On Cannibalism 9/29

#9/29/11: In Michel de Montaigne's 16th century work, "Of Cannibals" he discuses the popular Enlightenment era literary trope of cannibalism from a very interesting perspective. As is typical of Montaigne, and most French Philosophs of this period, Montaigne procures a critique of his own society by virtue of dissecting the culture and practices of another. Montaigne is not quite at the height of the Enlightenment when he writes; in fact, around 1580, when this work is said to have been published, many of the heroes of the Enlightenment were barely a thought in the minds of their ancestors. However, Montaigne's representation of cannibals in this work, as well as his novel approach to self-critique via an examination of an exotic culture, is surely one of the building blocks of Enlightenment thought, and can be seen clearly in both Crusoe and Gulliver's Travels, written many years later. Montaigne gives his account of what his French countryman Jean Jacques Rousseau would later coin as the "noble savage" in order to romanticize the crude practice of cannibalism, and in doing so, position it opposite the barbaric practices of torture and execution being used in Europe at the time. Montaigne admits that cannibalism is certainly a practice to be frowned upon, and that it is indicative of a savage culture, but he is clever in his subtle insinuation that the European continent is far more savage than these people in many ways. Montaigne lures the reader into agreeing that a culture that eats others must be savage and barbaric, but he immediately continues by pointing out that, savage as killing a man and roasting his corpse for consumption in a spiritual ceremonial fashion is, when we take a look at the practices being performed by Europeans, and he claims, being adopted by these savages themselves, we as Europeans are in no condition to pass judgment. Montaigne tells the reader of the conditions the victims live in after their capture as being very pleasant. According to Montaigne, during their captivity, the prisoners in these cannibalistic cultures are treated with a great deal of care, and during this time they take their own revenge on their captors, hurling insults and even singing insulting songs. He cites this level of creativity and inventiveness spurred by cannibalism, as well as the relatively humane way the captives are killed quickly before being cooked as savage acts. However, he then makes the comparison to Europe, where captives are tortured, mutilated, and treated inhumanely. He also decries the barbaric way in which prisoners are executed, even mentioning that in some European cultures, prisoners are cooked alive. Having made these comparisons, he very cleverly concludes that, while he can see no fault in calling these cannibals savages, if we are willing to do that, we must also be willing to conclude that, if we use our treatment of condemned prisoners as a guide, we as Europeans are a far, far more savage people.

The Purpose of Cannibalism

The 16^th and 17^th century expansion from Europe to the New World in the Americas provided the substance for fantastic adventure tales. Such exotic and exciting stories, including those surrounding the practice of cannibalism, are now generally perceived as a combination of anecdotal evidence, exaggeration and creative imagination. In fact there is little firm evidence to verify that cannibalism was ever practiced. There invention of such tales provided the Europeans with propaganda to legitimize their brutal conquest of indigenous colonies under the pretext of civilizing barbarous cultures and instilling their perceived cultural superiority upon societies with beliefs they did not understand and feared.

The only first hand account of cannibalism provided in Robinson Crusoe comes from the French Protestant missionary Charles de Rochefort, yet it differs from that of Michel de Montaigne. The treatment of prisoners in either’s tale differs, as Montaigne depicts the captors as “having a long time treated the Prisoners very well, and giving them all the Regalia’s they can think of” before their ritualistic cannibalism. Contrarily, Rochefort’s captor “ties [his prisoner] in an Amac, which he hangs up almost at the roof of his dwelling” and only “after he has kept him fasting four or five days” does the torture and feast occur. If the motivator behind cannibalism was revenge as both claim, why would the conduct vary of captives disagree so markedly? Indeed Dampier, who interacted significantly with indigenous Carribees claimed to “know some of these Cannibal Stories to be false”, and goes so far as to describe their civil nature. Their only violent attack came in what he acknowledges “was to preserve their own right” and property. There is a notable lack of eye-witness accounts as to any eating of other humans outside those who stood to benefit from a negative portrayal of the native populations.

Both Montaigne and Rochefort depict the ferocity of local tribes in battle and sacrifice, practically glorifying the determination and fortitude of warring nations. The song of defiance Montaigne relays and indomitable attitude of Rochefort’s sacrificial prisoner through his torture serves only to reinforce the necessity of enlightening what they viewed as savage beasts.