QUENTIN SKINNER’S INTERPRETATION OF MONTAIGNE’S «MACHIAVELLIAN DOCTRINE» AND STOICISM

ABSTRACT

The aim of this paper is to critically consider Quentin Skinner’s reading, presented in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, of Montaigne’s work, in particular the essay «De l’utile et de l’honneste». The Cambridge University professor places Montaigne in a philosophical matrix that includes both the «Machiavellian doctrine», supposedly linked to the discourse of reason of state, and the political ideology of the Stoics and Neo-Stoics. We try to demonstrate the fragility of this thesis by pointing out, firstly, Montaigne’s recognition of the virtue of the principles of Machiavelli’s thought, which is not confused with the doctrines of Machiavellianism and reason of state, which he rejects; and, secondly, the different approach of Machiavelli and Montaigne to the relationship between ethics and politics. As for the Stoics, characterized by the author for their resignation in the face of «public death», the text moves in the direction of pointing out that this is not a trait attributable to the Stoics as a whole, much less to Montaigne. In the end, we present a reading of the essay in order to highlight details that reinforce the fact that Montaigne cannot be affiliated, as Skinner does, either with the doctrine of Machiavellianism and reason of state, or with Stoicism or neo-Stoicism.

Keywords:
Quentin Skinner; Montaigne; Machiavellianism; Reason of State; Stoicism.