Jimmy Ruck- Week 2

The classical and medieval traditions of viewing and analyzing foreign cultures differed in terms of purpose or intent and then also in the actual methods of characterization. Herodotus, of the classical tradition, sought to the best of his ability to paint a picture of the foreigners just as he saw them. He said over and over again that “he was merely trying to relate what he himself had seen or heard without prejudice and with a mind free of preconceptions”. In fact, Herodotus went so far as to make note of instances when he encountered differing reports or stories about the same set of people. This did not preclude Herodotus from detailing differences or similarities between observed cultures, but he had no intent to “confer upon his own culture the honor of being the source of the pinnacle of cultural achievement”. On the other hand, the medieval tradition sought to interpret these differences and grasp their significance. Thus, whereas Herodotus exercised caution in his observations, medievalists were prone to swallow both fact and legend because they desired to emphasize a particular point. Consequently, medievalist explorers like Andre Thevet told tales of “human monstrosities”, marvels, and monsters. It was said that Rabelais “yielded to a temptation to tell of the new facts in an old way”—his medievalist stories clashed with the realities. The trait of lumping several distinct groups together as one or ignoring the cultures of near-by European “barbarians” characterized the medievalist tradition as well. Herodotus, on the other hand, sought to describe everyone imaginable—civil or uncivil. In sharp contrast to Herodotus, the medieval tradition embraced superstitions and the imaginary.

These early modern Europeans had several major manners in which they could possibly characterize “savages”: a moralist approach, a cultural relativist approach, and then a degenerationist method. The moralists looked at savages in either of two categories: primitivistic or anti-primitivistic. The anti-primitivistics looked at “savages” with disdain and chronicled them as “hideous, boar-tusked, child devouring ogres”. However, other early explorers became enchanted with the idea of a “noble” savage and this primitivistic labeling had a favorable estimation. Columbus described the natives as “virtuous and mild, beautiful in body and countenance”. It was thought that they lived virtuous and happy lives. The cultural relativist approach started to recognize the “presence of relativism in men’s opinion of one another” which thus nullified the judgment to a certain extent. As Benjamin Franklin noted, “the barbarous heathen are nothing more strange to us than we are to them”. The final approach had Biblical roots—specifically the Creation story and the “Fall” of mankind. This framework viewed the “savages” as those people or “creatures” who had degenerated from a higher cultural condition. These foreign people were the outcomes of corruption, and they were just more corrupt or had had “more time in which to degenerate and forget the ‘original’ from which they had derived.” Accompanying this notion of decline was the notion that “savages were unimprovable”. They were uncivilized, unable to progress, and thus concepts like slavery were justified.

Eventually, the thought process evolved as well. No longer were these “savages” merely seen as distinct animals; however, some believed they were a bridge or the missing link between humans and beasts. Linnaeus, an 18^th century botanist, tried to hierarchically arrange what he saw as the existence of different human races or societies. He divided man into two different species and then further divided them into various varieties. “He fell into the trap of unexamined medievalism by talking about fabulous, monstrous men”.