logo

53 pages 1 hour read

Michel de Montaigne

Montaigne: Selected Essays

Nonfiction | Essay Collection | Adult | Published in 1592

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

“Discourse on Voluntary Servitude”Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Essay Summary: “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude”

La Boétie begins with a warning that any commander or leader can become arbitrary: “[T]he power of a single man once he takes on this title of ‘master’ is harsh and unreasonable” (284). He wonders why so many subject themselves to arbitrary rulers when their tyranny is possible solely because the subjects are willing to put up with it.

One answer is that “we must often obey force: we need to play for time, we cannot always get the upper hand” (285). Another is that we sometimes choose one who has always been good and then “take him away from a place where he did good to put him where he may do ill” (286). The real mystery lies in mass acceptance of arbitrary rule from “a single puny man, and generally the most cowardly” (286).

Two armies of equal size meet in battle. One side wishes to enslave the other; the other side fights for its freedom. The odds should favor the freedom fighters. So much more should the odds favor an entire nation against one tyrant, yet “[i]t is the people who enslave themselves” (287). For the tyrants, meanwhile, “the more they ruin and destroy, the more they are granted, the more they are served, the stronger they grow and they keep on getting stronger and more able to demolish and destroy everything” (288).

La Boétie asks, “How does [a tyrant] have so many hands to strike you, if he does not get them from you?” (289). In not even overthrowing the tyrant, but simply withholding support for him, “you will see him collapse of his own weight and break up” (289). Freedom is natural—even the beasts crave it and fight against capture—and servitude requires one person to do an injustice to another. Yet people willingly give up their liberty.

There are three ways to become a tyrant: by conquest, inheritance, and election: “Those elected treat them as if they had taken on bulls to tame; the conquerors treat them as their prey; the successors think to treat them as their natural slaves” (292).

Aside from conquests and dynasties, people “often lose their liberty through deception, and they are not enticed into this by someone else so often as they are deceived by themselves” (293). This happens often during times of war, when citizens, “rashly looking only to the present danger” (293), offer up their freedom for safety. Once in power, the ruler becomes a tyrant, the people quickly get used to servitude, and this habit is passed to their children. Still, “in every country, in every clime, subjection is bitter and being free is agreeable” (296), and a people will ache for freedom once they let themselves consider it.

The quest for freedom begins among men of courage and learning, who, “even if liberty were completely lost and absent from the world, would imagine it and feel it in their minds and still savor it” (297). This rarely happens, though, as “together with liberty, bravery is lost at the same time,” and the people “lose their enthusiasm for everything else; their hearts are downcast and weak” (299).

 

Tyrants take measures to weaken their own people, keeping them uneducated, distracting them with festivals and games, and hiring outsiders to fill the military so that the people remain untrained and unarmed. The rulers make themselves rarely seen, and let it be known that they have performed miracles, which adds to their mystery and power. They build castles to live in, guarded by archers.

All this pales, however, in comparison to the one central technique that keeps a tyrant in power: he has a handful of advisors who, in turn, control hundreds who benefit from the association, and these hundreds control thousands who similarly benefit and, in turn, control the millions of citizens. “[…] there are almost as many people whom tyranny seems to profit as those for whom liberty would be agreeable” (306). Of these functionaries, “there is not one of them finally who does not have a share, if not in the main booty, at least in the hunt” (306).

Strangely, despite their power over others, even peasants are more free than the highest advisors: “It is not enough for them to obey him, they also have to please him, they have to break their backs, torture themselves, work themselves to death on his business […] give up their tastes for his, force their character, shed their own nature” (307). Even those loved best by the ruler—for example, Roman Emperor Nero’s mother, his wife, and his tutor, Seneca, all of whom Nero had executed — cannot find safety in servitude.

The court is a place of constant danger. When the king dies, a new one replaces him, along with new advisors, who seek to purge the old ones of their lives and wealth. Advisors can never trust anyone, nor have any true friends. Instead of honor, the tyrant’s minions are reviled by the masses, their memories excoriated even in death. La Boétie writes, “So once and for all, let us learn to do good” (312), adding that God reserves a place in Hell “for some special punishment of tyrants and their accomplices” (312).

Essay Analysis: “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude”

This essay is written by Montaigne’s great friend and mentor, Étienne de la Boétie, whose beliefs profoundly affect Montaigne; they amount to source material for much of Montaigne’s political philosophy.

The purpose of the essay is to describe how freedom can be snatched from a people, and how tyranny grows and sustains itself. Beyond Montaigne, it also influenced revolutionaries in subsequent centuries and affected writers and leaders such as Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Gandhi.

Of the three roads to tyranny listed by La Boétie—conquest, inheritance, and election—the latter is the most problematic: how can a leader chosen directly by the people turn on them and take their freedom? La Boétie suggests it must be done thoroughly and cruelly, stamping out all resistance and obliterating the people’s memory of their former freedom. Is this even possible? Yes: A good example of a modern tyrant who came to power through a democratic process is Adolf Hitler, who is elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and quickly proceeds to replace constitutional liberties with a tyrannical regime. Other examples include Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Hugo Chavez and his successors in Venezuela.

La Boétie suggests that it is the high-born, the learned men of good character, who will lead any move to regain freedom from a tyrant. He also implies that such attempts are unlikely: for one thing, a people downtrodden have trouble standing back up; for another, the high-born often align themselves with an authoritarian regime. The essay is in large part an attempt to talk them out of capitulating, reflecting La Boétie’s theory that a tyrant will fall if enough people simply withdraw from participating in the tyranny.

He writes that “it is a profound misfortune to be subject to one master, who you can never be sure will be good, since it is always in his power to be bad when he wishes to” (284). This is true in any situation where one person has power over others. Sociological studies support the idea that persons in authority tend to cheat on their promises but hold their subjects strictly to their own duties. There may come a time when, for arbitrary reasons, the master—or king, or religious leader, or corporate tycoon—begins making decisions at the expense of underlings. There is no way to guarantee this won’t happen; when it does, the underlings’ choices often are drastic: defy and be punished, escape and be hunted down, quit and starve.

A footnote points to a similarity between La Boétie’s argument and a passage in the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it […]”. Both documents share beliefs with John Locke, whose late-1600s essays on political freedom led to the Declaration itself.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text