Amir - Week Two

Judging from the chapter “The Classical Heritage” in Margaret Hodgen’s Early Anthropology it would seem that when dealing with foreign cultures the classical tradition of Herodotus is undeniably superior to that of medieval Europe. Essentially, she characterizes the former as far more modernistic despite living in ancient Greece. Herodotus was detailed, organized, and influential. While he may have occasionally lapsed into the fantastic when describing far-flung corners of the world, he was fundamentally a “cheerful, inquisitive, rationalistic extrovert who traveled over his world to discover the facts,” (Hodgen 28).

In contrast, Hodgen describes the medieval man as gullible and “eager to swallow whole both fact and legend.” (Hodgen 27). He was not a scholar in search of the truth but rather an expert in the esoteric who preferred the legendary to the factual (Hodgen 33) and enthusiastically believed in the existence of human monsters. This was, according to Hodgen, the product of a mind “swamped by religious and superstitious extravagances and deprived of a good education,” (Hodgen 20).

Nevertheless, it was this deep religious faith that propelled the reestablishment of earnest anthropology. The savage of Africa or America challenged the Christian cosmography: why did he wander naked? Wasn’t man shameful of his body ever since the Fall? Had God denied the savage the possibility of becoming Christian? Likewise, the savage deeply intrigued the secularizing humanist. Man’s essential goodness (in contrast to his corruption) was tested by the brutish ways of these newly encountered peoples (Hodgen 361). Thus, both of the competing philosophies of early modern Europe had an interest in understanding the place of the savage.

The sixteenth century European already had the rudimentary tools of taxonomy at his disposal. Even in the twelfth century, the great theologians had praised God’s ordering of society and all creation (Hodgen 398). Hodgen includes some of the charts created in the 1500s that demonstrate this religious conviction. When Europeans first encountered savages they often placed them between men and beasts, thus acting as a lower link in this chain of being (Hodgen 407). With System of nature (1735) the Swede Carl Linnaeus grouped man into a scientific order. While he may have made some awful mistakes, such as grouping men into two different species, Linnaeus still managed to satisfy the two-century old desire to understand the place of the savage within the world. However, his achievement was largely in response to the humanist concerns for order and predictability. This taxonomy had nothing to say in response to the religious questions that arose from the Encounter. Since religion was such a monumental impetus in this drive for anthropological knowledge, it is possible to argue that the work of missionaries such as Las Casas and Père Lafitau (Hodgen 369) was much more successful in establishing the humanity of savages among popular audiences who were swayed more by religion than by scientific musings.