Montaigne’S Neutral Stance on the Legal Proceedings Against Muisca Idolatry
- Submitted by: michteo
- Views: 614
- Category: History: European
- Date Submitted: 05/19/2011 01:09 PM
- Pages: 7
- Report this Essay
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...
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...