In the sixteenth century, Michel de Montaigne described his utopia in “On Cannibals” as a nation void of all material ties, intellectual knowledge, and hostile emotions. He argued that the South American natives relied purely on nature and natural instincts; therefore, they lived a simpler and more satisfying life than the Europeans did. Not long after, in The Tempest, Shakespeare’s Gonzalo made a similar proposal about a nation that has no riches or formal learning. Gonzalo saw the potential the island inhabitants had to be “innocent and pure,” (2.1.152) if Prospero had not exercised total control over them. Typee, which appeared in 1846, echoed the sentiments of the predecessors. Melville, also, sought to illustrate the islanders’ way of life as ideal. All three authors chose to include strikingly similar passages about their subjects. While many scholars agree that Shakespeare certainly borrowed ideas from Montaigne, the connection between Montaigne, Shakespeare, and Melville is not as obvious. Melville absolutely echoes both of the passages in their insistence on the ability of money to corrupt people. However, he strays from Shakespeare in that he does not make any exceptions in his argument against government. Gonzalo suggests that if he were the ruler, then a sovereign nation would be acceptable. Additionally, Melville adds on sections to assert his particular and historical stance against the missionaries that Montaigne has no need to discuss. Overall, Melville borrows fundamental concepts about the corruptive power of money. However, he also emphasizes his character’s unique stance as a critic of all social constructs, a narrator of blended genre, and a relentless idealist.

The structure of the three passages clearly shows that some connection between and borrowing of material exists. They all follow a pattern of negation, and list similar items as points of contention. Melville’s “No foreclosures of mortgages, no protested notes, no bills payable” (126) mimics Montaigne’s “no kind of commerce, now knowledge of letters, no science of numbers” (110) and Shakespeare’s “No use of metal, corn…No occupation” (2.1.150-151). All three of the speeches place an emphasis on the notion that the power of commerce can be extremely dangerous to their visions of a utopia. However, the specific danger is different depending on the purpose of the narrator. Melville’s Tommo is trying to fulfill his author’s intent of delivering “the unvarnished truth” (2). One of the main additions of Melville to Montaigne is “no destitute widows with their children starving on the cold charities of the world” (126).  He wanted to create a tale that people would buy, but he also had a stance against the Christian missionaries that he wanted to expel. Montaigne’s main purpose is not to attack a religious movement, but to justify the ways of cannibalism. Therefore, a critique of Christianity is not necessarily critical to his argument. Melville shows that on the island, assistance does not fall under the façade of religion. He does not merely take the passage from “On Cannibals” and duplicate the text; he adjusts and adds to the words in order to serve his own functions.

Furthermore, Melville has more at stake as a writer. He is supposedly talking about a real life experience as seen through the eyes of Tommo. Montaigne does not need to be as specific because he does not claim to have any firsthand account of the South American islanders. Also, Tommo’s experience allows him to give more specific details about what life is actually like, and not just what life is not. He says that “All was mirth, fun, and high good humor” (126). He can express the feelings of the islanders because he actually saw them enjoying themselves. Melville’s argument is arguably more credible because there is an actual example of a successful social system that does not involve the usage of money. Montaigne can ascertain that “The very words denoting lying, treason, deceit, greed, envy, slander, and forgiveness have never been heard,” (110) but he cannot show that their opposites do exist in the island society. Even when Montaigne makes seemingly joyful statements such as “They spend the whole day dancing,” he has no evidence aside from his secondhand source of information. The fact that Tommo has experienced living with the Typee people makes his speech stronger, and sets his voice apart from Montaigne’s.

Melville does not only point to money as evil, but also to family affections and love. He feels that any type of institution is detrimental, because they all inflict negative emotions. For example, Melville states “there were…no withered spinsters, no love-sick maidens, no sour old bachelors, no inattentive husbands, no melancholy young men, no blubbering youngsters and no squalling brats” (126). All of the people in the list are made unhappy by the societal constructions of familial and romantic relationships, two topics which Montaigne never ventures near. While Melville is adding to the speech in “On Cannibals,” he is also critiquing Shakespeare’s ideas. The stereotypical characters in Shakespeare’s plays appear to be the substance of Melville’s discontent. “ Love-sick maidens” could easily be replaced by “Juliet” and “melancholy young men” could easily be replaced by “Hamlet.” Melville believes that Shakespeare’s ideas of a utopia are harmful because they do not completely abolish institutions and power relationships. Therefore, he adds the extra section as an embodiment of his ideals, but also as an attack on the concepts of Gonzalo’s speech.