this is not a rational way to live and that people should focus more on their own well-being.

In the second paragraph, Montaigne gives another example of a person who appears to be working hard, but is not really doing so for their own benefit. He describes a man who is up late at night studying, but not to improve his own well-being, but to learn obscure details that will be of little practical use to him. Montaigne is again suggesting that people should focus more on their own lives and what is truly important for their own happiness and well-being, rather than wasting their time and energy on things that are of little practical value.

“Who does not willingly barter health, leisure and life in exchange for reputation and glory, the most useless, worthless and false coin that is current among us? Our own death has not frightened us enough? Let us burden ourselves with fears for the deaths of our wives, our children and our servants. Our own affairs have not been causing us enough worry? Let us start tormenting ourselves and racking our brains over those of our neighbours and friends. ‘Ah! to think that any man should take it into his head to get a thing that is dearer to him than he is to himself! [Terence] Solitude seems to me more appropriate and reasonable for those who have given to the world their more active and flourishing years, following the example of Thales. We have lived enough for others; let us live at least this tail-end of life for ourselves; let us bring our thoughts and plans back to ourselves and our well-being. It is no small matter to arrange our retirement securely; it gives us enough trouble without bringing in other concerns.

Michel de Montaigne argues that people often place too much value on reputation and glory, which he sees as useless, worthless, and false coins. He suggests that we are willing to barter our health, leisure, and even our lives in exchange for these things. Montaigne believes that we should be more afraid of our own deaths and that we should not burden ourselves with fears for the deaths of our loved ones. He thinks that we should focus more on our own affairs rather than constantly worrying about the affairs of our neighbors and friends. Montaigne quotes the playwright Terence, who laments the idea that any man should value something more than himself. Montaigne believes that solitude is more appropriate and reasonable for those who have given the world their more active and flourishing years, following the example of Thales. He encourages people to live the tail-end of their lives for themselves and to bring their thoughts and plans back to their own well-being. Montaigne acknowledges that arranging retirement securely is no small matter and requires enough trouble without bringing in other concerns. In summary, Montaigne argues for the importance of valuing oneself and focusing on one’s own well-being, rather than constantly striving for external recognition and worrying about the affairs of others.

RETIREMENT

“Since God gives us time to make things ready for our departure, let us prepare for it; let us pack our bags; let us take leave of our company in good time; let us break free from those violent clutches that engage us elsewhere and distance us from ourselves. We should untie these bonds that are so powerful, and from now on love this and that but be wedded only to ourselves. That is to say, let the rest be ours, but not joined and glued to us in such a way that it cannot be detached without tearing off our skin and some of our flesh as well. The greatest thing in the world is to know how to belong to oneself.

Michel de Montaigne is emphasizing the importance of preparing for death by detaching ourselves from external dependencies and focusing on our own individuality. He encourages us to use our time wisely by packing our bags and taking leave of our company in good time. He suggests that we should break free from the strong ties that bind us to others and prevent us from being true to ourselves.

Montaigne is advising us to be mindful of the things that we are attached to, and not let them control us to the point that we cannot detach ourselves from them without causing significant harm to ourselves. He suggests that we should love and appreciate the people and things around us, but not to the point where we lose our own identity and sense of self.

“It is time to untie ourselves from society since we can contribute nothing to it. A man who cannot lend should keep himself from borrowing. Our powers are failing us: let us draw them in and concentrate them on ourselves. Whoever can turn around the offices of friendship and fellowship and pour them into himself should do so. In this decline, which makes him useless, a burden, and troublesome to others, let him avoid becoming troublesome—and a useless burden—to himself. Let him pamper and care for himself, and above all govern himself, so respecting his reason and so fearing his conscience that he cannot make a false step in their presence without shame: ‘For it is rare for anyone to respect himself enough’”
“Socrates says that youth should get educated; grown men should employ themselves in doing good; old men should withdraw from all civil and military occupations, living as they please without being tied down to any definite office.”

Montaigne argues that as we grow older and our powers diminish, we should focus more on ourselves and less on society. He believes that we can no longer contribute anything meaningful to society (It’s important to note that Montaigne’s views on aging and productivity are a product of his time, and they do not necessarily reflect modern attitudes towards aging!), and therefore, it is time to withdraw from it. He suggests that a man who cannot lend anything to society should keep himself from borrowing, meaning that we should not rely on others for our own well-being.

Montaigne advises that we should concentrate our energies and powers on ourselves, especially since we are no longer able to be useful to others. He encourages individuals to turn the offices of friendship and fellowship towards themselves, meaning that we should focus on self-care and self-love. He suggests that we should avoid becoming troublesome and burdensome to ourselves by pampering and caring for ourselves.

Finally, Montaigne advises that we should govern ourselves with reason and conscience so that we cannot make a false step without feeling shame. He suggests that self-respect is rare and that it is essential to respect oneself enough to avoid making mistakes that could cause us harm. In summary, Montaigne advises individuals to focus on themselves, care for themselves, and respect themselves in old age, especially when they are no longer able to contribute meaningfully to society.

“Some temperaments are more suited than others to these precepts for retirement. Those whose susceptibility is weak and lax and whose affection and will are choosy and slow to enter service or employment—and I am one of them, both by nature and by conviction—will comply with this advice better than will the active and busy souls who embrace everything, engage themselves everywhere, who grow passionate about all things, who offer, present, and give themselves on all occasions. We should make use of these accidental and external conveniences so far as they are agreeable to us, but without making them our mainstay; they are not; neither reason nor nature will have them so. Why would we, against their laws, enslave our contentment to the power of others?”

Here, Montaigne discusses how different temperaments are better suited to his advice on retirement and self-care. He suggests that individuals whose susceptibilities are weak and lax, and whose affection and will are choosy and slow to enter service or employment, will find it easier to follow his advice than active and busy individuals.

Montaigne explains that he belongs to the former group of individuals, both by nature and conviction. He believes that individuals who engage themselves in everything, grow passionate about all things, and offer themselves on all occasions will find it difficult to follow his advice.

He argues that individuals should make use of external conveniences if they are agreeable, but they should not rely on them as their mainstay. Reason and nature do not dictate this approach, and he questions why individuals would want to enslave their contentment to the power of others against their laws.

“To anticipate the accidents of fortune, depriving ourselves of good things that are in our grasp, as (i) many have done out of devotion and (ii) a few philosophers out of rational conviction, acting as their own servants, sleeping rough, putting out their own eyes, throwing away their wealth, seeking pain— to win bliss in another life by torment in this one, or to make themselves safe against a new fall by settling on the bottom rung —these are actions of virtue taken to excess. Let tougher sterner natures make even their hiding-places glorious and exemplary: ‘When I lack money, I praise the possession of a few secure things; I am content with humble goods; but when anything better, more sumptuous, comes my way, then I say that the only ones who live wisely and well are those whose income is grounded in handsome acres.’ [Horace]”

In this paragraph, Montaigne criticizes extreme actions taken by some people to anticipate the accidents of fortune. He mentions two groups of people who have done this: those motivated by devotion and a few philosophers driven by rational conviction.

Montaigne argues that these extreme actions, such as acting as their own servants, sleeping rough, putting out their own eyes, throwing away their wealth, and seeking pain, are actions of virtue taken to excess. He believes that these actions are unnecessary and can be harmful to individuals. Instead, he suggests that tougher and sterner natures should make even their hiding-places glorious and exemplary.

He cites a quote from Horace, in which he states that when he lacks money, he praises the possession of a few secure things and is content with humble goods. But when anything better or more sumptuous comes his way, he believes that only those whose income is grounded in handsome acres live wisely and well.

“I have enough on my hands without going that far. It is enough for me when fortune favours me to prepare for its disfavour, and when I am in comfort to picture future ills, as far as my imagination can reach; just as we accustom ourselves to jousts and tournaments, counterfeiting war in a time of peace.”

Montaigne explains that he doesn’t need to go to extreme measures to anticipate the accidents of fortune. He believes that it is enough for him to prepare for the potential disfavour of fortune when it favours him and to envision future ills when he is in comfort.

Montaigne compares this mental exercise to the way people prepare for jousts and tournaments by simulating war during times of peace. By imagining possible future scenarios, he believes that individuals can better prepare themselves for unexpected events and have a greater sense of control over their lives.

Montaigne’s approach to anticipating the accidents of fortune is more practical and moderate than the extreme actions he criticized in the previous paragraph. He believes that it is enough to mentally prepare oneself for potential hardships rather than engaging in drastic measures.

“I see how far natural necessity can extend; and when I reflect that the poor beggar at my door is often more cheerful and healthy than I am, I put myself in his place and try to give my soul a slant like his. Then running similarly through other examples, though I may think that death, poverty, contempt and sickness are at my heels, I easily resolve not to be terrified by what a lesser man than I accepts with such patience. I am not willing to believe that meanness of understanding can do more than vigour, or that the effects of reason cannot match the effects of habit. And knowing how precarious these incidental comforts are, even while fully enjoying them I nevertheless make it my sovereign request to God to make me content with myself and the good things I bring forth. I see young men who, though they are in vigorous good health, keep a mass of pills in their chest to use when they get a cold, fearing this less since they know they have a remedy at hand. That is the right thing to do; and further, if we feel ourselves subject to some more serious illness, we should provide ourselves with medicines to benumb and deaden the affected part.”

Montaigne reflects on the importance of being content with what one has and not being afraid of adversity. He observes that natural necessity can push people beyond what they think they are capable of, and often those who have very little are still able to find happiness and contentment. Montaigne tries to put himself in the shoes of those who have less than him, in order to gain perspective and find ways to be more content with what he has. He also notes that while he enjoys the comforts of life, he recognizes that they are fleeting and can be taken away at any moment, so he asks God to help him be content with what he has. He also advocates for being prepared for adversity, by having medicines or remedies on hand, but not letting the fear of illness consume one’s thoughts. Overall, the passage emphasizes the importance of finding contentment in life and being prepared for challenges, without letting them dominate one’s thoughts and actions.

“The occupation we choose for such a life should be neither laborious nor boring; otherwise there would be no point in coming to it in search of rest. This depends on each man’s individual taste; mine is quite unsuited to household management. Those who do like this should do it in moderation: ‘They should try to subordinate things to themselves, not themselves to things’ [Horace]. Anyway, management is a servile task, as Sallust calls it. . . . A mean can be found between that base and unworthy anxiety, tense and full of worry, seen in those who immerse themselves in it, and that deep and extreme neglect one sees in others, who let everything go to rack and ruin: ‘Democritus leaves his herds to ravage fields and crops while his speeding soul wanders outside his body’ [Horace].

Here Michel is discussing the type of occupation that would be suitable for a life of retirement or seclusion. He argues that the occupation should not be too laborious or boring, as the purpose of retirement is to find rest. The choice of occupation depends on individual taste, and the author personally finds household management unsuited to their taste. However, they suggest that those who enjoy household management should do it in moderation and not become completely immersed in it. He also quotes Horace, who advises that things should be subordinated to oneself, not oneself to things. He then suggests finding a middle ground between excessive anxiety and neglect, using the example of Democritus who neglects his herds while his mind wanders.

“But let us hear the advice about solitude that the younger Pliny gives to his friend Cornelius Rufus: ‘I advise you in this ample and thriving retreat of yours, to leave to your people the degrading and abject care of your household, and to devote yourself to the study of letters so as to derive from them something totally your own.’ He means reputation, his temperament being like that of Cicero, who says he wants to use his solitude and rest from public affairs to gain immortality through his writings. ‘Does knowing mean nothing to you unless somebody else knows that you know it?”

He Michel refers to the advice that Pliny the Younger gave to his friend Cornelius Rufus regarding solitude. Pliny suggests that Cornelius Rufus should leave the care of his household to his people and devote himself to the study of letters to derive something totally his own, which the author interprets to mean reputation. The author notes that Pliny’s temperament is similar to that of Cicero, who wanted to use his solitude and rest from public affairs to gain immortality through his writings. The author then asks the rhetorical question of whether knowledge means nothing if nobody else knows that you know it, implying that one can seek personal fulfillment and satisfaction through solitary pursuits, such as studying letters or writing, without the need for external validation or recognition.

“It seems reasonable that when a man talks about retiring from the world he should look away from it. These men. . . .arrange their affairs for when they will no longer be there, but they claim to get the fruit of their project from the world after they have left it—a ridiculous contradiction.”

Montaigne is discussing the contradiction in people who claim to be retiring from the world, but still arrange their affairs to receive benefits from the world after they are gone. He suggests that this is a ridiculous contradiction, as true retirement should involve looking away from the world, rather than relying on it for benefits.

“The idea of those who seek solitude for devotion’s sake,filling their hearts with the certainty of divine promises for the life to come, is much more harmoniously organised. Their focus is on God, an object infinite in goodness and in power. In him the soul has the wherewithal to satisfy its desires in perfect freedom. Afflictions, sufferings are profitable to them, being used to acquire eternal health and joy. Death is welcome as the passage to that perfect state. The harshness of their rules is quickly smoothed by habit, and their carnal appetites are blocked and put to sleep by denial, for nothing keeps them up but use and exercise. Only this goal of another life, blessedly immortal, genuinely meritsour abandoning the comforts and pleasures of this life of ours. Anyone who can really and constantly set his soul ablaze with the fire of that living faith and hope builds for himself in solitude a life that is voluptuous and delightful beyond any other kind of life.”

Montaigne contrasts the previous idea with the idea of seeking solitude for devotion’s sake, particularly for those who focus on God. He explains that their focus is on an object of infinite goodness and power, which can satisfy the soul’s desires in perfect freedom. Even afflictions and sufferings can be used to acquire eternal health and joy. Their harsh rules are quickly smoothed by habit, and their carnal appetites are blocked and put to sleep by denial. Montaigne argues that anyone who can constantly set their soul ablaze with the fire of living faith and hope can build for themselves in solitude a life that is voluptuous and delightful beyond any other kind of life. Essentially, he suggests that solitude for the purpose of devotion can be a fulfilling and joyful way of life, focused on the eternal, rather than the temporal comforts and pleasures of this life.

Mixed Pleasures

“So I am satisfied neither with the end nor the means of Pliny’s advice. . . . This occupation with books is as laborious as any other, and—what should be our main concern—as much an enemy

to health. We should not let ourselves be put to sleep by the pleasure we take in it; it is the same pleasure that destroys the penny-pincher, the miser, the voluptuous man, and the ambitious man.”

“The sages teach us often enough to beware of the treachery of our appetites, and to distinguish true and complete pleasures from pleasures mixed and streaked with a preponderance of pain. Most pleasures, they say, tickle and embrace us so as to throttle us, like those thieves the Egyptians called Philistas. If the headache came before the drunkenness, we would take care not to drink too much; but pleasure, to deceive us, walks in front and hides its consequences from us. Books give pleasure; but if keeping company with them eventually leads to our losing joy and health, our best working parts, then let us leave them. I am one of those who believe that their benefits cannot outweigh that loss.”

In these paragraphs Montaigne is discussing the idea of seeking solitude for the purpose of reading and studying books. He criticizes Pliny’s advice to his friend Cornelius Rufus to devote himself to the study of letters, arguing that this occupation with books can be as laborious as any other and can be an enemy to health. Just because reading and studying can be enjoyable and intellectually stimulating, it does not mean that it is necessarily good for a person’s well-being. In essence, Montaigne is cautioning against an excessive focus on intellectual pursuits at the expense of other aspects of life.

Montaigne warns against being put to sleep by the pleasure one takes in reading and studying books. He argues that such pleasure can be dangerous, like those pleasures that are mixed and streaked with a preponderance of pain, which can tickle and embrace us so as to throttle us, like the thieves the Egyptians called Philistas. He suggests that if keeping company with books eventually leads to our losing joy and health, our best working parts, then we should leave them.

Montaigne believes that the sages teach us to beware of the treachery of our appetites and to distinguish true and complete pleasures from pleasures that are mixed with pain. He concludes that books can give pleasure, but if the cost of that pleasure is the loss of joy and health, then their benefits cannot outweigh that loss.

“As men who have long felt weakened by some illness at last put themselves at the mercy of medicine, and have certain rules of living prescribed for them by art, rules that are never to be transgressed, so too someone who retires, bored and disgusted by the common life, should shape this ·new life· according to the rules of reason, ordering it and arranging it with forethought and reflection. He should have taken leave of every kind of work, whatever it looks like, and should flee from all kinds of passion that impede the tranquility of body and soul, and choose the way best suited to his temperament. . . .”

Here Michel is drawing a comparison between someone who is physically ill and in need of medical treatment, and someone who is mentally or emotionally exhausted and seeking a more peaceful life. Just as a patient with a serious illness needs to follow certain rules and guidelines prescribed by a doctor to regain their health, someone who is seeking solitude and rest should also carefully plan and structure their new life. The author argues that this new life should be ordered and arranged with forethought and reflection, and should be free from all kinds of work and passion that could disrupt their tranquility. In short, the author is suggesting that those who seek solitude should be deliberate and thoughtful in creating a life that promotes peace and well-being, just as a sick patient must follow certain rules and guidelines to regain their health.

“In household management, in study, in hunting, and in all other pursuits, we should take part to the utmost limits of pleasure, but beware of going further to where it begins to be mingled with pain. We should retain just as much business and occupation as is needed to keep ourselves in trim and protect ourselves from the drawbacks that follow from the other extreme, slack and sluggish idleness.”

Montaigne is advocating for moderation in all pursuits, including household management, study, and leisure activities like hunting. He suggests that we should engage in these activities up to the point where we derive pleasure from them, but not so much that they become burdensome or begin to cause us pain. In other words, we should find a balance between activity and rest, keeping ourselves busy enough to stay healthy and alert but not so busy that we become exhausted.

“There are sterile and thorny branches of learning, most of them made for the busy life; they should be left to those who serve society. For myself, I like only pleasant easy books that tickle my interest, or books that console me and counsel me on how to regulate my life and my death. ‘Walking in silence through the health-giving forest, pondering questions worthy of the wise and good’ [Horace]. Wiser men with a strong and vigorous soul can make for themselves a wholly spiritual repose. But I, who have a commonplace soul, must help to support myself with bodily comforts; and since age has lately robbed me of the ones that were more to my fancy, I am training and sharpening my appetite for the ones that remain and are more suited to this later season. We should hold on, tooth and nail, to our enjoyment of the pleasures of life that our years are tearing from our grasp, one by one. ‘Let’s grab our pleasures, life is all we have; you’ll soon be ashes, a ghost, a tale’ [Persius].”

Montaigne discusses his own preferences for reading and leisure activities. He suggests that not all types of learning or pursuits are suitable for everyone and that individuals should choose activities that are most pleasant and engaging for them. Montaigne prefers easy and enjoyable books that pique his interest or offer him guidance on how to live his life well. He also notes that as he has grown older, he has become more focused on enjoying bodily comforts that he finds more suited to his temperament, rather than pursuing spiritual repose. In short, Montaigne is advocating for individuals to pursue activities that bring them the most pleasure and satisfaction, in a balanced and moderate way.

“Now, as for the goal that Pliny and Cicero offer us— glory—that is right outside my calculations. The attitude most directly contrary to retirement is ambition. Glory and repose cannot lodge under the same roof. As far as I can see, these men have only their arms and legs outside the crowd; their soul, their intention, remains more in the thick of it than ever. . . . They step back only to make a better jump and to get a stronger impetus to charge into the crowd.”

Here Montaigne is stating that he does not share the same goal as Pliny and Cicero, which is glory. He believes that the pursuit of glory is incompatible with retirement and repose. In other words, if one wants to live a peaceful and contented life, one cannot simultaneously seek after fame and worldly success. Montaigne argues that those who seek glory are never truly retired, even if they physically withdraw from the public sphere. He asserts that such individuals remain mentally and emotionally invested in their pursuits, and that they use their time away from the public eye to plan their next move or to improve their chances of success. Montaigne sees this as a contradiction to the very idea of retirement, which he believes should involve a complete withdrawal from worldly affairs and a focus on personal reflection and contentment.

PLINY AND CICERO VERSUS EPICURUS AND SENECA

“Would you like to see how they (·Pliny and Cicero·) shoot a tiny bit short? Let us weigh against them the advice of two philosophers (Epicurus and Seneca) of two very different sects, one of them writing to his friend Idomeneus and the other to his friend Lucilius, to persuade them to give up handling affairs and their great offices and to withdraw into solitude. They say:”
‘You have lived until now floating and tossing about; come away and die in port. You have given the rest of your life to the light; give this part to the shade. It is impossible to give up your pursuits if you do not give up the fruits of them; so rid yourself of all concern for reputation and glory. There is the risk that the radiance of your past actions will cast too much light on you and follow you right into your lair. Give up, along with other pleasures, the one that comes from other people’s approval. As for your learning and competence—don’t worry, it will not lose its effect if it makes you a better man. . . . You and one companion are audience enough for each other; so are you for yourself. . . . It is a base ambition to want to derive glory from one’s idleness and one’s concealment. One should act like the animals that scuff out their tracks at the entrance to their lairs.
‘You should no longer be concerned with what the world says of you but with what you say to yourself. Withdraw into yourself, but first prepare to receiveyourself there. It would be madness to entrust yourself to yourself if you cannot govern yourself. There are ways to fail in solitude as in company; until you have made yourself such that you would not dare to trip up in your own presence, and until you feel shame and respect for yourself. . . ., always keep in mind Cato, Phocion and Aristides (in whose presence even fools would hide their faults), and make them controllers of all your intentions. If your intentions get off the track, reverence for those men will set them right again. The path they will keep you on is that of being content with yourself, of borrowing only from yourself, of arresting and fixing your soul on definite and limited thoughts in which it can take pleasure; and then, having understood the true goods that are enjoyed in proportion as they are understood, of being content with them, with no desire to extend your life or fame.’
“That is the advice of a true and natural philosophy, not an ostentatious and chattering philosophy like that of those other two.”

Michel compares the advice of Pliny and Cicero with that of Epicurus and Seneca, two philosophers who advocated for withdrawing from public life and finding solace in solitude. According to Epicurus and Seneca, the pursuit of glory and reputation is a base ambition (low or unworthy desire for something), and one should focus on living a virtuous life, which includes being content with oneself, fixing one’s soul on definite and limited thoughts, and understanding true goods that are enjoyed in proportion as they are understood.

The author argues that this advice is more natural and true than that of Pliny and Cicero. The latter, according to the author, are too concerned with reputation and glory, which are incompatible with true repose and retirement. The author concludes that the advice of Epicurus and Seneca is more authentic and sincere, and that one should strive to govern oneself and be content with a simpler, more fulfilling life.