The Controversy Of Valladolid
| The Controversy of Valladolid | |
| Author | Jean-Claude Carriere |
|---|---|
| Genre | Romance and historical play |
| Country of origin |  France |
| Editor | |
| Publication date | 1993 |
| Number of pages | 188 |
| ISBN | 2266054015 |
The Controversy of Valladolid is a historical novel by Jean-Claude Carriere , published in 1992 and adapted for the stage in 1993 , based on historical fact located to 1550.
Summary |
History
In the sixteenth century , King Charles V calls for a controversy to take place Valladolid to decide the fate of the Indians. She will oppose the brother Bartolome de Las Casas , who will argue throughout the book in favor of Indians , to Juan Gines de Sepulveda , the philosopher, who argues and explains why these people should be colonized. They will have to judge the legate (representative) of the pope and higher education. Throughout the book will be held this argument to be well defended from both sides ...
Debate
The novel presents the debate between the Dominican friar Bartolome de Las Casas and Canon Juan Gines de Sepulveda (Sepulveda in Frenchified). The official pretext of the debate (the author's ironic comment on the use of pretexts to hide the major debates) is the bet or not to the index , that is to say the ban, the book Democrates alter , justis belli causis sive to - just causes of war of Sepulveda. Since the book makes extensive discussion of Sepulveda, do not put on the Index come close to approving it for the Church.
However, everyone knows that the real issue is much broader: to answer the question "The Indians (of America) have a soul? "Specifically, a positive response would lead to prohibit slavery, while a negative response would be to approve it. Sepulveda's thesis is that Indians are creatures that Christians are right and duty to submit by force. Las Casas, who lived among the Indians, they are defending the humans who have the same rights as Europeans.
Strategies for debate
From the beginning of the controversy, it appears that Las Casas is based mainly on emotion caused by the atrocities committed against Indians. Sepulveda has no examples to counteract these crimes, but was much more gifted in rhetoric. Las Casas often gets carried away, while Seplveda argued more calmly, and is able to construct arguments cons-very structured, while Las Casas needs often cut off at Sepulveda to answer his arguments. But Las Casas on this point has a major indulgence on the part of the legate, who tolerates his interruptions as they are relevant.
Who often the problem of lack of information about what is really happening in the New World. If Las Casas and his assistants went on site, others know the reality of evil distinguish crimes Spanish rumors spread by the propaganda of the enemies of Spain. Similarly, the participants know what to make accusations of sexual perversions of the Indians, except Las Casas's argument that the Aztek strongly condemned homosexuality, and that the allegations of sexual slaves in the mines are absurd, because the mines were too narrow for that.
Seplveda insists heavily on the human sacrifices practiced by the Indians, a practice clearly condemned by the Bible.
The question of the humanity of the Indians.
The first question is whether the Indians belong to the human species. On this issue the fact that Europeans can have children with the Indians, these children had no malformations more frequently than European children, leads quickly enough to conclude that they are.
The physical differences are identified, and quickly found not decisive. The skin color varies too slowly to make a test. The only difference noted is that Indians are mostly hairless. But the cardinal said that if the Bible says that God created man in His own image, she never gave importance to the topic of beards, contrary to the idea that sets the table
Sepulveda has insisted that Indians committing human sacrifices, the legate himself partially returns that argument against him: the Indian ritual sacrifices are human sacrifices that if Indians are human. Sepulveda then specifies its position: for him, the Indians are human, but at the bottom of the hierarchy of human beings: they are slaves by nature.
The idea of the existence of slaves by nature among humans is derived from theories of Aristotle Settlement In fact, the final verdict is not a lot of suspense: we soon learn that the Pope is in favor of softening the fate of the Indians, and all the characters are aware. So everyone knows that Sepulveda is conducting a symbolic gesture. Yet the verdict will be significantly less in the direction of human rights as they are currently interpreted as one might expect. Indeed, the conclusion is that Indians have a soul, and therefore are not likely to be enslaved. But to avoid the settlers too suffer from the loss of cheap labor, the papal legate said he encourages the use of Africans as less human than the Indians. Las Casas protested, but is served that this debate is not on the agenda. Las Casas and Sepulveda, it is a mutual defeat. The author says in a preliminary note that the book is a fictionalized interpretation of historical facts. In fact, if Las Casas and Sepulveda are widely traded on the issue, it is unclear if they actually met. In any case, the debate was essentially epistolary. Above all, the debate has not focused on the humanity of the Indians (it had already been decided), but the mode of evangelism that was necessary to put in place. Comparison with the historical reality
References
See also
Other fictional works on similar themes
Loading ...