Lady Mantagu's accounts from her travels are arguably the most objective we have encountered so far this semester. Throughout her collection of letters she speaks of not only the beauty of the Muslim people she encounters, but admires also their ways of life including their religion and liberty, especially in regards to women. Perhaps the most interesting example of her reverence towards these people comes from her letter to her sister Lady Mar on April 1st, 1717 from Adrianople where she describes the way the women dress: "no woman, of what rank so ever being permitted to go in the streets without two muslins, one that covers her face all but her eyes and another that hides the whole dress of her head, and hangs half way down her back...there is no distinguishing the great lady from her slave...this masquerade gives them entire liberty of following their inclinations without danger of discovery" (pg 71). I say this excerpt is one of the most interesting because it heavily contrasts the current western opinion of not only the freedom of women in this culture, but also what this type of dress suggests. Today many view this type of dress as suppressive to individuality, but Lady Montagu's suggestion that it gives women equality among each other as well as the freedom to act as they please is extremely interesting and valid. This could be because of her upbringing in the early 18th century in Europe where women were still held to standards, especially aristocratic women such as her self and were constantly monitored.
Only increasing in objectivity, Lady Mantagu’s accounts also frequently acknowledge that the information available to westerners about these cultures is not reliable, and is falsified based on a number of reasons such as personal agendas, ignorance, and lack of sufficient time to study the culture. She goes on to describe her discussion with Achmed Bey, who she spent time with everyday discussing Islam and the Alcoran: “I don’t doubt but that all our translations are from copies got from the Greek priests who would not fail to falsify it with the extremity of malice. No body of men ever were more ignorant or more corrupt” (pg 63). I think it would be interesting to compare her work to that of Flaubert whose intentions were supposedly to immerse himself in the Egyptian culture and educate the European world, which was clearly not the case. The comparison of the two raises the question: why aren’t people referring to works such as The Turkish Embassy Letters when educating themselves on the history of Islamic people? Perhaps it’s a matter of gender.
I like a lot of the points you bring up. You touched upon a few things that I thought would be important to elaborate upon. First you bring up the objectivity of the letters and I think the example you chose could easily be used to make the opposite argument. The fact that she views the veil as a useful tool for acting however a woman wearing the veil in public wants to act. Basically I think the fact that she thinks it would make their lives easier is subjective because she was under such scrutiny in her own society. She is merely conceptualizing the veil within the terms of her own conditions back in London. If she were to wear a veil then she would be able to get away with whatever she wanted because no one would recognize her and gossip about her.
You also bring up her perceptions compared to those of Flaubert in relation to why people aren't referring to works such as Montagu's letters instead of Flaubert's travelogue. I think it could quite possibly be a matter of gender. Quite a few professors out there are more biased towards the aristocratic white male over the outspoken aristocratic female. Academia has fostered a real inclination towards rich white European males and I'm glad that we are in a class that breaks lots of boundaries including that one.
Although Lady Montagu's letters are, like you said, the most objective account of the East that we have read so far this semester, there are still times throughout the book that her bold statements resonate subjectivity. Lady Montagu does praise the dress and beauty of the Turkish women for the most part, but one instance in one of her early letters caught me off guard because of how particularly offensive it is. In Letter IX to Lady Mar, Lady Montagu writes the following of Turkish women in court: "You may easily suppose how much this extraordinary dress sets off and improves the natural ugliness with which God Almighty has been pleased to endow them all generally." (17) Now, the reader has been forewarned of Lady Montagu's boldness in the introduction when Anita Desai states the following of not only Lady Montagu but of writers in general during the 18th Century: "Clearly it was an age that could take the shock of such blunt speech and fine feelings for others did not exist." (xxxii) This blunt speech has been a theme throughout our Orientalist readings this semester, and continues into our Ottoman readings as well. Though I don't think Lady Montagu is blunt in her writings to be malicious, I still believe that it portrays a sense of superiority- much less so than writers such as Mandeville and Chaucer- but superior nonetheless.
As much as Lady M is well ahead of her time in terms of objectivity and honest understanding of this non-western culture, language, and religion, she does to some extent fetishize the veiled women. To make a fetish of their agency and their freedom, to the extent that she portrays them as even so free as to cheat on their husbands and lovers, is just as dangerous a flaw in her perception of the culture as, say, Flaubert--although her mistake is an honest one, whereas Flaubert's narrative is almost completely constructed fantasy. Her bluntness goes hand in hand with her passion for her vision of what it means to be an Ottoman woman; when she clearly admires so much about them, it is not surprising for Lady Montagu to extoll their virtues (and a few flaws) with all the frankness and openness of a completely immersed admirer. This frankness can be seen as a power play (she's trying to maintain her own agency by appropriating theirs), although I truly believe it is unintentional. I admire her, despite the flaws in her narrative, and still find her letters to be a breath of fresh air after Flaubert.
I was really intrigued by the text "Ottoman before Orientalism" by Gerald MacLean. The text discusses the identity of the "East" before the "Orient" or in other words the Ottoman Empire and its representation by the West. Specifically, the text mentions that "when early European visitors set about understanding, misunderstanding, overlooking, or ignoring the self- representations of the Ottoman culture, the reports they left behind may often owe rather more to their own imperial fantasies and personal ambitions than to really existing conditions” (87). In short, Europeans when they traveled into the East brought with them opinions and prejudice against the East because of their own national feelings. It is the British “imperial envy” that kept them from appreciating the Ottoman Empire (86). The British wanted to form an empire and therefore felt more competitive towards the Ottoman Empire and so portrayed it in a negative light. Blount, in this text, offers a new stance towards the East. He suggests “unlearning” or the “putting off the old man” approach (88). What this means is to get rid of the prejudice of where you come from so you can be open to new ideas and experiences and see them through a clean lens. In Blount’s case, he gives up the opinion and stances of Christian supernaturalism and takes a more humanist approach. Through this secular and objective viewing, Blount exposes that the “Turkish way” in fact, is not “all the way it has been represented, but ‘rather another king of civility’” (88). In this statement, Blount shows that the Ottoman Empire isn’t a geographical location to be othered, but rather an empire which can be admired and learned from. Blount suggests approaching the Ottoman Empire from the stance of a “passenger” who is “capable of imagining and even attempting to live through the possibility that other cultures might be ‘different from ours, but no lesse pretending’” (91). He suggests going to the places which are misrepresented in literature by opinions and prejudices. I thought this was a refreshing view which differed from the subjugation of the Ottoman Empire.
One thing that I thought was interesting about Lady Montagu's work is that this is the first story that we have seen that seems to have a Westerner biased in favor of Islamic culture. She seems to revere different elements of Islamic culture, from academia to home decoration. She seems to view this culture as an almost universally regal one, one that highlights a certain standard of living for a majority of its people. One thing that is new here is the heavily feministic view with which she sees this culture. This is the first time that we have read a female text, and she shows the difference by avoiding looking at the Islamic culture through the traditional fantastical lens. Women, for example, are far different in her letters than they are in say Flaubert's travelogue. She sees the women not as repressed or hyper-sexual, as men commonly do, because she is part of that fantasy. She has been seen as a sexual object simply by being a women in her culture, and because of this she can easily look past the fantasy and see clearly what is the essence of the culture. She admires the subtle freedoms that Turkish women have in their day to day life, given to them by the veils that they wear. Rather than seeing this as a device to remove their identities, she sees them as a chance for a woman to be able to be her true self, and use the veil as a way to hide that from the outside world. In this mystery of appearance, she can recognize that a woman in the Islamic world has a greater sense of privacy, and rather than being treated as an object to be viewed and treated like a painting, Islamic women must be recognized by aspects of themselves beyond the physical, such as their interests or their knowledge. By Montagu's point of view, Islamic women are so beautifully concealed from men, that the mystery of who they are underneath their attire is enough to make them beautiful. They are individuals that can only be known to those who they deem worthy, and with that choice comes power that Western women could not hope to fully understand in the same way, and a concept that men of her era could not possibly begin to grasp.
I agree that Lady Montagu's bias in favor of Islamic culture is a breath of fresh air. However, I would argue that it is not without a fantastical lens. As we discussed in class today, there is definitely a sense that the Ottoman's are some sort of perfect people who have everything figured out, when that is definitely not the case. As we saw throughout the text with the janissaries, some things were starting to go wrong. They were gaining too much power and used people with little regard for rights. In addition, her view of women was pretty self centered. She liked the veils for their equalizing quality, yes, but also she coveted the ability to break away from unfriendly male counterparts, which was not the goal of every Islamic woman. It was unfair of her to impose her own desires onto women, just as Flaubert did. I will give her credit for commenting on their makeup, reporting the practice, and then claiming she was not a fan without saying it made the women any less of people for doing it. What I mean to say is that she gave an opinion along with an observation without blowing it out of proportion, such as what Mandeville would have done. Lady Montagu's story is not perfect by any means, but her account is a more uplifting way to view the East.
I think an interesting aspect to the readings for this week comes from the “Ottomanism Before Orientalism” reading. This is the first time we really hear about Europe’s jealousy towards the Ottoman Empire during the time of Henry Blout and Mary Wortley Montagu. In many of the other works we read, there is a certain European pride that shows through the writings of the authors. One example of how it shows through can easily be seen all throughout The Book of John Mandeville, where the author constantly reminds us that he is British, implying that they are the most distinguished and learned in the world, describing the East as uncivilized and barbaric in nature.
In “Ottomanism Before Orientalistm”, however, Blout believes that Europe is jealous of the Ottoman Empire because of its many successes. He stresses how he believes that Europe must learn from the Turks in order to reach these same successes, something that you don’t normally hear about coming from a European. This is quite the opposite from many of the other texts we read about the East. In most texts it is the East that is uncivilized and underdeveloped, and they are often encouraged to learn from the “wise west.” Blout gives us a different view, however, and paints a picture of Europe as a struggling place who needs to look up to its superior in order to gain power: the Ottoman Empire.
It also astonishes me that when I learned about the Ottomans in high school, the fact that they were so successful was not really stressed. We got a sense of their impressive culture, but it was definitely not compared to that of the “sophisticated” Europeans. When you hear, in this reading for example, that the Europeans were jealous of the Ottomans, it puts an entirely new perspective on the orientalist view of the East that we are often taught.
On page 60 of The Turkish Embassy Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu a very important moment takes place. The Muslim women (who Lady Mary is getting along handsomely with) encourage her to relax in the “women’s coffee house” and let loose a little bit (literally). However, when the women see her corset they are almost horrified by this “machine” the European men make their women wear. This moment in time is only a few lines long but nevertheless it is very significant.
In many other articles, books, travel logs, and so forth that we have read in class usually eastern/Muslim women are portrayed harshly. In all honesty, every Muslim custom is portrayed harshly. The European men look down upon the way the women are, how the men and women live, dress, etc. However, in this instance for a brief second in time it’s the other way around. The Muslim women think corsets are basically evil, and that European men are less civilized and crueler than their own men.
We haven’t read a lot of accounts that depict Europeans as the “backwards” people. But it makes me wonder what other things did people in Turkey (for example) think of Europe during this time period. Did all of the eastern merchants who encountered Europeans think they were ridiculous to dress and behave so? Did they scoff at their mannerisms and scratch their heads at the things they said?
I bet they did.
Every culture is unique, and has certain customs that are distinctive to them. Meeting any other group of people who do things differently always makes a person step back and think. But it’s so interesting how in today’s media (especially) it’s always USA/Europe>the Middle East. Yet, to the people in the Middle East, it’s the opposite. Everyone honestly always thinks his or her culture/religion/or whatever is “right” one. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean one should continuously throughout history discredit someone else’s beliefs. It’s fine to be content with the way you live your life, but you shouldn’t feel the uncontrollable need to degrade someone else’s way of life.
The Turkish Embassy Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu are so different than many other accounts since she was so opened-minded. The Muslim women she encounters are also very open-minded. Yes, her clothing might shock them, but they still accept her. And Lady Mary Wortley Montagu accepts them for who they are.
The bath encounter overall is so pivotal because it shows two worlds “crashing” but still being harmonious with one another. Now if only we could get the European men during this time period to just be as warm and welcoming!
I think that the open-mindedness of Lady Montagu’s letters stems from the fact that as a woman, she is part of a marginalized group in Europe. Throughout the epistolary book, I got the sense that she recognized the parallels between the submissive nature of women in England and the supposed inferiority of Muslims that was perpetually preached back home. There seems to be a revelation sometime during her stay in Turkey where Lady Montagu realizes that the Islamic culture in reality is far from the European depictions of what it’s like; and hey, if they’re wrong about that, what else do they have wrong? She begins to see through the political advantage of skewing public opinion about Islam and its peoples, and makes the connection that the same is being done to continue to oppress European women. Yet, there is fault to be found in Lady Montagu’s publications. She is using her platform as an English woman abroad in a Middle Eastern country to push her pro-feminist views, which frankly is not so different from the other writers we’ve studied before. With writers such as Flaubert and Mandeville, their publications were written with the intent to deride Muslim culture for the sake of ethnocentrism. Lady Montagu is wholesomely more tolerant and is daresay envious of the Muslims, sure… but do not mistake her letters for anything short of agenda writing. She is using the aspects of the Turkish culture which appeal most to her pro-feminist argument, and even though she is elevating the Muslims, she is doing so for her own personal gain.
While I agree with you Kevin that a bias exists, I must say that you will never find a piece of written work that does not contain a bias. I think this goes back to what we learned earlier with worldliness- nothing can exist entirely independent of outside influence. It would be naive to think otherwise. While you are right that all three authors are using their writing as a platform to further their views, there is a major distinction to be made here. Mandeville in particular is altering the reality of his observations in order to perpetuate stereotypes, further orientalist views, and play into his fantasies about the East. While I believe Montague's observations serve as a means of humanizing the East. It draws us together, and makes a connection. The point she is getting at here is, we are all the same. She is humanizing these women, and making them entirely relatable. Just because I bias exists does not mean it is harmful. To go back to Katie's original point, I cannot agree more. Western women in particular are quick to point to Eastern women's dress as oppression. They see it as a symbol of male dominance over women, limiting their freedom of expression, objectifying them by nearly removing their identity. But is that not what western women concede to as well? I as a woman can say I do not particularly enjoy wearing high heels. I am sure we have all seen the girl walking around on Friday night wearing six inch stilettos, an all too tight dress, and five pounds of make up. She is just as easily placing herself into the objectification of her male audience. Women in western culture also dress to the taste of their male dominated society. When Montague brings in this point is is extremely significant. She is seeing the Eastern as relatable, and questioning the societal norms as she knows them.
Lady Montagu is so far the most sensitive and kind of European travelers of the east which we have read. While you could credit that to her nature, as she was indeed a poet, I think her willingness to give the people of the Turkey a more fair judgment is indicative to the variation in temperament between men and women, especially of the early 1700’s. When abroad, the men whose writing we’ve read have been all about business, travelling with an objective in mind. Their task at hand and their home to return to are ever present in their thoughts, and distract them. And those such as Mandeville who hadn’t even inhabited the lands they wrote of were influenced ultimately by their ignorance. On the other end of the spectrum, Lady Montagu was an ambassador’s wife. She already had the legitimate experiences. She doesn’t look upon these people and cultures from a place of conquest, or some unwashed hole to be inhabited and colonized, but instead looks upon it as a place to visit, with characteristics to be appreciated and discovered. Certainly she doesn’t find everything she sees agreeable, such as the Janissaries, who she describes as possessing a sort of military rule over Constantinople, but she has the even temper to not allow the disagreeable to color her perception of the entire culture. Because of the status applied to her as a woman, and the wife of someone with ‘power’, she is free to have experiences and make observations that are all relatively innocent. Although she would later confront the limitations of her standing as a woman, here it works to the advantage of the writing. There’s an innocence that permeates these letters that could only come from someone who was kept to standards of manners as well as was free to think about what she liked about the place instead of working for some distant government of a wholly different land.
I think the point you make about objective is really interesting. As you point out, Lady Montagu does not have a concrete "order of business" to attend to while visiting the Ottomans, unlike the other travelogues we have read. Gender functions in an interesting way in this regard, as it is her husband who has the more concrete objective as "ambassador". I wonder what effect gender would play on earlier European/Islamic encounters - how would early European travelogues differ in their construction of Islam? Of course, we need to keep in mind that Lady Montagu is an individual and not representative of all European women. Still, it is interesting to examine to what extent Orientalism is a male construction.
What I enjoyed most about Lady Montagu’s letters was the wide range of both praise and criticism of the Turkish culture. In previous texts that we have read, many authors have had a predetermined stance on particular foreign cultures, and followed a certain theme in their observations and analyses of these new cultures. Lady Montagu on the other hand, seems to consciously avoid tunnel-visioning on one particular viewpoint of Turkey. Instead, she absorbs the country and its people, and then praises what she likes, and criticizes what she dislikes. For example, Lady Montagu accuses Turks of being “too proud to converse familiarly with merchants etc.” (60) and how some individuals are too preoccupied with their own troubles to be bothered by outsiders, but also praises and respects men like Achmed Bey for his education and friendliness. Additionally, Lady Montagu describes Turkish women as “the only free people in the empire” (72), for the anonymity that their veils provide them. Many Westerners at the time may see the veils as suppressive, but Lady Montagu has clearly given this notion some analytical thought, and refuses to pass immediate judgment based on surface-level impressions or stereotypes. Lady Montagu interprets each facet of the culture individually, without allowing overbearing influence from her own culture. This wide spectrum of reasoning may at first seem somewhat erratic, but Lady Montagu is simply rejecting the idea of generalizing the entire culture into one stereotype or judgment, like many have previously done to the Orient.
I agree with your assessment of Lady Montagu's commentary on Turkish society. While so many of the other travel logs we have looked at were very biased, Lady Montagu seems to generally avoid cultural biases while sometimes still being critical and speaking her mind. She avoids sweeping generalizations and does not write in a condemnatory tone. Her comments regarding women are very interesting. She frequently draws comparisons between Turkish women and Europen women, and often speaks in favor of Turkish women. In her experience at the bath house, she had nothing but good things to say about the women present. I believe there is a great importance of Lady Montagu's likening of the bath house to a European coffee house. In doing this, she points out something that women in both societies have in common, and breaks down certain aspects of cultural barriers and differences.
I realize that the objectivity of Lady Monagu’s letters has already been acknowledged, but I’d like to contribute to the already existing conversation about what makes it objective. I’d argue that her willingness to acknowledge negative aspects of the Islamic society in addition to the positive makes the work even more reliable and objective than if she were to just speak to the awful misrepresentations. On page 60, after shedding light on common misconceptions about Turks and the ways in which these misrepresentations come to fruition, she continues (in practically the same breath), to talk about the atrocious behavior of the janissaries and pashas. She lets the reader know that they should not believe everything they read in male-dominated western travelogues, but still continues to honestly shed light on the unbecoming actions of high ranking officials (those who are supposed to be living up to the moral standards of Islam and who, ironically, in other Muslim countries, were usually seen as people that would serve the interests of western travelers and “diplomats” (I’m referencing Flaubert’s experiences in Egypt).
Lady Montagu blatantly (and relatively objectively) exposes the treatment of the poor by the janissaries and pashas as she writes, “Indeed the janissaries had no mercy on their poverty, killing all the poultry and sheep they could find without asking who they belonged to, while the wretched owners durst not put in their claim for fear of being beaten” (61). She continues, “When the pashas travel ‘tis yet worse. Those oppressors are not content with eating all that is to be eaten belonging to peasants; after they have crammed themselves and their numerous retinue they have the impudence to exact what they call teeth money, a contribution for the use of their teeth, worn with doing them the honour of devouring their meat” (61). What’s impressive and makes this passage all the more objective is what Lady Montagu writes immediately after informing the reader of such behavior. She analyzes the potential cause of these actions and credits it to “the natural corruption of a military government” and states “their religion not allowing of this barbarity any more than our does” (61). In other words, she is determined to make it known that this behavior would never be permitted under the Islamic religion just as it similar actions in the west would never be accepted under Christianity.
Lady Montague takes a very important stand in the writing of her letters; not because she is objectiveˏ not because she takes a stance that largely disagrees with her contemporariesˏ but because she is a woman. We as readers when analyzing texts often seem to focus on the fact that the Muslim women are not as oppressed as the west would have us believeˏ which is definitely an important point to make. However in doing thisˏ we seem to forget that western women were to be seen and not heard. Lady Montague puts this on end. The wife of an ambassador to Istanbulˏ Lady Montague is able to travel and record the many experiences sheˏ as a tourist essentiallyˏ has. While rich in her descriptions of the land and the peopleˏ Lady Montague is also steadfast in her refusal to give credit to the sexist and Orientalist views of the men who’s travel logs spread the racism and fear still seen toward the “orient” today. While not completely devoid of the exoticism seen in orientalist writingsˏ Lady Montague’s Ottomanism provides a much fairer view of the Turkish people. In this refusal to give into what she callsˏ “confused informations, which are generally falseˏ” Lady Montague asserts herself as an intelligent woman who is able to gather her own information on the Turks and will disregard that which she knows to be false. This disregarding of the norm in favor of her own observations and morality makes her an extremely important historical figure. As a woman in a man’s worldˏ Lady Montague not only tries to present an informed and fair view of the Turkish cultureˏ she also provides a figure of an educated woman who does not rely on a man to form an intellectual opinion.
Gerald MacLean suggests, in “Ottomanism before Orientalism”, that the Orientalist lens with which the Europeans viewed the East had its roots in a similar situation between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. He makes the claim that systematic Ottomanism is to blame for such perspectives as Lady Montagu’s. Her account of Turkish life and cultural highlights is troubling to me. It does seem to be more compassionate, and open-minded than most of the accounts we’ve had in the past (specifically Mandeville). However, I can’t help but feel that her notes are almost too optimistic. As a poet, she tends to view the new land through rose tinted glasses. To me, her travelogue plays like a tightly knit fable. The Turkish women can’t conceive of the chauvinistic exploitation of women through corsets and scandalous dress, whereas Lady Montagu pines over the anonymity granted by traditional attire. Yes this clashes with the overtly pessimistic views we’ve been allowed in the past texts, however I wonder if this is not just an opinion held by the affluent Turkish women. There must have been at least a large portion of the female public opposed to such restrictive clothing options. This idea of Lady Montagu falsely experiencing cultural immersion through slanted views of the least oppressed is further supported by Achmed Bey. Achmed is referred to by Lady Montagu as being an “effendi” (a title of nobility, courtesy, stature, and of high education) who held open minded and enlightened views. They discuss the tenants of Islam as he suggests she translate the holy text for herself. This man is not as pious as he seems, which is detailed as he brushes off his enjoyment of alcohol (despite holy law) and tells Lady Montagu that such rules are merely for the lower classes: the masses who lack self control. Systematic Ottomanism surely has shaped her perspective. I do feel that accounts such as Mandeville’s and Chaucer’s are overly critical and unrealistic in their hyperbolic complaints. However, The Turkish Embassy Letters seem to paint an idealistic picture. Perhaps this step beyond the truth, complimenting and appreciating relentlessly, was necessary to counterbalance a history of underhanded oppression within travelogues and stereotypes. Or perhaps she was merely blinded by her affluence and association, inaccurately portraying her findings (if only slightly).
What really caught my attention while reading The Turkish Embassy Letters was the amount of description and detail that Lady Montague includes specifically towards objects and how she looks at the wealth of people in positive manner. In her letters, Lady Montague is very thorough on describing people and places. She seems to always bring up a person’s the wealth and social status. For example in her seventh letter she describes the apartments as “magnificent”. Montague states, “…prodigious large looking glasses in silver frames, fine Japan tables, beds, chairs, canopies, an window curtains of the richest Genoa da mask or velvet , almost covered with gold lace or embroidery…”(13). Montague keeps listing the details about the furniture and type of material the object is made from. Not only is Lady Montague fascinated in the high quality of the furniture, she is also very surprised to see the high quality of the living space.
The fact that she uses the word magnificent to describe the apartments shows Lady Montagues fascination and how much highly she thinks of them. Also on the same page, she mentions how honored it was for her to be invited to dinner and says, “I must do them justice to say, the good taste and magnificence of their tables very well answers to that of their furniture”(13). In this example, Montague is bringing up the wealth of the people in a positive perspective.
During today's discussion, it was mentioned that Lady Montagu may have been attempting to justify some of her actions when she described the scene where some Turkish women coerced her to open her corset, a "machine" she was locked up in. It was brought up that she may have just been attempting to uphold a sort of reputation to other European women of her time period, but there might have been other reasons for her justifications as well. Given Montagu's choice to postpone the book's publication until after her death, it is plausible that she had other opinions to fear in society. Perhaps this is inevitably at least partially why she saw such freedom within the women of Turkey, especially in regards to their anonymity; maybe it was anonymity she craved, in a world where she was constantly in the spotlight to act according to European societal standards for women. Likewise, she definitely highlights the freedom of conversation that the women had inside the Turkish bathhouses - another possible insight into what she herself would most likely want out of life, freedom of speech (and probably freedom of press given the publishing date of Turkish Letters). Because of this, it is likely that Montagu was not just extraordinarily objective in her descriptions of Turkish women - she might have also been slightly jealous of their freedoms. Certainly, regardless of her reasons, her perspective was unique and refreshing to read, in lieu of all the other heavily biased writers we've come across.
I like the point you make. Though it may be true that Lady Montagu had a bad marriage, she was born and raised into the spotlight pretty much due to the high positions that her father and Mr. Wortley held, and her self-education allowed for her to keep company with many elite people. Perhaps she was jealous because she saw the anonymity of the women as a luxury she did not have in Britain--someone would most likely always recognize her every time she went out in public, therefore she was not afforded the freedom to always do or say what she wanted back home. Even the Ottoman aristocratic women still were able to maintain their identity in public. Only in the privacy of their harems or the bathhouses would the faces of these women actually be exposed. Perhaps had Montagu published this book earlier, she would have drawn more public attention to herself then she wanted, thus she has it published posthumously.
There is a lot that is remarkable about Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's account of the Turkish people is remarkable for a lot of reasons. The first major reason is, of course, that she is an empowered woman writing a travelogue which was not common at that point. There are other things that are interesting about this text besides the author's gender, however. Something that I think is very interesting is the author's reaction to the Turkish baths.
On the one hand, it is notable how positively she reacts to the baths. On page fifty nine, Monatgu comments on the striking beauty of the naked women there. She spends a great time admiring their bare form "...in different postures, some in conversation, some working, others drinking coffee or sherbet, and many negligently lying on their cushions..." Lesbian readings aside, it is very interesting that she comments so positively about this experience without a drop of sarcasm of condescension in her tone; this admiration for the Turkish people often pervades her writing.
In another sense, though, this scene represents some of the worst of her writing. As she spent time admiring "so many fine women naked," she declined to strip down herself. While this isn't an extraordinary reaction, the entire scene reminded me greatly of the concept of the Noble Savage that pervades Orientalist writing. So far as Montagu is concerned, these Turks are beautiful in their own way, but of course she would never deem it appropriate to lower herself to that level.
The bath scene is remarkable as both an example of the best and worst qualities of Montagu as a writer; this is why I found this scene so interesting. It is so complex that I feel that I can safely say her attitude in this scene can be used to characterize her writing as a whole.
Scott-- on the one hand I agree with you regarding the tone she adopts during the scene featuring the Turkish baths, however on the other hand I wouldn't necessarily say that the fact that she neglected to strip down naked like the other women in the baths therefore lent itself to be or exemplify itself as "the worst of her writing". Although it is a plausible explanation and most certainly a perspective I did not previously consider before reading your post, I would more so attribute her inability to follow suit, so to speak, as a direct result of being an aristocratic woman of an overly-modest, as well as an unquestionably constrained British society and culture. Therefore, as such, she was not--nor could she be as comfortable with her sexuality as the women she so greatly admired in this novel, are. And I do not mean to confuse this notion of self-confidence with themselves as women as well as their bodies to be misconstrued as if I am implying any type of vulgarity that might be but is not being displayed-- because that is in fact the opposite of what I am arguing. As a woman in this society, it is invariably a culture in which this is natural and therefore not in the least bit shocking to these women-- for Lady Montagu she seems to experience a moment of culture shock in the sense that in the culture she is from, this is not at all something she has ever seen before or familiarized herself with. It almost appears to me as if she is exhibiting a case of "imperial envy" similar to the discussion we had in class today regarding the British empire's attitude towards the Ottomans in the excerpt, "Ottomanism Before Orientalism". In paralleling the two, I saw her resistance as a direct result of her self-consciousness, as well as picking up on a hint of envy that appears to reveal itself in its fullest when she conveys her great respect and admiration towards these women who felt confident to do as they pleased in the barest of forms. This is something she was not able to do, not because she perceived it as below her necessarily, but perhaps because she lacked the boldness and audaciousness she so wishes she could freely inherit, in order to do so. So I agree with you on the fact that yes she did greatly admire these women, but in some small way I think she wishes herself to be a part of a culture she knows she cannot and will not ever be able to be a part of as a woman born and raised in British society. Also the fact that she is writing in a time period where she is married to a man she abhors and cannot leave, lends itself to these actions of constraint as a jaded and subdued wife to Mr. Wortley: Ambassador at Istanbul.
Lady Mantagu's accounts from her travels are arguably the most objective we have encountered so far this semester. Throughout her collection of letters she speaks of not only the beauty of the Muslim people she encounters, but admires also their ways of life including their religion and liberty, especially in regards to women. Perhaps the most interesting example of her reverence towards these people comes from her letter to her sister Lady Mar on April 1st, 1717 from Adrianople where she describes the way the women dress: "no woman, of what rank so ever being permitted to go in the streets without two muslins, one that covers her face all but her eyes and another that hides the whole dress of her head, and hangs half way down her back...there is no distinguishing the great lady from her slave...this masquerade gives them entire liberty of following their inclinations without danger of discovery" (pg 71). I say this excerpt is one of the most interesting because it heavily contrasts the current western opinion of not only the freedom of women in this culture, but also what this type of dress suggests. Today many view this type of dress as suppressive to individuality, but Lady Montagu's suggestion that it gives women equality among each other as well as the freedom to act as they please is extremely interesting and valid. This could be because of her upbringing in the early 18th century in Europe where women were still held to standards, especially aristocratic women such as her self and were constantly monitored.
ReplyDeleteOnly increasing in objectivity, Lady Mantagu’s accounts also frequently acknowledge that the information available to westerners about these cultures is not reliable, and is falsified based on a number of reasons such as personal agendas, ignorance, and lack of sufficient time to study the culture. She goes on to describe her discussion with Achmed Bey, who she spent time with everyday discussing Islam and the Alcoran: “I don’t doubt but that all our translations are from copies got from the Greek priests who would not fail to falsify it with the extremity of malice. No body of men ever were more ignorant or more corrupt” (pg 63). I think it would be interesting to compare her work to that of Flaubert whose intentions were supposedly to immerse himself in the Egyptian culture and educate the European world, which was clearly not the case. The comparison of the two raises the question: why aren’t people referring to works such as The Turkish Embassy Letters when educating themselves on the history of Islamic people? Perhaps it’s a matter of gender.
I like a lot of the points you bring up. You touched upon a few things that I thought would be important to elaborate upon. First you bring up the objectivity of the letters and I think the example you chose could easily be used to make the opposite argument. The fact that she views the veil as a useful tool for acting however a woman wearing the veil in public wants to act. Basically I think the fact that she thinks it would make their lives easier is subjective because she was under such scrutiny in her own society. She is merely conceptualizing the veil within the terms of her own conditions back in London. If she were to wear a veil then she would be able to get away with whatever she wanted because no one would recognize her and gossip about her.
DeleteYou also bring up her perceptions compared to those of Flaubert in relation to why people aren't referring to works such as Montagu's letters instead of Flaubert's travelogue. I think it could quite possibly be a matter of gender. Quite a few professors out there are more biased towards the aristocratic white male over the outspoken aristocratic female. Academia has fostered a real inclination towards rich white European males and I'm glad that we are in a class that breaks lots of boundaries including that one.
Although Lady Montagu's letters are, like you said, the most objective account of the East that we have read so far this semester, there are still times throughout the book that her bold statements resonate subjectivity. Lady Montagu does praise the dress and beauty of the Turkish women for the most part, but one instance in one of her early letters caught me off guard because of how particularly offensive it is. In Letter IX to Lady Mar, Lady Montagu writes the following of Turkish women in court: "You may easily suppose how much this extraordinary dress sets off and improves the natural ugliness with which God Almighty has been pleased to endow them all generally." (17) Now, the reader has been forewarned of Lady Montagu's boldness in the introduction when Anita Desai states the following of not only Lady Montagu but of writers in general during the 18th Century: "Clearly it was an age that could take the shock of such blunt speech and fine feelings for others did not exist." (xxxii) This blunt speech has been a theme throughout our Orientalist readings this semester, and continues into our Ottoman readings as well. Though I don't think Lady Montagu is blunt in her writings to be malicious, I still believe that it portrays a sense of superiority- much less so than writers such as Mandeville and Chaucer- but superior nonetheless.
DeleteAs much as Lady M is well ahead of her time in terms of objectivity and honest understanding of this non-western culture, language, and religion, she does to some extent fetishize the veiled women. To make a fetish of their agency and their freedom, to the extent that she portrays them as even so free as to cheat on their husbands and lovers, is just as dangerous a flaw in her perception of the culture as, say, Flaubert--although her mistake is an honest one, whereas Flaubert's narrative is almost completely constructed fantasy. Her bluntness goes hand in hand with her passion for her vision of what it means to be an Ottoman woman; when she clearly admires so much about them, it is not surprising for Lady Montagu to extoll their virtues (and a few flaws) with all the frankness and openness of a completely immersed admirer. This frankness can be seen as a power play (she's trying to maintain her own agency by appropriating theirs), although I truly believe it is unintentional. I admire her, despite the flaws in her narrative, and still find her letters to be a breath of fresh air after Flaubert.
DeleteI was really intrigued by the text "Ottoman before Orientalism" by Gerald MacLean. The text discusses the identity of the "East" before the "Orient" or in other words the Ottoman Empire and its representation by the West. Specifically, the text mentions that "when early European visitors set about understanding, misunderstanding, overlooking, or ignoring the self- representations of the Ottoman culture, the reports they left behind may often owe rather more to their own imperial fantasies and personal ambitions than to really existing conditions” (87). In short, Europeans when they traveled into the East brought with them opinions and prejudice against the East because of their own national feelings. It is the British “imperial envy” that kept them from appreciating the Ottoman Empire (86). The British wanted to form an empire and therefore felt more competitive towards the Ottoman Empire and so portrayed it in a negative light.
ReplyDeleteBlount, in this text, offers a new stance towards the East. He suggests “unlearning” or the “putting off the old man” approach (88). What this means is to get rid of the prejudice of where you come from so you can be open to new ideas and experiences and see them through a clean lens. In Blount’s case, he gives up the opinion and stances of Christian supernaturalism and takes a more humanist approach. Through this secular and objective viewing, Blount exposes that the “Turkish way” in fact, is not “all the way it has been represented, but ‘rather another king of civility’” (88). In this statement, Blount shows that the Ottoman Empire isn’t a geographical location to be othered, but rather an empire which can be admired and learned from.
Blount suggests approaching the Ottoman Empire from the stance of a “passenger” who is “capable of imagining and even attempting to live through the possibility that other cultures might be ‘different from ours, but no lesse pretending’” (91). He suggests going to the places which are misrepresented in literature by opinions and prejudices. I thought this was a refreshing view which differed from the subjugation of the Ottoman Empire.
One thing that I thought was interesting about Lady Montagu's work is that this is the first story that we have seen that seems to have a Westerner biased in favor of Islamic culture. She seems to revere different elements of Islamic culture, from academia to home decoration. She seems to view this culture as an almost universally regal one, one that highlights a certain standard of living for a majority of its people. One thing that is new here is the heavily feministic view with which she sees this culture. This is the first time that we have read a female text, and she shows the difference by avoiding looking at the Islamic culture through the traditional fantastical lens. Women, for example, are far different in her letters than they are in say Flaubert's travelogue. She sees the women not as repressed or hyper-sexual, as men commonly do, because she is part of that fantasy. She has been seen as a sexual object simply by being a women in her culture, and because of this she can easily look past the fantasy and see clearly what is the essence of the culture. She admires the subtle freedoms that Turkish women have in their day to day life, given to them by the veils that they wear. Rather than seeing this as a device to remove their identities, she sees them as a chance for a woman to be able to be her true self, and use the veil as a way to hide that from the outside world. In this mystery of appearance, she can recognize that a woman in the Islamic world has a greater sense of privacy, and rather than being treated as an object to be viewed and treated like a painting, Islamic women must be recognized by aspects of themselves beyond the physical, such as their interests or their knowledge. By Montagu's point of view, Islamic women are so beautifully concealed from men, that the mystery of who they are underneath their attire is enough to make them beautiful. They are individuals that can only be known to those who they deem worthy, and with that choice comes power that Western women could not hope to fully understand in the same way, and a concept that men of her era could not possibly begin to grasp.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Lady Montagu's bias in favor of Islamic culture is a breath of fresh air. However, I would argue that it is not without a fantastical lens. As we discussed in class today, there is definitely a sense that the Ottoman's are some sort of perfect people who have everything figured out, when that is definitely not the case. As we saw throughout the text with the janissaries, some things were starting to go wrong. They were gaining too much power and used people with little regard for rights. In addition, her view of women was pretty self centered. She liked the veils for their equalizing quality, yes, but also she coveted the ability to break away from unfriendly male counterparts, which was not the goal of every Islamic woman. It was unfair of her to impose her own desires onto women, just as Flaubert did. I will give her credit for commenting on their makeup, reporting the practice, and then claiming she was not a fan without saying it made the women any less of people for doing it. What I mean to say is that she gave an opinion along with an observation without blowing it out of proportion, such as what Mandeville would have done. Lady Montagu's story is not perfect by any means, but her account is a more uplifting way to view the East.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think an interesting aspect to the readings for this week comes from the “Ottomanism Before Orientalism” reading. This is the first time we really hear about Europe’s jealousy towards the Ottoman Empire during the time of Henry Blout and Mary Wortley Montagu. In many of the other works we read, there is a certain European pride that shows through the writings of the authors. One example of how it shows through can easily be seen all throughout The Book of John Mandeville, where the author constantly reminds us that he is British, implying that they are the most distinguished and learned in the world, describing the East as uncivilized and barbaric in nature.
ReplyDeleteIn “Ottomanism Before Orientalistm”, however, Blout believes that Europe is jealous of the Ottoman Empire because of its many successes. He stresses how he believes that Europe must learn from the Turks in order to reach these same successes, something that you don’t normally hear about coming from a European. This is quite the opposite from many of the other texts we read about the East. In most texts it is the East that is uncivilized and underdeveloped, and they are often encouraged to learn from the “wise west.” Blout gives us a different view, however, and paints a picture of Europe as a struggling place who needs to look up to its superior in order to gain power: the Ottoman Empire.
It also astonishes me that when I learned about the Ottomans in high school, the fact that they were so successful was not really stressed. We got a sense of their impressive culture, but it was definitely not compared to that of the “sophisticated” Europeans. When you hear, in this reading for example, that the Europeans were jealous of the Ottomans, it puts an entirely new perspective on the orientalist view of the East that we are often taught.
On page 60 of The Turkish Embassy Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu a very important moment takes place. The Muslim women (who Lady Mary is getting along handsomely with) encourage her to relax in the “women’s coffee house” and let loose a little bit (literally). However, when the women see her corset they are almost horrified by this “machine” the European men make their women wear. This moment in time is only a few lines long but nevertheless it is very significant.
ReplyDeleteIn many other articles, books, travel logs, and so forth that we have read in class usually eastern/Muslim women are portrayed harshly. In all honesty, every Muslim custom is portrayed harshly. The European men look down upon the way the women are, how the men and women live, dress, etc. However, in this instance for a brief second in time it’s the other way around. The Muslim women think corsets are basically evil, and that European men are less civilized and crueler than their own men.
We haven’t read a lot of accounts that depict Europeans as the “backwards” people. But it makes me wonder what other things did people in Turkey (for example) think of Europe during this time period. Did all of the eastern merchants who encountered Europeans think they were ridiculous to dress and behave so? Did they scoff at their mannerisms and scratch their heads at the things they said?
I bet they did.
Every culture is unique, and has certain customs that are distinctive to them. Meeting any other group of people who do things differently always makes a person step back and think. But it’s so interesting how in today’s media (especially) it’s always USA/Europe>the Middle East. Yet, to the people in the Middle East, it’s the opposite. Everyone honestly always thinks his or her culture/religion/or whatever is “right” one. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean one should continuously throughout history discredit someone else’s beliefs. It’s fine to be content with the way you live your life, but you shouldn’t feel the uncontrollable need to degrade someone else’s way of life.
The Turkish Embassy Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu are so different than many other accounts since she was so opened-minded. The Muslim women she encounters are also very open-minded. Yes, her clothing might shock them, but they still accept her. And Lady Mary Wortley Montagu accepts them for who they are.
The bath encounter overall is so pivotal because it shows two worlds “crashing” but still being harmonious with one another. Now if only we could get the European men during this time period to just be as warm and welcoming!
I think that the open-mindedness of Lady Montagu’s letters stems from the fact that as a woman, she is part of a marginalized group in Europe. Throughout the epistolary book, I got the sense that she recognized the parallels between the submissive nature of women in England and the supposed inferiority of Muslims that was perpetually preached back home. There seems to be a revelation sometime during her stay in Turkey where Lady Montagu realizes that the Islamic culture in reality is far from the European depictions of what it’s like; and hey, if they’re wrong about that, what else do they have wrong? She begins to see through the political advantage of skewing public opinion about Islam and its peoples, and makes the connection that the same is being done to continue to oppress European women.
DeleteYet, there is fault to be found in Lady Montagu’s publications. She is using her platform as an English woman abroad in a Middle Eastern country to push her pro-feminist views, which frankly is not so different from the other writers we’ve studied before. With writers such as Flaubert and Mandeville, their publications were written with the intent to deride Muslim culture for the sake of ethnocentrism. Lady Montagu is wholesomely more tolerant and is daresay envious of the Muslims, sure… but do not mistake her letters for anything short of agenda writing. She is using the aspects of the Turkish culture which appeal most to her pro-feminist argument, and even though she is elevating the Muslims, she is doing so for her own personal gain.
While I agree with you Kevin that a bias exists, I must say that you will never find a piece of written work that does not contain a bias. I think this goes back to what we learned earlier with worldliness- nothing can exist entirely independent of outside influence. It would be naive to think otherwise.
DeleteWhile you are right that all three authors are using their writing as a platform to further their views, there is a major distinction to be made here. Mandeville in particular is altering the reality of his observations in order to perpetuate stereotypes, further orientalist views, and play into his fantasies about the East. While I believe Montague's observations serve as a means of humanizing the East. It draws us together, and makes a connection. The point she is getting at here is, we are all the same. She is humanizing these women, and making them entirely relatable.
Just because I bias exists does not mean it is harmful.
To go back to Katie's original point, I cannot agree more. Western women in particular are quick to point to Eastern women's dress as oppression. They see it as a symbol of male dominance over women, limiting their freedom of expression, objectifying them by nearly removing their identity. But is that not what western women concede to as well? I as a woman can say I do not particularly enjoy wearing high heels. I am sure we have all seen the girl walking around on Friday night wearing six inch stilettos, an all too tight dress, and five pounds of make up. She is just as easily placing herself into the objectification of her male audience. Women in western culture also dress to the taste of their male dominated society.
When Montague brings in this point is is extremely significant. She is seeing the Eastern as relatable, and questioning the societal norms as she knows them.
Lady Montagu is so far the most sensitive and kind of European travelers of the east which we have read. While you could credit that to her nature, as she was indeed a poet, I think her willingness to give the people of the Turkey a more fair judgment is indicative to the variation in temperament between men and women, especially of the early 1700’s. When abroad, the men whose writing we’ve read have been all about business, travelling with an objective in mind. Their task at hand and their home to return to are ever present in their thoughts, and distract them. And those such as Mandeville who hadn’t even inhabited the lands they wrote of were influenced ultimately by their ignorance. On the other end of the spectrum, Lady Montagu was an ambassador’s wife. She already had the legitimate experiences. She doesn’t look upon these people and cultures from a place of conquest, or some unwashed hole to be inhabited and colonized, but instead looks upon it as a place to visit, with characteristics to be appreciated and discovered. Certainly she doesn’t find everything she sees agreeable, such as the Janissaries, who she describes as possessing a sort of military rule over Constantinople, but she has the even temper to not allow the disagreeable to color her perception of the entire culture. Because of the status applied to her as a woman, and the wife of someone with ‘power’, she is free to have experiences and make observations that are all relatively innocent. Although she would later confront the limitations of her standing as a woman, here it works to the advantage of the writing. There’s an innocence that permeates these letters that could only come from someone who was kept to standards of manners as well as was free to think about what she liked about the place instead of working for some distant government of a wholly different land.
ReplyDeleteI think the point you make about objective is really interesting. As you point out, Lady Montagu does not have a concrete "order of business" to attend to while visiting the Ottomans, unlike the other travelogues we have read. Gender functions in an interesting way in this regard, as it is her husband who has the more concrete objective as "ambassador". I wonder what effect gender would play on earlier European/Islamic encounters - how would early European travelogues differ in their construction of Islam? Of course, we need to keep in mind that Lady Montagu is an individual and not representative of all European women. Still, it is interesting to examine to what extent Orientalism is a male construction.
DeleteWhat I enjoyed most about Lady Montagu’s letters was the wide range of both praise and criticism of the Turkish culture. In previous texts that we have read, many authors have had a predetermined stance on particular foreign cultures, and followed a certain theme in their observations and analyses of these new cultures. Lady Montagu on the other hand, seems to consciously avoid tunnel-visioning on one particular viewpoint of Turkey. Instead, she absorbs the country and its people, and then praises what she likes, and criticizes what she dislikes. For example, Lady Montagu accuses Turks of being “too proud to converse familiarly with merchants etc.” (60) and how some individuals are too preoccupied with their own troubles to be bothered by outsiders, but also praises and respects men like Achmed Bey for his education and friendliness. Additionally, Lady Montagu describes Turkish women as “the only free people in the empire” (72), for the anonymity that their veils provide them. Many Westerners at the time may see the veils as suppressive, but Lady Montagu has clearly given this notion some analytical thought, and refuses to pass immediate judgment based on surface-level impressions or stereotypes. Lady Montagu interprets each facet of the culture individually, without allowing overbearing influence from her own culture. This wide spectrum of reasoning may at first seem somewhat erratic, but Lady Montagu is simply rejecting the idea of generalizing the entire culture into one stereotype or judgment, like many have previously done to the Orient.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of Lady Montagu's commentary on Turkish society. While so many of the other travel logs we have looked at were very biased, Lady Montagu seems to generally avoid cultural biases while sometimes still being critical and speaking her mind. She avoids sweeping generalizations and does not write in a condemnatory tone. Her comments regarding women are very interesting. She frequently draws comparisons between Turkish women and Europen women, and often speaks in favor of Turkish women. In her experience at the bath house, she had nothing but good things to say about the women present. I believe there is a great importance of Lady Montagu's likening of the bath house to a European coffee house. In doing this, she points out something that women in both societies have in common, and breaks down certain aspects of cultural barriers and differences.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI realize that the objectivity of Lady Monagu’s letters has already been acknowledged, but I’d like to contribute to the already existing conversation about what makes it objective. I’d argue that her willingness to acknowledge negative aspects of the Islamic society in addition to the positive makes the work even more reliable and objective than if she were to just speak to the awful misrepresentations. On page 60, after shedding light on common misconceptions about Turks and the ways in which these misrepresentations come to fruition, she continues (in practically the same breath), to talk about the atrocious behavior of the janissaries and pashas. She lets the reader know that they should not believe everything they read in male-dominated western travelogues, but still continues to honestly shed light on the unbecoming actions of high ranking officials (those who are supposed to be living up to the moral standards of Islam and who, ironically, in other Muslim countries, were usually seen as people that would serve the interests of western travelers and “diplomats” (I’m referencing Flaubert’s experiences in Egypt).
ReplyDeleteLady Montagu blatantly (and relatively objectively) exposes the treatment of the poor by the janissaries and pashas as she writes, “Indeed the janissaries had no mercy on their poverty, killing all the poultry and sheep they could find without asking who they belonged to, while the wretched owners durst not put in their claim for fear of being beaten” (61). She continues, “When the pashas travel ‘tis yet worse. Those oppressors are not content with eating all that is to be eaten belonging to peasants; after they have crammed themselves and their numerous retinue they have the impudence to exact what they call teeth money, a contribution for the use of their teeth, worn with doing them the honour of devouring their meat” (61). What’s impressive and makes this passage all the more objective is what Lady Montagu writes immediately after informing the reader of such behavior. She analyzes the potential cause of these actions and credits it to “the natural corruption of a military government” and states “their religion not allowing of this barbarity any more than our does” (61). In other words, she is determined to make it known that this behavior would never be permitted under the Islamic religion just as it similar actions in the west would never be accepted under Christianity.
Lady Montague takes a very important stand in the writing of her letters; not because she is objectiveˏ not because she takes a stance that largely disagrees with her contemporariesˏ but because she is a woman. We as readers when analyzing texts often seem to focus on the fact that the Muslim women are not as oppressed as the west would have us believeˏ which is definitely an important point to make. However in doing thisˏ we seem to forget that western women were to be seen and not heard. Lady Montague puts this on end.
ReplyDeleteThe wife of an ambassador to Istanbulˏ Lady Montague is able to travel and record the many experiences sheˏ as a tourist essentiallyˏ has. While rich in her descriptions of the land and the peopleˏ Lady Montague is also steadfast in her refusal to give credit to the sexist and Orientalist views of the men who’s travel logs spread the racism and fear still seen toward the “orient” today. While not completely devoid of the exoticism seen in orientalist writingsˏ Lady Montague’s Ottomanism provides a much fairer view of the Turkish people. In this refusal to give into what she callsˏ “confused informations, which are generally falseˏ” Lady Montague asserts herself as an intelligent woman who is able to gather her own information on the Turks and will disregard that which she knows to be false.
This disregarding of the norm in favor of her own observations and morality makes her an extremely important historical figure. As a woman in a man’s worldˏ Lady Montague not only tries to present an informed and fair view of the Turkish cultureˏ she also provides a figure of an educated woman who does not rely on a man to form an intellectual opinion.
Gerald MacLean suggests, in “Ottomanism before Orientalism”, that the Orientalist lens with which the Europeans viewed the East had its roots in a similar situation between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. He makes the claim that systematic Ottomanism is to blame for such perspectives as Lady Montagu’s. Her account of Turkish life and cultural highlights is troubling to me. It does seem to be more compassionate, and open-minded than most of the accounts we’ve had in the past (specifically Mandeville). However, I can’t help but feel that her notes are almost too optimistic. As a poet, she tends to view the new land through rose tinted glasses.
ReplyDeleteTo me, her travelogue plays like a tightly knit fable. The Turkish women can’t conceive of the chauvinistic exploitation of women through corsets and scandalous dress, whereas Lady Montagu pines over the anonymity granted by traditional attire. Yes this clashes with the overtly pessimistic views we’ve been allowed in the past texts, however I wonder if this is not just an opinion held by the affluent Turkish women. There must have been at least a large portion of the female public opposed to such restrictive clothing options. This idea of Lady Montagu falsely experiencing cultural immersion through slanted views of the least oppressed is further supported by Achmed Bey.
Achmed is referred to by Lady Montagu as being an “effendi” (a title of nobility, courtesy, stature, and of high education) who held open minded and enlightened views. They discuss the tenants of Islam as he suggests she translate the holy text for herself. This man is not as pious as he seems, which is detailed as he brushes off his enjoyment of alcohol (despite holy law) and tells Lady Montagu that such rules are merely for the lower classes: the masses who lack self control.
Systematic Ottomanism surely has shaped her perspective. I do feel that accounts such as Mandeville’s and Chaucer’s are overly critical and unrealistic in their hyperbolic complaints. However, The Turkish Embassy Letters seem to paint an idealistic picture. Perhaps this step beyond the truth, complimenting and appreciating relentlessly, was necessary to counterbalance a history of underhanded oppression within travelogues and stereotypes. Or perhaps she was merely blinded by her affluence and association, inaccurately portraying her findings (if only slightly).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBlog week 11
ReplyDeleteWhat really caught my attention while reading The Turkish Embassy Letters was the amount of description and detail that Lady Montague includes specifically towards objects and how she looks at the wealth of people in positive manner. In her letters, Lady Montague is very thorough on describing people and places. She seems to always bring up a person’s the wealth and social status. For example in her seventh letter she describes the apartments as “magnificent”. Montague states, “…prodigious large looking glasses in silver frames, fine Japan tables, beds, chairs, canopies, an window curtains of the richest Genoa da mask or velvet , almost covered with gold lace or embroidery…”(13). Montague keeps listing the details about the furniture and type of material the object is made from. Not only is Lady Montague fascinated in the high quality of the furniture, she is also very surprised to see the high quality of the living space.
The fact that she uses the word magnificent to describe the apartments shows Lady Montagues fascination and how much highly she thinks of them. Also on the same page, she mentions how honored it was for her to be invited to dinner and says, “I must do them justice to say, the good taste and magnificence of their tables very well answers to that of their furniture”(13). In this example, Montague is bringing up the wealth of the people in a positive perspective.
During today's discussion, it was mentioned that Lady Montagu may have been attempting to justify some of her actions when she described the scene where some Turkish women coerced her to open her corset, a "machine" she was locked up in. It was brought up that she may have just been attempting to uphold a sort of reputation to other European women of her time period, but there might have been other reasons for her justifications as well. Given Montagu's choice to postpone the book's publication until after her death, it is plausible that she had other opinions to fear in society. Perhaps this is inevitably at least partially why she saw such freedom within the women of Turkey, especially in regards to their anonymity; maybe it was anonymity she craved, in a world where she was constantly in the spotlight to act according to European societal standards for women. Likewise, she definitely highlights the freedom of conversation that the women had inside the Turkish bathhouses - another possible insight into what she herself would most likely want out of life, freedom of speech (and probably freedom of press given the publishing date of Turkish Letters). Because of this, it is likely that Montagu was not just extraordinarily objective in her descriptions of Turkish women - she might have also been slightly jealous of their freedoms. Certainly, regardless of her reasons, her perspective was unique and refreshing to read, in lieu of all the other heavily biased writers we've come across.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you make. Though it may be true that Lady Montagu had a bad marriage, she was born and raised into the spotlight pretty much due to the high positions that her father and Mr. Wortley held, and her self-education allowed for her to keep company with many elite people. Perhaps she was jealous because she saw the anonymity of the women as a luxury she did not have in Britain--someone would most likely always recognize her every time she went out in public, therefore she was not afforded the freedom to always do or say what she wanted back home. Even the Ottoman aristocratic women still were able to maintain their identity in public. Only in the privacy of their harems or the bathhouses would the faces of these women actually be exposed. Perhaps had Montagu published this book earlier, she would have drawn more public attention to herself then she wanted, thus she has it published posthumously.
DeleteThere is a lot that is remarkable about Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's account of the Turkish people is remarkable for a lot of reasons. The first major reason is, of course, that she is an empowered woman writing a travelogue which was not common at that point. There are other things that are interesting about this text besides the author's gender, however. Something that I think is very interesting is the author's reaction to the Turkish baths.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, it is notable how positively she reacts to the baths. On page fifty nine, Monatgu comments on the striking beauty of the naked women there. She spends a great time admiring their bare form "...in different postures, some in conversation, some working, others drinking coffee or sherbet, and many negligently lying on their cushions..." Lesbian readings aside, it is very interesting that she comments so positively about this experience without a drop of sarcasm of condescension in her tone; this admiration for the Turkish people often pervades her writing.
In another sense, though, this scene represents some of the worst of her writing. As she spent time admiring "so many fine women naked," she declined to strip down herself. While this isn't an extraordinary reaction, the entire scene reminded me greatly of the concept of the Noble Savage that pervades Orientalist writing. So far as Montagu is concerned, these Turks are beautiful in their own way, but of course she would never deem it appropriate to lower herself to that level.
The bath scene is remarkable as both an example of the best and worst qualities of Montagu as a writer; this is why I found this scene so interesting. It is so complex that I feel that I can safely say her attitude in this scene can be used to characterize her writing as a whole.
Scott-- on the one hand I agree with you regarding the tone she adopts during the scene featuring the Turkish baths, however on the other hand I wouldn't necessarily say that the fact that she neglected to strip down naked like the other women in the baths therefore lent itself to be or exemplify itself as "the worst of her writing". Although it is a plausible explanation and most certainly a perspective I did not previously consider before reading your post, I would more so attribute her inability to follow suit, so to speak, as a direct result of being an aristocratic woman of an overly-modest, as well as an unquestionably constrained British society and culture. Therefore, as such, she was not--nor could she be as comfortable with her sexuality as the women she so greatly admired in this novel, are. And I do not mean to confuse this notion of self-confidence with themselves as women as well as their bodies to be misconstrued as if I am implying any type of vulgarity that might be but is not being displayed-- because that is in fact the opposite of what I am arguing. As a woman in this society, it is invariably a culture in which this is natural and therefore not in the least bit shocking to these women-- for Lady Montagu she seems to experience a moment of culture shock in the sense that in the culture she is from, this is not at all something she has ever seen before or familiarized herself with. It almost appears to me as if she is exhibiting a case of "imperial envy" similar to the discussion we had in class today regarding the British empire's attitude towards the Ottomans in the excerpt, "Ottomanism Before Orientalism". In paralleling the two, I saw her resistance as a direct result of her self-consciousness, as well as picking up on a hint of envy that appears to reveal itself in its fullest when she conveys her great respect and admiration towards these women who felt confident to do as they pleased in the barest of forms. This is something she was not able to do, not because she perceived it as below her necessarily, but perhaps because she lacked the boldness and audaciousness she so wishes she could freely inherit, in order to do so. So I agree with you on the fact that yes she did greatly admire these women, but in some small way I think she wishes herself to be a part of a culture she knows she cannot and will not ever be able to be a part of as a woman born and raised in British society. Also the fact that she is writing in a time period where she is married to a man she abhors and cannot leave, lends itself to these actions of constraint as a jaded and subdued wife to Mr. Wortley: Ambassador at Istanbul.
Delete