Thomas More, Las Casas, And Montaigne's Of Cannibals

Thomas More’s “Utopia”, Bartolomé de Las Casas’s “Destruction of the Indies”, and Michel de Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals” have the commonality of discussing mysterious territories which have certain conditions in several aspects of life which their present audience is unaware. The three authors describe foreign places with vastly different values and social standards, but they all describe the treatments or relations of the indigenous people by Europeans and outsiders, as well as the natives’ reaction to these treatments. More, Las Casas, and Montaigne reveal their personal views through descriptions of the different groups of indigenous people, and all suggest that their “advanced” societies are not necessarily better than those with different

views and less technological innovations. All three authors use the lifestyles of those abroad, the treatment of natives by Europeans, and the responses by natives in order to criticize the values of each of their respective contemporary European social structures. In order to understand the criticism from the authors, it is important to look at the descriptions of the lifestyles and of the given natives, as well as the interactions between the natives and the intruding Europeans.
In “Utopia”, Thomas More illustrates the image of a fictitious island bearing the title’s name. The people of this island have beliefs in areas such as economics and government policies that are incredibly contradictory to the accepted British tradition from which Thomas More was writing. The underlying economic principle in Utopia is the lack of private property. Everyone is in an equal socioeconomic class, so no one person is wealthier than another. The Utopian lack of desire for wealth is demonstrated when the character Hythloday speaks of the mindset of the natives: “[The Utopians] do not understand why a dunderhead with no more brains than a post, and who is depraved as he is foolish, should command a great many wise and good men simply because he happens to have a great pile of gold” (More 57). This quote signifies the extreme difference in the thought of wealth between the Utopian and European cultures. While Europeans, in many cases, would literally be willing risk death in order to become wealthy, the Utopians do not have the slightest desire to be rich, nor do they find the system of hired labor to be the least bit wise. Thomas More (the writer) may specify this system of economics not necessarily to suggest it as a reality for Britain, but moreover to evoke thought that there may be other economic theories that can prove successful. Such economic systems could be found in the Americas, which were tremendously relevant in 1516 when More published Utopia, because they were still very mysterious, having been discovered only 24 years prior.
Another major difference between Utopian and European culture is the system of political power and government. In the story’s action, Thomas More (the character) is an ambassador for the English monarch King Henry XVIII, so he is quite immersed in politics. In Book 1 of Utopia, Hythloday describes a dinner he once had with Henry XVIII predecessor’s chancellor, Cardinal Morton. He describes many issues that the various politicians and him discussed at dinner, as well as his personal view on the issues. More is inclined to refute these views, but Raphael Hythloday implores: “Should you have been with me in Utopia, and seen with your own eyes the manners and customs as I did… you would frankly confess that you had never seen a people so well governed anywhere but there”(More 37). Although he is still hesitant, to believe the other cultures could be better governed than England, Hythloday’s assertion interests More into wanting to hear details and examples of the Utopian government. Hythloday goes on in Book 2 to speak of the issues such as elected officials, differences in slavery, and punishments for crimes. More (the writer) may well be using the character version of himself to represent European society as a whole; in the respect that they are hesitant to change or refusing to recognize the possibility that the currently accepted governmental arrangement is being run in an inefficient or ineffective manner.
More as an author uses Utopian relations with outsiders to reveal his commentary on the relations between natives in the New World. In section labeled as “Foreign Relations”, More uses the example of treaties to reference Europe’s relations with the New World: “While other nations are constantly making treaties, breaking them, and renewing them, the Utopians never make any treaties at all. If nature, they say, doesn’t bind man adequately to his fellow man, will an alliance do so?”(More 76). By using the ineffectiveness of modern treaties between nations, especially those between nations of the old and the new world, More is implying the need for a change. He uses the example of the Utopians, who do not practice the use of treaties with foreigners. Hythloday asserts that the Utopians believe: “A treaty implies that people who are separated by some natural obstacle as slight as a hill or a brook are joined by no bond of nature; it assumes that they are born rivals or enemies, and are right in aiming to destroy one another except insofar as the treaty restrains them”(More 77). This quote suggests that treaties, by nature, lead to bad relations between the involved parties. The Utopians wish to be friends with foreigners, and by nature know the difference between right and wrong. By using the example of treaties, More the writer suggests a flaw in the foreign policy of Europeans, and if someone is believed to be an enemy, and you need agreements not to harm one another, then hostility will eventually be formed towards that party in order to gain advantage. Unlike the fictional Utopia, Bartolomé de Las Casas writes of his real experiences and perspectives of the New World in “An Account, Much Abbreviated, of the Destruction of the Indies”.
Las Casas is writing to Prince Felipe of Spain, explaining his journeys and experiences on several different islands in the Indies in order to attempt to mitigate future damage to the indigenous people. Many of his accounts are strikingly similar, and his introduction of the natives as a whole, can be used as a representation of his many travels to come. In order to embody the character of the inhabitants on this island Las Casas states:
God created [the natives] to be a simple people, altogether without subtility, malice, or duplicity, excellent in obedience, most loyal to their native lords and to the Christians whom they serve; the most humble, patient meekest and most pacific, slowest to take offence and most tranquil in demeanor, least quarrelous, most lacking in rancour or hatreds or desire for vengeance of all people of the earth. (Las Casas 5)
Las Casas illustrates the qualities of the Indians as incredibly virtuous with the intentions of conjuring the reader’s attention, relinquishing any previous convictions that the natives are savages, and forcing one to compare the dispositions of the Indians to the characters of the Europeans. The pure and innocent qualities which Las Casas credits the Indians will humanize them, and make his audience compassionate towards them. He goes on to imply that the inhabitants of these islands, in general, are fragile. The frailty of these people makes them seem defenseless and it adds yet another reason why the Christian cruelty, which he is about to describe, is immoral.
Las Casas describes graphically the various wrongdoings of the Christians towards the Indians, leaving painful, lasting images in the reader’s mind. In attacking the “Christians” for being so unjustly harsh on the natives, Las Casas is implicitly suggesting that they are not accomplishing the goals that they were set out to achieve. The initial goal, as funded by the family of the very person to whom Las Casas is writing, was to spread the word of Christianity and convert the natives of the New World. Although they have various religions on the different Islands, Las Casas states that they are: “very apt and tractable for all fair doctrine, excellently fit to receive our holy Catholic faith and to be indued with virtuous customs”(Las Casas 5-6). In other words, the Spanish had the opportunity to convert these people, but killed them instead. These actions signify the conflicting goals of those funding the expeditions, and the conquistadors themselves, while also criticizing the integrity of the Europeans.
In “Of Cannibals”, Michel de Montaigne describes the natives in present-day Brazil.

Unlike Las Casas’s idealistic and pacifistic descriptions of the indigenous, Montaigne portrays the natives as flawed, and sometimes violent individuals. He goes on to use these flaws as criticism towards his fellow Europeans. The main topic Montaigne covers and uses to compare Indian and European practices is cannibalism. To a civilized European, cannibalism seems like a brutish, primal, barbaric practice. Montaigne defends the natives by pleading their thought process in eating another human’s flesh. “After [the natives] have long time used and treated their prisoners well… kill him with swords: which done, they roast him and eat him in common… not to nourish themselves with it, but to represent an extreme and inexpiable revenge”(Montagne Paragraph 11). Contrary to the belief that the cannibals are not unable to feed themselves, so must resort to eating human flesh, they do it out of revenge, after killing their victim relatively humanely. Montaigne goes on to compare the practices of Europeans in relation to the cannibals, and in doing so, he shows that the cannibals are no more savage than people who are considered to be more advanced: “[The Portuguese] bury [their prisoners] up to the middle, and against the upper part of the body to shoot arrows, and then being almost dead, to hang them up”(Montaigne Paragraph 12). The way the Portuguese kill their prisoners is much more torturous and dehumanizing than the method of the cannibals. Montaigne then tells the chilling fact that the natives began to follow this method of killing (Montaigne Paragraph 12). Those who are considered to be barbaric by Europeans took the method of revenge because it was “more smartful and cruel than theirs”(Montaigne Paragraph 12). This implies an awful characteristic among the explorers: their method of killing is so barbaric; that the “barbarians” themselves felt inclined to follow their example. By

using this example, Montaigne inherently begs the question to any reader of “Of Cannibals”: “Are we (the Europeans) any less savage than the cannibals of the New World?”
Thomas More, Bartolomé de Las Casas, and Michel de Montaigne all took the task of writing about groups of people to audiences who were very uninformed about the ways of life of the respective groups. They use different tactics; in More’s case fictional representation, in Las Casas’s exaggeration, and in Montaigne’s a more direct comparison, but they all are striving for the cause for their audience to understand the different foreigners. As a modern day reader, these three works still apply in the sense that it is irrational and unscrupulous to condemn or damage groups of people for the sole reason of their differences in various aspects of life. Instead, these groups of people can be studied, and in some cases, it may be wise to follow their examples.