When people nowadays speak about curiosity, they usually mean the open, random, wide-range interest in a multiplicity of subjects. They mean the curiosity of children exploring their environment in a disorderly, superficial, inconsistent manner. Renaissance authors such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) employed a different definition of curiosity. They carried out research in a multiplicity of subjects, but in the pursuit of a tightly defined goal. Their efforts were neither disorderly nor random. Montaigne displayed a remarkable curiosity in his literary work, to which he devoted the last two decades of his life. He researched classical authors, taking copious notes, and seeking to draw conclusions of universal value. For Montaigne, all humanistic research revolved around one single goal, namely, to find recipes for happiness. His curiosity was focused, even if it encompasses dozens of subjects. When Montaigne referred to the lifestyle of ancient Greece or Rome, he was pursuing a clear goal, not just retelling amusing stories. I find it specially noteworthy that Montaigne never hesitated to address difficult subjects. He routinely picked up subjects or angles that no author had considered so far. He did not fear the unknown because he was seeking the truth. Montaigne would frequently start writing an essay without having yet made up his mind about the conclusions. He began by quoting a sentence from Plutarch, Seneca, or Julius Caesar, and seeing where it took him. Those essays show us Montaigne’s mind assessing the facts and weighing the arguments. I characterise Montaigne and other Renaissance authors by the road they did not take. By embracing curiosity, they did not take the road of blind conformity. By carrying out their own research, they did not take the road of regurgitating tradition. By elevating curiosity to a work method, Montaigne attains astonishing results. He puts together ideas and historical events that nobody before had combined. He gathers solid arguments against and in favour, prompting readers to think along. I consider Montaigne’s essay “On the inconstancy of our actions” the best example of curiosity in action. On every page, we can follow Montaigne’s own intellectual struggle to assess the facts and draw accurate conclusions. The sheer number of historical citations used by Montaigne is mind-boggling. For instance, he quotes Plato’s “Phaedrus” to argue that the human soul often behaves inconsistently. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-intellectual-curiosity/