Historians attribute to Tacitus (and Cicero to a lesser extent) a style characterised by short, profound sentences that can be interpreted at different levels. Tacitus and Cicero were highly admired in the Renaissance, precisely for that reason. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced many quotable texts, but did not follow Tacitus’ and Cicero’s approach. Those must have spent hours polishing each sentence, trying to get their ideas across in a distinctly concise manner. For Montaigne, speed was more important than brilliance. He opted for producing a high output even if quality suffered a bit. He loved to read Tacitus and Cicero, but did not want to emulate them. In his eyes, the cost was just too high. Montaigne is the first writer who made a conscious choice for simplicity and directness. He made the choice at the beginning of writing his “Essays” and maintained the same course for two decades. Once he had made his choice, he did not deviate one millimetre. Nowadays, we are used to people choosing a simple, direct style. We get annoyed when writers get sidetracked or employ over-complicated words. Our mind disconnects from tiresome, phoney arguments and fluffy reasoning. The path to literary simplicity started in the Renaissance, in the “Essays” written by Montaigne. Let me underline that he was not only the first, but for a long time, the only one. Most of his peers, although brilliant in their own ways, inherited the ancient tendency to over-complicate, overdecorate, overextend, and over-strain. The Spanish Luis de Gongora (1561-1627) was extremely creative, but made the opposite choice in terms of style. Where Montaigne chose simplicity, Gongora became the archetype of over-complexity and verbosity. Gongora reminds me of ancient Greek poets, unable to put any thought in a straight sentence, unable to describe any event without attributing it to some Olympian god or goddess. Montaigne didn’t enjoy ancient Greek poets and found little wisdom in their verbosity. I am referring especially to Homer, who plays a minor role in Montaigne’s “Essays” if compared to Plutarch and Seneca. Like Montaigne, Gongora enjoyed an excellent education, in which the study of ancient literature shaped the curriculum. I find fascinating the reason for Gongora’s choice for an overly complicated style. At the beginning of his career, Gongora made an attempt at writing simple lyrics. People liked them although he could not expect to achieve great fame and recognition in this way. His was a purely quantitative assessment: there were not that many readers willing to pay for poetry. Thus, Gongora opted for seeking a patron, someone willing to support him as a poet. The search for a powerful sponsor prompted Gongora to move to Madrid, the Spanish capital. He eventually obtained the protection and support of the Duke of Lerma, a leading aristocrat. Montaigne followed the opposite path in his career. He was not expecting anyone to sponsor his literary ambitions, nor was he willing to adapt his style or interest to please any patron. He wrote primarily what he enjoyed, matters he found worthy of interest or that he wanted to research. His choice for simplicity and directness is coupled to his choice for self-reliance and effectiveness. Do things relatively well, but do them fast. Keep a reasonable level of quality, but do not get lost in cumbersome details. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/simplicity-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/