Question: Analyze how conventional wisdom, accepted beliefs, and/or established institutions are criticized in the Montpensier/Motteville correspondence and compare with the secondary source Montaigne.

Expert answer

There are a number of ways in which conventional wisdom, accepted beliefs, and established institutions are criticized in the Montpensier/Motteville correspondence. For example, in a letter dated February 15, 1659, Madame de Montpensier complains about the way women are treated by the legal system: "It is intolerable that the laws should be so unjust to us, and that we should have so little share in making them." She goes on to say that if women were more involved in the law-making process, they would be better able to protect their own interests.

In a letter dated March 5, 1659, Madame de Motteville expresses her frustration with the restrictions placed on women's speech and behavior: "We are perpetually being told to be silent and to obey, as if we were incapable of thinking or acting for ourselves." She argues that women should be given more freedom to express their opinions and to participate in the affairs of state.

These are just a few examples of the ways in which the Montpensier/Motteville correspondence criticizes conventional wisdom, accepted beliefs, and established institutions. Overall, the correspondence offers a detailed and nuanced critique of the sociocultural status quo of 17th-century France.

Montaigne's "Of Cannibals" also offers a critque of conventional wisdom, accepted beliefs, and established institutions. In particular, Montaigne challenges the widely held belief that Europeans are civilized and that all other cultures are barbaric. He argues that the so-called "barbarians" of the New World are, in fact, just as civilized as Europeans. Montaigne's critique is based on his own personal experience; he was one of the first Europeans to meet and interact with the indigenous people of the Americas.

Overall, both the Montpensier/Motteville correspondence and Montaigne's "Of Cannibals" offer detailed and nuanced critiques of conventional wisdom, accepted beliefs, and established institutions. While the two works differ in their approach (the correspondence is primarily focused on gender issues, while "Of Cannibals" takes a more general perspective), they both provide valuable insights into the way 17th-century society was structured and how it could be improved.