Critical thinking is the key characteristic of the writings of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), who symbolises the spirit of the Renaissance. Mind you, the social and political context at that time was very different from our century. Daring to say what you think was far from self-evident in the Renaissance. Montaigne exercised critical thinking in his “Essays,” which address dozens of different subjects. He writes about literature, history, theology, friendship, love relationships, and his own method of writing, just to mention some of his subjects. His treatment of all subjects is erudite and thoughtful, while keeping it entertaining and practical. His goal in reviewing the past is to draw lessons for the present and future. He employs a story from ancient Rome as an excuse to criticise his peers and speak in favour of justice and tolerance of minority opinions. Nonetheless, Montaigne remained prudent in his opinions. You will not find in his “Essays” any direct attack against the French monarchy, its decisions or legitimacy. If you compare Montaigne with his contemporary Giordano Bruno, you’ll get the impression that Montaigne never took any personal risks. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) did in Italy what Montaigne had done in France, but taking much higher risks. Bruno didn’t content himself with raising ethical questions or commenting on history. Instead, Bruno spoke publicly about uncomfortable subjects and put forward controversial theories. While Montaigne was studying in a private school, Bruno became a priest. At age 15, he joined the Dominican Order, and this enabled him to study theology and philosophy. Montaigne, during his historical and theological comments, found discrepancies and contradictions in mainstream beliefs, but kept his criticism soft. He exercised toleration for errors, in the midst of a society driven by prejudice. Bruno proved unable to keep his criticism soft and ended up leaving the Dominican convent where he lived. He then started travelling across Europe, mostly Switzerland and France. The purpose of his travels was to look for a position enabling him to earn a living, mostly teaching. Montaigne also travelled around Europe, mostly Italy, but in his mind, he had different goals than Bruno. Montaigne was ill, suffering from kidney stones, and was trying to find a cure. He spent months at various thermal baths, seeking to reduce his chronic pain, but it was to no avail. The Renaissance spirit combines the sharp criticism from a travelling theologian like Bruno with the hands-on approach of Montaigne. Both men embody the Renaissance, but they took very different paths. Montaigne wrote about Virgil, Alexander the Great, ancient Rome, Troy, and other subjects in a pleasant, entertaining tone. In contrast, Bruno threw oil into the theological debate in his books “On the infinite universe” and “The expulsion of the triumphant beast.” While Montaigne stopped short at any direct attacks on his peers, Bruno offended the Catholic hierarchy by engaging in a harsh debate on astronomy. He endorsed the ideas of Nicolas Copernicus (1463-1543), that is, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/