Montaigne’S_Neutral_Stance_on_the_Legal_Proceedings_Against_Muisca_Idolatry

Michel de Montaigne was known for popularizing the Essai as a literary form of writing and he often used this medium to entertain doubts and express his skepticism on the significant issues of his time. With such a reputation, the prima facie response is to suggest that Montaigne would be in opposition to the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry. Yet, Montaigne’s Catholic upbringing and reverence for higher authorities could also lead to the conclusion that he would support the said proceedings. While it seems that Montaigne could possibly offer very contradictory views on the issue, a closer analysis of his essays reveal that he believes it “madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities” and this core idea is vital to this paper’s assertion that Montaigne would, thus, take a neutral stance on the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry – neither supporting nor opposing it. Taking into account how the judge determined that the Indians were guilty – based on his perception of what was true and false – it seems plausible that Montaigne would oppose such a judicial decision. In one of his essays Montaigne argues “there is silly arrogance in continuing to disdain something and to condemn it as false just because it seems unlikely to us” . The diction suggests Montaigne’s condescending view on how people tend to reject something merely because it is unfamiliar to them – labeling them as “silly” and “[arrogant]”. In relating this to the manner in which the visitador-general charged the Indians who confessed and revealed their alleged idolatry with guilt – “without regard to what they might say, in light of the evidence in this case” – it is highly indicative of an unfair trial because it was clearly qualified that the judgment was made based on the proofs provided, but failed to take into account the further explanations of the Indians. By conjunction, it is possible to argue that Montaigne opposed the judicial decision because it was inherently biased and based solely on the ideas and beliefs of the Audiencia of New Granada. It would also appear that Montaigne would disapprove of the actions of the visitador-general in “immediately burn[ing] and demolish[ing]” property and symbols of idolatry to “extirpate all idolatrous abuses” . The choice of the words “burned”, “demolished”, “extirpate” and “all” suggest that the intent of the visitador-general was to completely eradicate and destroy all traces of alleged idolatry. Montaigne comes across as sarcastic and critical of people who “have so overloaded the richness and beauty of [Nature’s] products by [their] own ingenuity that [they] have smothered her entirely. Yet wherever her pure light does shine, she wondrously shames [their] vain and frivolous enterprises”(96). His brilliant use of contrast serves to highlight the positives (i.e. “richness”, “beauty” and “pure light”) of preserving the status quo, while accentuating the negatives (i.e. “smothered”, “vain” and “frivolous”) of corrupting things in their original form. The manner in which he dismisses “ingenuity” – often perceived as a positive quality – as something that can be “shamed” also makes evident his disdain for people who try to be clever and alter things they may not understand. Taking these into consideration, it could, thus, be argued that Montaigne condemns the legal proceedings for their destructive nature that corrupts it from its pure, natural form. While much of the evidence illuminated points towards Montaigne’s potential opposition of the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry, it can also be suggested that Montaigne would support them. This is because Montaigne was a staunch Catholic and since the legal proceedings were carried out “In the Service of God” he could defer to these proceedings out of pious obedience. Montaigne mentions that “God holds sway over your mind” and that it is not for him to “influence such mighty and exalted decisions” – it seems that he has placed God on a high pedestal of reverence and respect as these statements imply God’s power over the people. Furthermore, in his reference to trusting in the beliefs of the erudite, he expresses: “even if they gave no reasons, they would convince me by their very authority” . Hence, if Montaigne believes that the visitador-general has the legitimate authority to govern these proceedings, especially if it were invested in the service of God, he would be inclined to support them. However, it cannot be possible that Montaigne both supports and opposes these legal proceedings and while evidence has been cited to argue for each case, it merely represents a weak and superficial understanding of Montaigne’s true message in his essays. Upon closer analysis of his statements, it can be observed that all perpetuate his belief that people are inherently limited in their knowledge and understanding of the world and this render them unable to discriminate between what is true and what is false. In suggesting that it is “madness” to make any such determination from “our own capacities” , Montaigne expresses his strong doubts about man’s ability to lay appropriate judgment on another and, by implication, would not feel confident to make a judgment of the legal proceedings himself. Although it was earlier argued that Montaigne would possibly support the legal proceedings as a devout Catholic who would defer to higher authority, it can be asserted that he does not do this unconditionally and qualifies “the word of god offers us absolutely certain and irrefragable examples of such phenomena, but to adapt and apply them to things happening in our own times because we cannot understand what caused them or how they were done needs a greater intelligence than we possess.” There are two conclusions to be drawn from this: that Montaigne establishes the indubitably of God’s word; and, that people lack the “greater intelligence” required to make true judgment. Although it could be suggested that this reinforces his support of the extirpation of Muisca idolatry as this goes against “the will of God” , Montaigne seems to imply that God is the only legitimate authority to level judgment on others and this reinforces the idea that he does not think himself – by virtue of the fact that he is a mere mortal – worthy of putting forth his opinion on the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry, choosing a neutral position on the issue instead. He makes a case “not to believe too rashly: not to disbelieve too easily” and this lends itself to the idea that people should always take a more balanced perspective on issues. The legal proceedings do seem to violate this in principle with those accused of idolatry tortured and compelled to tell the “truth” while being disproportionately underrepresented in defending themselves in the very brief and generalized Statement by Defender of the Indians . While this elucidates how the visitador-general makes hasty conclusions based on his rash beliefs and would strengthen the argument that Montaigne was against the legal proceedings, a more pertinent factor to consider is Montaigne’s belief for the need of a balanced perspective with respect to his potential response to the extirpation of Muisca idolatry. Montaigne argues that “the less furnished with counterweights, the more easily its balance will be swayed under the force of its first convictions” reflecting his understanding of human nature and how people tend to be too easily convinced by the first point of view they encounter. At first glance, it could be suggested that Montaigne would oppose the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry based on this idea because the Muisca people were being judged “by [another] standard” that the visitador-general was imposing upon them and hence could not be fairly judged. However, if his statement is applied to Montaigne himself, it will naturally lead to the conclusion that his view on the issue would also be biased. Since he believes that “we, who are never-endingly confused by our own internal delusions, should not go looking for unknown external ones” it follows that he will remain on the fence in terms of his response to the legal proceedings against Muisca idolatry as his continued perplexity over the legitimate right to judge should cause him to suspend his judgment on others. Further, with his judgment shaped by the lone account provided and because Montaigne argues, “vainglory and curiosity are the twin scourges of our souls” it is asserted that he would abstain from expressing his views on the proceedings. To denounce these two characteristics as “scourges” is to disapprove of them and, being consistent with this perspective, it is unlikely that Montaigne would perpetuate a practice that he condemned – as such, this statement further reinforces the view that Montaigne would withhold judgment and adopt a neutral stance. To conclude this argument, it seems that there exist various reasons that will justify Montaigne’s abstinence from judging the legal proceedings against the Muisca idolatry. Montaigne’s dominant belief that that people are incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false because of their limited comprehension of the world and that God is, possibly, the only legitimate authority that can lay judgment will lead him to adopt a neutral position on the issue because he establishes many conditions that effectively rules himself out as a credible judge. Furthermore, Montaigne qualifies that he “warrant[s] you no certainty for whatever [he] say[s]” suggesting that he himself is not without doubt about his own judgments and if that is the case, Que sais-je' ('What do I know'') Works Cited Michel de Montaigne. “The Essays of Michel de Montaigne” In Making of the Modern World: Europe and Latin America, edited by David Como, 91-110, San Diego: University Readers, 2010. Originally published in The Essays of Michel de Montaigne, edited and translated by M.A. Screech (USA: Penguin, 1991). “Selections from Colonial Lives: Documents on Latin American History, 1550-1850” In Making of the Modern World: Europe and Latin America, edited by David Como, 111–121, San Diego: University Readers, 2010. Originally published in Colonial Lives: Documents on Latin American History, 1550-1850, edited by Richard Boyer and Geoffery Spurling (Oxford: University Press, 2000).