In The Book of John Mandeville, it is interesting to see how the narrator sort of bounces back and forth between thinking well of the Muslims and certain aspects of their beliefs and then, in the same chapter, speaks in a more negative way about their “customs”. He seems to be using Muslims for the convenience of expressing his Christian and anti-Jew views.
In chapter fifteen, the narrator discusses how the Muslims “believe in and willingly speak about the Virgin Mary and about the Incarnation”, in what sounds to be a positive tone (83). Additionally, on page 84, he sort of uses the Muslims as a vehicle to further rant about how much he hates the Jews by more or less saying that Muslims believe that Jesus was sent by God and that Quran even condemns the Jew as “wicked because they will not believe Jesus was sent by God.” Then, pretty much in the same breath, he changes his tone on the next page when the conversation shifts from discussing the crossover in Islamic and Christian ideology to pure Islamic ideology. He speaks about how the Quran allows for men to take up to three or four wives, but that most Muslim men abuse this rule and tend to take nine wives and even more concubines insinuating that these are not faithful people. When he discusses Mohammed, he describes him as an epileptic and a drunken murderer.
It seems that the narrator does a lot of flip flopping in his views about Islam. The Muslims seem to only be “on the right side” when they acknowledge certain aspects about Christianity and hate the Jews as much as he does (or so he says), which the narrator uses as validation. Otherwise he pushes Muslims back to far opposite side of this spectrum he sort of established for the purpose of promoting his ideas. It is almost as if he is saying, “Christianity must be the ultimate religion because even the Muslims believe in Christ, but let’s not get carried away; Islam is still completely invalid because they are all polygamous and follow a drunken murderer who claims to be God’s messenger.” Even though the narrator seems to be very informed about Islamic culture, he still uses Islam as a vehicle to elevate and affirm Christianity in his travelogue.
I would have to agree, however with one minor suggestion. Perhaps what he is saying isn't so much that Islam is an inferior religion, but rather that it is practiced by inferior people. For instance, he claims that Mohammed is a prophet that abuses his power, and disguises his own flaws as divine interventions of sorts (i.e., the epilepsy), and doesn't condemn the rule of multiple wives, but rather how the male practitioners abuse that rule. It appears as though he understand that the Quran has credibility in terms of a text of idealogical value, but that it is invalidated by its worshippers, and as such, invalidates it as a current practice.
Alison I’m so happy you brought this up! I was thinking the same thing throughout the book as well. Mandeville seemed to contradict himself a few times in his writing. It was hard to tell at times how he really felt about certain religions, people, and cultures. Every now and then he makes his feelings very well known, and then, at other times, there are only small clues to his inner thoughts.
One example was how he didn’t seem to like nomads. On page 39 (the start of chapter 9) he writes about his absolute disgust for the Bedouins and the Ascoparcz Arabs. He point blankly states, “These people lead a completely degraded life.” And yet, isn’t he himself a nomad? John Mandeville traveled for many years not calling a permanent place home either. Yes, they are also Muslim, but in many other cases (as you pointed out) he isn’t as harsh to them. If he were to follow his own thought process he would despise himself as well.
And then, there are the Jews. On a plethora of pages he uses phrases such as, “worthless Jews” (page 11, chapter 2). While he might go back and forth on Muslims, there seems to be no leeway for the Jews. I know in class a week or two ago we mentioned how it’s more of a modern thing to think of Christians and Jews together, but I don’t know why. They are so close, and essentially the same religion. Jesus himself was a Jew, and had a Jewish mother. I always felt Christianity was just a branch off of Judaism. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised how much John Mandeville hates Jews, but all of the little digs and punches at them truly took me back. Many of the other things we have been reading in class by Christian authors all hate Muslims, but they barely or not even at all, mention the Jews. I guess the point is that the reversal stuck out to me as unusual compared to other works during this time.
I find this idea of contradiction in John Mandeville's book to be very interesting. Given that most consider his book to be somewhat of a compilation of different plagiarized works, it would certainly follow that many of his points contradict others within his book. It is true that he does not paint a single black and white picture of Muslims; it is also true that he almost consistently portrays Jews in a negative light. However, he also seems to grapple with the schism between the Catholics and the Orthodox, exaggerating the differences between the two sects of Christianity. Clearly, even within his own view of the Occident, there is a division between his beliefs and those of the "Other." Interestingly enough, in Chapter XX he writes, "For from what part of the earth that men dwell, either above or beneath, it seemeth always to them that dwell that they go more right than any other folk. And right as it seemeth to us that they be under us, right so it seemeth to them that we be under them." This would seem to indicate that he is at least semi-conscious of the concepts of cultural awareness and relativity, and that he acknowledges that we are just as much Orient to the Orient as they are to us.
At this point in history, the concept of a Christian king in the east would be incredibly appealing to the Christian population. Since the Christians were currently not in control of Jerusalem, having such a powerful ally to the east of the city would give many hope of reclaiming Jerusalem. Peaceful, full of riches, and bordering paradise, Prester John’s kingdom also serves as a hypothetically ideal society. The religious standpoint of the kingdom is also described as idyllic. While the rest of the world may bicker and fight and go to war over religious issues, the people of Prester John’s kingdom do not have such issues, within their religions or between them.
What is the role of Orientalism in The Book of John Mandeville?
In the narrator’s description of the Islamic populations through which he passes, to the bizarre and entirely fabricated races that the narrator encounters, Orientalism can be seen throughout the Book of John Mandeville. In describing Islam, the narrator does not totally demonize the religion, but he does not portray it in a particularly positive fashion either. He refers to Muslims as being morally beneath Christians, and in the prologue, he even describes them as sub human. The narrator also adds elements of mysticism to the cultures of the Middle East. The races that the narrator encounters as he travels further east, such as the dog headed humans, the people with one foot, and the people with two heads, contribute further to the view of the Far East as fantastic and strange. While not in a negative sense, the Khan’s kingdom in China also falls victim to the narrator’s Orientalist views, being described as incredibly wealthy and beautiful. Overall, the narrator's description of the Middle and Far East as either beneath the standards of Europe, or simply strange and incredibly different, serve to separate Europe from the rest of the world.
John Mandeville created a text that portrays the holy lands as if he has the most say over them, which becomes obviously problematic when reading the many footnotes that note how inaccurate he often was. For instance, on page 22 he is talking about Babylon in Egypt and it becomes confused with the Great Babylon in Mesopotamia. For current day readers, this confusion is not detrimental to the reading. The footnote quickly clears up confusion; however, the vast audience at the time of publication would have been getting a very different image. This is not an isolated incidence, on page 41 he confuses or combines two separate stories to make one tale. These, and other similar occasions, prove that John Mandeville was not reliable even in telling known stories. This brings me to the point that he was not only telling stories, such as the ones about Mary and the saints. His depictions of Muslims and Jews are often times repulsive, such as when he accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and defines them by this action. The Turks on page 78 took a city, everyone but Christians are depicted as aggressive. Mandeville shows Muslim Sultans taking over by killing each other for the power. Mandeville has no problem putting these falsities into publication and since the readers did not have current day footnotes much of it would have slipped into general knowledge as fact. This is how the West comes to define the East, through lies and false reports. Mandeville is clearly not ignorant of the truth, since he is so well read and intellectual, yet he displays negative images to obtain his goal of uprising European, particularly English, status. From the first few pages he basically instigates another crusade by saying the miscreant Muslims are in the holy land that rightfully belongs to Christians. The rest of the text is an encouragement for why they should take action against all other religions. Mandeville draws from other texts for knowledge about these East of the Mediterranean religions without ever experiencing them firsthand. His plagiarism is problematic because he twists real knowledge to his own aid, which is overpowering the other religions.
The Book of John Mandeville recounts the travels of the Knight throughout various countries and cities. He seemingly takes it upon himself, in a sense that he feels burdened to do so, to educate the masses in the cultural happenings of the places of his travels. Essentially, he is gifting the unprivileged world with his worldly experiences.
While in fact, we may all be quick to point out the discrepancies between his accounts of his "experiences" and the actuality of the culture of which he is reporting, mostly due to his intolerable and palpable arrogance, it is vital that we actually take into account that bias are actually unavoidable. To better exemplify this, I would like to bring up an article of the American Anthropological Association (Found: https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html).
Within this article, a group of anthropologists study a civilization known as the Nacirema people. They publish the body rituals among this civilization, which include various rituals that involve the disfiguring of the human body, and beliefs in charms and potions. Upon later review it becomes apparent to the reader that the Nacirema people are in fact American (Nacirema spelled backwards). Providing our society with an interesting “outsiders” perspective.
Therefore, I think it is essential to realize that not only that this is not what those areas were actually like, but also that it is equally as vital to realize this is how these cultures were perceived by the “western” world. By no means does it excuse the bias, but it does not mean the work deserves to be dismissed either. I think instead this just exemplifies the fact that we should be suspicious of every source we read.
While I most certainly agree that it is beneficial to approach written works that claim an element of historicity with skepticism, I would like to point out that along with the many biases portrayed throughout the text, there were also, as we briefly touched on in class today, moments during which John Mandeville praised and/or spoke highly of the religion of Islam and its people. I admit that he does at times very harshly criticize the cultures of both Jewish and Muslim peoples-- exemplified specifically on page 85, where he ever so matter-of-factly proclaims that the laws of Machomet will fail just as the Jews' law have, which he deems as a failure, all the while acknowledging that the law of the Christian peoples will last "until the world's end." One could say there is quite a bit of bias present within that small excerpt of text, however on page 87 he does go on to say that the Saracens are good, virtuous people; people that adhere entirely to he laws of the Qua'ran sent to them by God. Here he readily admits the failings of the Christian peoples, in that while they may fail to keep the law of their God, unfaithfulness ensuing as it so often does, those failings are essentially non-existent within the religion of Islam. He even implies that people of the Christian faith ought to follow the examples of such a people devoted entirely to God.
The Book of John Mandeville is dangerous. Acting as an influence to the likes of Columbus and Mercator, "Mandeville" supplies an image of the Eastern world that becomes deeply ingrained into the global psyche. It is too easy to say that "Mandeville" and other early European writers about Islam were simply building upon each other and were therefore not responsible as individuals for the stigmas built about the Middle East. The Book of John Mandeville is individually responsible, particularly because it is a plagiarized compilation of clear fiction that claims to be history. What I find most problematic in John Mandeville is the treatment of Jews vs the treatment of Muslims. In his introduction, Higgins argues that "Mandeville" approaches the non-Christian world with "an open-mindedness" which "extended to nearly every group except the Jews" (ix-x). Though it is true that "Mandeville" uses heavy assault against the Jews - in his prologue, for example, he immediately refers to then as the "cruel Jews" (3) - I would argue that his treatment of the Muslims is even more unnerving. Instead of simply demonizing Islam and its followers, "Mandeville's" anthropological approach leaves an even deeper mark. Much of the novel acts as a study of Muslims and their practices, which lays foundation to the ideas of a people being "spoken for" which we discussed in class. The Jews are insulted, but still humanized, whereas the Muslims are something to be studied - akin to an animal or beast. This is furthered even more by the underlying elements of mythology within The Book of John Mandeville. The sense of the "mythic East" deeply remains in our contemporary consciousness - one has to look no farther than Indiana Jones or Lord of the rings before it is evident that we covet the East as a place of magic and mystery. The idea of "Here be Dragons!" remains present in modern day discourse as we try and conceptualize the Middle East. Instead of establishing similarities, we create not just an "other" but a "mythic other" whose very world is fundamentally unrecognizable. It is The Book of John Mandeville which creates this "Eastern consciousness". Instead of demonizing Islam like Judaism, "Mandeville" approaches Muslims as a group to be studied (and subsequently "owned"). This renders the Middle East as invariably inferior. The Book of John Mandeville is not documentation or continuation, but creation.
I noticed that John Mandeville is very careful about semantics throughout the book, especially when he subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) pins Christianity against Islam. More specifically, I realized that Mandeville often describes eastern locations or points of interest as beautiful and ornate, but then undercuts such descriptions with subversive statements that accuse Muslims of the destruction of supposed “Christian” institutions in the east. He is smart about the way he introduces such ideas and readers may not immediately associate these notions with early Crusader mentalities. An example is when Mandeville describes Nazareth, claiming that it “used to be a great and beautiful city, but now is only a small town with houses scattered here and there” (69). Mandeville continues to talk about Nazareth, subtly claiming ownership of the city on behalf of Christians by way of glorifying biblical events that he believes to have taken place there. Mandeville explains, “There Joseph wedded Mary when she was only fourteen years old. There the angel Gabriel greeted her, saying: ‘Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum’ in the place of a great altar in a beautiful church that used to be there; but it was completely destroyed…” (69). Without directly placing blame on Muslims/Saracens, Mandeville enables the reader draw conclusions about such destruction. These accusations disguised as observations continue as the author introduces Mount Tabor, saying, “Also, from Nazareth one goes to Mount Tabor, which is only three leagues away and is a very beautiful and very high mountain where there used to be a town and many churches. But they are all destroyed” (70). He “stirs the pot” so to speak, allowing Christian readers to feel as if something is owed to them. After reading a section like this, it is only natural that a Christian reader would trust that Muslims destroy all civilization and holy places.
I also took notice of the way The Book of John Mandeville paints Islam as this force of destruction and how the book sought to strengthen the “them and us” dichotomy of Catholicism and Islam. Specifically, on page 19 when the book makes allusion to the city of Sur and mentioned the Saracens for the first time, it reads “there used to be a very beautiful Christian city there, but the Saracens destroyed much of it…” If I were to have read this in the 14th century and this is my first time ever learning about “the exotic other,” I would find it hard to not form immediate bias against these Saracens; these people are destroying my way of life and are a fundamental threat to my religion. The problem with the Book of John Mandeville is that passages like these, which drive the narrative that Muslims are destroyers of beauty and Christian greatness, give its Catholic audience justification in waging war and slaughtering those who follow in the teachings of Islam. What is more egregious is that the text speaks from a position of credibility and scholarship; the author is clearly more knowledgeable than most, and yet continues to perpetuate misconceptions within the text in order to direct its agenda against Islam.
I'd like to go back to the notion of maps we spent a good amount of time on during class, specifically the "T-shaped" map and what it says about the worldview during the time in which Mandeville was written. When I first looked at it in the book, what struck me immediately was the size of Asia in relation to Europe and Africa. Immediately, my mind processed this as a placement of Asia in a role of central importance. Given the European origin of the map, this startled and intrigued me until I took a closer look at the footnote the book provided. The Biblical allusions quickly recontextualized the map for me in a decidedly Christian, Eurocentric context, yet the more I thought about it, the stranger that became to me. Christianity is often thought of as a very white religion, despite the fact that it had its origins in what we would undeniably think of today as the "Middle East" Jerusalem is the center of the T map, made in the late middle ages, so when exactly was there the shift that turned Christianity into a white, European religion? The fact that the T-shaped map places at the world's center a location that is at once the height of Eurocentricism and a bastion of cultures that flourished during Europe's dark ages intrigues me a great deal, particularly in terms of how paradoxically entitled this worldview seems.
I also found our analysis of maps and their varying central focus very intriguing. A point that we made was that generally the origin of a specific map would have that particular country or region in the center of the map, such as Australia's upside-down map, or the traditional Western map which has Europe in the center. But a point we did not cover in class is that while many countries have a sense of ethnocentrism to a certain degree, there are some countries that have "reverse-ethnocentrism." Towards the end of our last class we discussed foreign countries that we have traveled to, and how their locals perceived us as Americans. Personally, I have traveled to a few developing countries, in which many of the locals spoke up about their impoverished and struggling home life as if they were ashamed, and very openly displayed envy for those living in the United States. I found this notion very interesting, particularly in contrast with the existence of ethnocentrism which we discussed in class.
The Book of John Mandeville plays with the concept of “construction” and the means by which countries/colonies, religions, or even people are constructed. From the start, there has been controversy over the title of the book—originally The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, implies that not only was the knight travelling the East a real person, but also that his accounts of these travels are true. In much the same regard, the construction of this narrative—especially the notion that he’s a knight, and a devout Christian—implies a certain credibility which, as a modern objective reader can see, the narrator lacks. This “travel narrative”, whether because of the specific biblical details or because of the lack of personal detail, distinctively lacks credibility. Most of the details and much of the narrative voice do not tell of the actual travels—the narrator tells of what he learned (from the bible and from other travelogues) about each place he “visited”. When Mandeville speaks of the cross in the second chapter, he mentions the specific measurements of each part in cubits and the specific wood each part was made of (cypress, palm, olive, cedar)—as if he had had the opportunity to measure each part, to see each part—while in reality he states that the monastery which claimed to have part of the cross in fact had the cross of the good thief who hung beside Jesus. Mandeville does not disclose the location of the true cross. In the next chapter, the mention of Hermes the Wise—or someone else perhaps—who was buried with a gold plate that predicted the birth of Jesus (and that he believed in him) a thousand years before it happened reads like pure Christian propaganda; there was no real way to verify either the date of the body’s interment, nor the identity. Even the temple he mentions in chapter 11 follows the biblical dimensions of the tabernacle; something he could simply have read about, rather than visit and physically measure. He describes the Cyprus wines which start out red and turn white after a year, and how rubies and garnets can be found on the seashore, while in Egypt there are emeralds to be found around on the ground; he even brings up Dido, in reference to her being Aeneis’ wife—which she never officially was, according to Virgil; nor would Mandeville have met or even read about Dido in North Africa when he visited in the 14th century. The narrator states that Machomet is buried in Mecca—but Mohammad rests in Medina. He also says that wine is prohibited by Machomet because he accidentally killed a friendly hermit in a drunken stupor (43). King David also apparently had 60 wives and 300 concubines. Mandeville also discredits himself by contradicting his own opinions. He spends much time extolling the “uselessness” and wrongness of Jews—but on page 15 lists many Old Testament laws regarding a Kosher diet and lifestyle, intimating that these rules should be followed. The irony of the fact that the narrator is prejudiced against nomadic peoples—yet spent 35 years of his own life travelling—is also a fact that should not be missed.
The Book of John Mandeville claims that it provides an objective viewpoint of the diverse cultures of different places that he is visiting. I think it is important to note, as we did in class, that it is nigh impossible for someone to give an objective account of pretty much anything, let alone a culture that you are not part of; especially considering the fact that this book is a compilation of different sources fused together into a “forgery.” The author’s ability to provide information that influenced the most famous and brilliant travelers, writers, and artists of his time proves to me that despite the questionable nature of the authorship, and the inability to get everything right on portraying a culture that he is not immersed in this book is of at least some value to Europe’s literary history. It made way for others to expand on his ideas. His remix of the stories of evangelical pilgrims and everyman merchants created a new concept for literature, travel, art, and the globe. He traced his way through the known world telling the tales of biblical characters with historical references to the political, social, and spiritual atmosphere he was in. It obviously favors Christianity, is indecisive about Islam, and is downright contemptuous towards the Jews. But it provides us with a unique interpretation of history. It is distinctly what we would consider “western.” It is possible that he was only promoting Christianity so much was because he was basing his writings off of the travelogues of Christian missionaries who traveled to many of the places he writes about. It is clear that the author was very well read. He manages to provide the reader with a fair deal of historical accounts from across the globe. The main problem with the text is that he embellishes every story he is reading and adding his own political twists upon it. He is spreading ideas that have manipulated the ideas of Christian European society to lean towards ethnocentrism. It is the seemingly open-minded, but pretty clearly pro-crusade and very Christian narrator that reinforced all of the egotistical negativity towards other cultures.
As I read through this text, I started to reflect on a discussion we'd had in class about the purpose of these genre-defining texts and why they would be so racist. As you said, this is clearly a very well-read writer who is advocating Christianity over all else. He does so via these plagiarized accounts in a mash-up that we are inclined to look down upon, but as I consider it I'm beginning to wonder if this wasn't a carefully orchestrated cultural attack by the writer. We are aware that the author has stolen multiple passages and stories from countless other famous works, whether it's the Bible, the Quran, or even the Aeneid, but we are also aware that Mandeville wrote his text in French instead of Latin to make his text available to the common man. It occurs to me that by providing the essence of all these different famous works and twisting them to advocate Christianity, Mandeville is essentially handing every uneducated person a guidebook on how to debate theology and advocate for Christianity. Despite not having access to the volume of texts Mandeville did, these less educated folk can act as missionaries wherever they travel. Perhaps it will be easier to understand how such a well-read man could be so incorrect about these foreign cultures when his works are viewed through this lens.
What is significant about the Book of John Mandeville?
Though the Book of John Mandeville was meant to serve as a guide to the Holy Land of Jerusalem and the far East, that purpose is no longer relevant to a modern audience. What the Book of John Mandeville serves as now is a window into late-Medieval Western perspective- one of deep social and religious concerns.
These social and religious concerns among Westerners originated in ignorance and the fear of the unknown. Because mobility was incredibly limited during this time period, people in the West relied heavily upon authors such as "John Mandeville" to describe the marvelous places of the Far East "...especially for those who have the will and the desire to visit the noble city of Jerusalem and the holy places that are around it." (5)
In modern times, we can look at The Book of John Mandeville and refer to it as an example of an unlikely success- a compilation of works that works as a cohesive unit to serve the purpose of reaching and making an impression on a large audience. The author may be incredibly ignorant in his depiction of religions such as Islam, but he does know what he is doing in terms of narration.
For instance, instead of compiling the work in Latin, the author compiles it in French, so that he may reach a larger audience with his vivid descriptions and exotic tales. From there, the narrator's descriptions of people such as the Saracens are so wild that as a reader one cannot help but be enthralled and inquisitive. The narrator is also incredibly convincing in claiming he is writing to describe customs, manners and diversities, not put any group of people down. (15) These successes on the part of the narrator help us to understand why accounts such as Mandeville's became as popular as they did, and why fabricated accounts still spread like wildfire in modern times.
Kaitlyn, I think the point you made about Mandeville as a narrator is important because his purpose behind the language choice was to influence a larger number of readers. Though in class we discussed how well-read and educated Mandeville was, that does NOT mean he was not ignorant-proven throughout the book via his ridiculous claims of other religions. Furthermore, the text shows that although he claims he was trying to make this piece as objective as he could, he utterly failed. My main reason for doubting his objectivity is as follows; throughout the text, Mandeville uses a very judicious tone, not only on the behalf of his fellow Europeans; but he even goes as far as to make claims on behalf of the Muslim community as well. On page 50 when he is discussing Templum Domini he says "Saracens allow neither Christians nor Jews to enter,for they say that such foul people ought not to enter or rest in such a holy place". The author tries to influence the targeted audience not only by making Muslims (and Jews) seem undesirable, but also portraying their views towards Christianity as negative ones, which further perpetuates 'mutual' hatred.
The narration of The Book of John Mandeville is definitely significant because he narrates this book in way that the reader is not given a chance to give their own thoughts about other countries and religions. After informing the reader of other beliefs, he immediately puts in his own opinion and tells the reader that the other ideas are wrong. In chapter 15 when addressing how Muslims view the four prophets, Mandeville tells the reader a combination of fact and opinion in order to persuade the reader to agree with him. He says, “They say indeed that of these four Jesus was the worthiest and the most excellent…” (85). Not only is Mandeville not telling truth about Islam, but he is telling the reader his own beliefs instead. Also by saying, “they say” Mandeville is also showing his indifferent opinion towards Muslims by referring to Muslims using “they” instead of mentioning their actual name. Mandeville claims that he wants to show diversity but he really does not show much respect towards people who have different beliefs than he does.
Many times in reading classic literature, foreign works, or any works considered to come from a source of “otherness” it is productive to consider what you may know about base human instinct and behavior. This method of thinking can support many of the accusations that The Book of John Mandeville was heavily plagiarized. By thinking of this author as just another lazy or desperate author attempting to seem more interesting, worldly, or deep, we can start to recognize patterns of insecurity and dishonesty in even the first few pages of the book.
First we can consider his construction of a reliable narrator. He insists that these travels are his, that what you are about to read is wholly accurate and true. He asserts this claim by reminding the reader that he is not merely some novice scribe, but a respectable knight. This could get lost in a skimmed reading of the texts, but close consideration makes it seem quite reminiscent of a schoolyard fibber swearing that he’s being totally honest.
Secondly, if the man had been such an experienced and seasoned adventurer would his tales have been so ethnocentric? No person as educated or well travelled as he claims to be would characterize Jews and Muslims with demeaning slang or venomous condemnation. Would someone of this experience box entire cultures into rigid structures with hateful name-calling? Maybe someone who read a few readily available accounts of actual travels by actual travelers could be so mistaken.
The point I’m trying to make is that this author seems more like a disgruntled bully than an educated scholar. The voice he employs oftentimes directly undermines the sentiment that lies in the actual stories. If we, instead of apologizing for and giving credit to classical authors and their works, actually scrutinized them we might lose a little respect for their ideals but gain a little global awareness.
An important thing to bear in mind is that the tales transcribed by the Mandeville author were, as you point out, taken from other sources. At the very least, this means that the base observations were still present in the texts from which Mandeville drew, texts which were written by well-traveled, ostensibly worldly people, and they still managed to contain enough of a seed of ethnocentrism and prejudice that Mandeville was able to adapt it into his own conglomerate work. Without access to the original sources Mandeville used it is impossible to tell how much of the racist overtones of the book were his own and how many were simply drawn from the work of others.
The other issue is that Mandeville clearly is well-educated. He has an extensive knowledge of Greco-Roman as well as Biblical myth, an understanding of at least three languages (Latin, French, and English), and, as evidenced by the wording of his analyses of the Qur'an, either a readily available copy of the Muslim holy book or a fair bit of knowledge regarding it. He is well-versed in history as well as geography. These are not the qualities of an uneducated man.
Mandeville's words are therefore the words of a man with great exposure to both global culture, literature. It is from this perspective that his work must be examined for it's intent and cultural trappings. To dismiss it as the ravings of an insecure bully is to do a disservice to critical discourse.
When discussing the different places we had been as part of the “warm-up” question today, I had to admit that the only foreign country I had ever been to is Canada. Not only have I never been overseas, but during my “whirlwind adventure” to Niagara Falls, I was able to see New York state during most of my stay. However, when asked what I would include in a travelogue about my trip, I immediately began listing things that were different about this land far far away. Their money is colorful, they watch hockey instead of basketball, they allow gambling and have several large casinos, and they call Molson and Labatt domestic beers. Things I neglected to mention: they speak English. They drive on the right side of the street. They wear jeans and winter jackets when it is cold outside. This immediately brought me back to our previous class discussion, when we discussed how Westerners are so quick to highlight differences between themselves and what they perceive as other. When discussing Islam, European Christians often neglect the fact that they share the bulk of their religious canon, including the belief in Jesus Christ and all but one of the other prophets. This became the case even on a tiny level, when I was discussing our Northern neighbors. Because I viewed Canadians as others, the only aspects of their culture I addressed were those that were different from our own, when in reality I probably have a lot more in common with someone who was born and raised just North of Lake Ontario than almost anyone from South of the Mason-Dixon line, or any native of California. The author of the Book of John Mandeville is guilty of the same as he addresses the Greek Orthodox Church. He takes a society that shares almost the exact same theological views and highlights only the differences between the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. He mentions how the Greek Orthodox Church uses leavened bread at masses, and clergymen are allowed to marry (p.15). He also takes issue with the fact that they do not follow the Pope, but instead have their own leader, who considers himself so equal to the Pope that he would use and informal tense when writing to him in Latin. The question I have now, after committing a similar act of misrepresentation, is whether or not it is understandable for the author of John Mandeville to present his account of the Greek Orthodox Church, and many other cultures that he describes. Is a travelogue inherently a catalogue of all that is different between two cultures, or could it be a description of a culture that would allow a third party to notice the similarities as well as the difference between the author and his other?
A lot of people have been pointing out how at one point Mandeville is speaking positively about the east, and how at other times he’s demonizing them. Also, people have been pointing out how foolish/evil/wrong it is to essentially fabricate an entire sector of the world. Without a doubt, these are important things to notice. They inform modern readings of this ancient text. Happily, we have the ability to see through this bullshit because we’re privileged enough to be in college and have our attention pointed at the inaccuracies. I think the important thing to get out of this text isn’t that Mandeville is a flip-flop, but that he boldly lies about things he’s never even personally experienced. Maybe he didn’t think they would in his time, but those lies have since had influence on a massive scale. To get a perspective on just how massive that scale is: 500 years later our elected leaders and chosen storytellers don’t bat an eyelash at perpetuating gross misconceptions about the east. This is partially because for 700 years the west has been bread into believing these misconceptions. But what I see as more important and more entirely detrimental is the history of lying. Even if the east is widely miss-perceived at least the resources to better understand it exist, and people still have the ability to find some truth. What’s more detrimental is the history of lying, and the normality of it. It’s the shameless lying about the east that endangers it more than the cultural bias that western people inherit. What our culture needs to learn - more than what the east is actually like - is that it’s completely unacceptable to miss-represent a culture and pass it off as truth. I’d like to point out a movie I’ve seen just earlier this week. The Square, directed by Jehane Noujain, is a documentary film about the Egyptian revolutions between 2011 and 2013. First, the people protested in Tahrir Square, resulting in the resignation of then-Egyptian president Mubarak. After this, control of Egypt fell upon the military. This only compounded the nation’s status as a military state, and the people felt like Mubarak’s control was still upon them. More demonstrations and riots ensued. After the election of Mohamed Morsi in 2012, the people of Egypt once again began protesting on a massive scale, resulting in his 2013 deposition. Today, Egypt is again in the hands of military rule that uses live bullets to suppress demonstrations. At the end of the film, principal revolutionary Ahmed Hassan talks about their current status: two years after the start of their fight for freedom, barley any closer to it than when they had started. But he says that what they’re fighting for is not simply a change in politics in Egypt, but “a conscience” that may prevent power falling into the wrong hands, or Egyptian people doing less than they could for their fellow Egyptians. Similarly, the west needs to develop a conscience against accepting, perpetuating and creating lies about their fellow men and women of the east. The educated young men and women who’re bound to inherit this country will (with any luck) be brought up to speed about just how much they don’t actually know about the east. The next and more essential thing to impress upon them - and holocaust/genocide/civil rights literature serves this same purpose in high schools – is how to stop these misconceptions from having power or happening again.
In The Book of John Mandeville, it is interesting to see how the narrator sort of bounces back and forth between thinking well of the Muslims and certain aspects of their beliefs and then, in the same chapter, speaks in a more negative way about their “customs”. He seems to be using Muslims for the convenience of expressing his Christian and anti-Jew views.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter fifteen, the narrator discusses how the Muslims “believe in and willingly speak about the Virgin Mary and about the Incarnation”, in what sounds to be a positive tone (83). Additionally, on page 84, he sort of uses the Muslims as a vehicle to further rant about how much he hates the Jews by more or less saying that Muslims believe that Jesus was sent by God and that Quran even condemns the Jew as “wicked because they will not believe Jesus was sent by God.” Then, pretty much in the same breath, he changes his tone on the next page when the conversation shifts from discussing the crossover in Islamic and Christian ideology to pure Islamic ideology. He speaks about how the Quran allows for men to take up to three or four wives, but that most Muslim men abuse this rule and tend to take nine wives and even more concubines insinuating that these are not faithful people. When he discusses Mohammed, he describes him as an epileptic and a drunken murderer.
It seems that the narrator does a lot of flip flopping in his views about Islam. The Muslims seem to only be “on the right side” when they acknowledge certain aspects about Christianity and hate the Jews as much as he does (or so he says), which the narrator uses as validation. Otherwise he pushes Muslims back to far opposite side of this spectrum he sort of established for the purpose of promoting his ideas. It is almost as if he is saying, “Christianity must be the ultimate religion because even the Muslims believe in Christ, but let’s not get carried away; Islam is still completely invalid because they are all polygamous and follow a drunken murderer who claims to be God’s messenger.” Even though the narrator seems to be very informed about Islamic culture, he still uses Islam as a vehicle to elevate and affirm Christianity in his travelogue.
I would have to agree, however with one minor suggestion. Perhaps what he is saying isn't so much that Islam is an inferior religion, but rather that it is practiced by inferior people. For instance, he claims that Mohammed is a prophet that abuses his power, and disguises his own flaws as divine interventions of sorts (i.e., the epilepsy), and doesn't condemn the rule of multiple wives, but rather how the male practitioners abuse that rule. It appears as though he understand that the Quran has credibility in terms of a text of idealogical value, but that it is invalidated by its worshippers, and as such, invalidates it as a current practice.
DeleteAlison I’m so happy you brought this up! I was thinking the same thing throughout the book as well. Mandeville seemed to contradict himself a few times in his writing. It was hard to tell at times how he really felt about certain religions, people, and cultures. Every now and then he makes his feelings very well known, and then, at other times, there are only small clues to his inner thoughts.
DeleteOne example was how he didn’t seem to like nomads. On page 39 (the start of chapter 9) he writes about his absolute disgust for the Bedouins and the Ascoparcz Arabs. He point blankly states, “These people lead a completely degraded life.” And yet, isn’t he himself a nomad? John Mandeville traveled for many years not calling a permanent place home either. Yes, they are also Muslim, but in many other cases (as you pointed out) he isn’t as harsh to them. If he were to follow his own thought process he would despise himself as well.
And then, there are the Jews. On a plethora of pages he uses phrases such as, “worthless Jews” (page 11, chapter 2). While he might go back and forth on Muslims, there seems to be no leeway for the Jews. I know in class a week or two ago we mentioned how it’s more of a modern thing to think of Christians and Jews together, but I don’t know why. They are so close, and essentially the same religion. Jesus himself was a Jew, and had a Jewish mother. I always felt Christianity was just a branch off of Judaism. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised how much John Mandeville hates Jews, but all of the little digs and punches at them truly took me back. Many of the other things we have been reading in class by Christian authors all hate Muslims, but they barely or not even at all, mention the Jews. I guess the point is that the reversal stuck out to me as unusual compared to other works during this time.
I find this idea of contradiction in John Mandeville's book to be very interesting. Given that most consider his book to be somewhat of a compilation of different plagiarized works, it would certainly follow that many of his points contradict others within his book. It is true that he does not paint a single black and white picture of Muslims; it is also true that he almost consistently portrays Jews in a negative light. However, he also seems to grapple with the schism between the Catholics and the Orthodox, exaggerating the differences between the two sects of Christianity. Clearly, even within his own view of the Occident, there is a division between his beliefs and those of the "Other." Interestingly enough, in Chapter XX he writes, "For from what part of the earth that men dwell, either above or beneath, it seemeth always to them that dwell that they go more right than any other folk. And right as it seemeth to us that they be under us, right so it seemeth to them that we be under them." This would seem to indicate that he is at least semi-conscious of the concepts of cultural awareness and relativity, and that he acknowledges that we are just as much Orient to the Orient as they are to us.
DeleteWhat is the appeal of Prester John?
ReplyDeleteAt this point in history, the concept of a Christian king in the east would be incredibly appealing to the Christian population. Since the Christians were currently not in control of Jerusalem, having such a powerful ally to the east of the city would give many hope of reclaiming Jerusalem. Peaceful, full of riches, and bordering paradise, Prester John’s kingdom also serves as a hypothetically ideal society. The religious standpoint of the kingdom is also described as idyllic. While the rest of the world may bicker and fight and go to war over religious issues, the people of Prester John’s kingdom do not have such issues, within their religions or between them.
What is the role of Orientalism in The Book of John Mandeville?
In the narrator’s description of the Islamic populations through which he passes, to the bizarre and entirely fabricated races that the narrator encounters, Orientalism can be seen throughout the Book of John Mandeville. In describing Islam, the narrator does not totally demonize the religion, but he does not portray it in a particularly positive fashion either. He refers to Muslims as being morally beneath Christians, and in the prologue, he even describes them as sub human. The narrator also adds elements of mysticism to the cultures of the Middle East. The races that the narrator encounters as he travels further east, such as the dog headed humans, the people with one foot, and the people with two heads, contribute further to the view of the Far East as fantastic and strange. While not in a negative sense, the Khan’s kingdom in China also falls victim to the narrator’s Orientalist views, being described as incredibly wealthy and beautiful. Overall, the narrator's description of the Middle and Far East as either beneath the standards of Europe, or simply strange and incredibly different, serve to separate Europe from the rest of the world.
John Mandeville Creating the East
ReplyDeleteJohn Mandeville created a text that portrays the holy lands as if he has the most say over them, which becomes obviously problematic when reading the many footnotes that note how inaccurate he often was. For instance, on page 22 he is talking about Babylon in Egypt and it becomes confused with the Great Babylon in Mesopotamia. For current day readers, this confusion is not detrimental to the reading. The footnote quickly clears up confusion; however, the vast audience at the time of publication would have been getting a very different image. This is not an isolated incidence, on page 41 he confuses or combines two separate stories to make one tale. These, and other similar occasions, prove that John Mandeville was not reliable even in telling known stories. This brings me to the point that he was not only telling stories, such as the ones about Mary and the saints. His depictions of Muslims and Jews are often times repulsive, such as when he accuses the Jews of killing Jesus and defines them by this action. The Turks on page 78 took a city, everyone but Christians are depicted as aggressive. Mandeville shows Muslim Sultans taking over by killing each other for the power.
Mandeville has no problem putting these falsities into publication and since the readers did not have current day footnotes much of it would have slipped into general knowledge as fact. This is how the West comes to define the East, through lies and false reports. Mandeville is clearly not ignorant of the truth, since he is so well read and intellectual, yet he displays negative images to obtain his goal of uprising European, particularly English, status. From the first few pages he basically instigates another crusade by saying the miscreant Muslims are in the holy land that rightfully belongs to Christians. The rest of the text is an encouragement for why they should take action against all other religions. Mandeville draws from other texts for knowledge about these East of the Mediterranean religions without ever experiencing them firsthand. His plagiarism is problematic because he twists real knowledge to his own aid, which is overpowering the other religions.
The Book of John Mandeville recounts the travels of the Knight throughout various countries and cities. He seemingly takes it upon himself, in a sense that he feels burdened to do so, to educate the masses in the cultural happenings of the places of his travels. Essentially, he is gifting the unprivileged world with his worldly experiences.
ReplyDeleteWhile in fact, we may all be quick to point out the discrepancies between his accounts of his "experiences" and the actuality of the culture of which he is reporting, mostly due to his intolerable and palpable arrogance, it is vital that we actually take into account that bias are actually unavoidable. To better exemplify this, I would like to bring up an article of the American Anthropological Association (Found: https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html).
Within this article, a group of anthropologists study a civilization known as the Nacirema people. They publish the body rituals among this civilization, which include various rituals that involve the disfiguring of the human body, and beliefs in charms and potions. Upon later review it becomes apparent to the reader that the Nacirema people are in fact American (Nacirema spelled backwards). Providing our society with an interesting “outsiders” perspective.
Therefore, I think it is essential to realize that not only that this is not what those areas were actually like, but also that it is equally as vital to realize this is how these cultures were perceived by the “western” world. By no means does it excuse the bias, but it does not mean the work deserves to be dismissed either. I think instead this just exemplifies the fact that we should be suspicious of every source we read.
While I most certainly agree that it is beneficial to approach written works that claim an element of historicity with skepticism, I would like to point out that along with the many biases portrayed throughout the text, there were also, as we briefly touched on in class today, moments during which John Mandeville praised and/or spoke highly of the religion of Islam and its people. I admit that he does at times very harshly criticize the cultures of both Jewish and Muslim peoples-- exemplified specifically on page 85, where he ever so matter-of-factly proclaims that the laws of Machomet will fail just as the Jews' law have, which he deems as a failure, all the while acknowledging that the law of the Christian peoples will last "until the world's end." One could say there is quite a bit of bias present within that small excerpt of text, however on page 87 he does go on to say that the Saracens are good, virtuous people; people that adhere entirely to he laws of the Qua'ran sent to them by God. Here he readily admits the failings of the Christian peoples, in that while they may fail to keep the law of their God, unfaithfulness ensuing as it so often does, those failings are essentially non-existent within the religion of Islam. He even implies that people of the Christian faith ought to follow the examples of such a people devoted entirely to God.
DeleteThe Book of John Mandeville is dangerous. Acting as an influence to the likes of Columbus and Mercator, "Mandeville" supplies an image of the Eastern world that becomes deeply ingrained into the global psyche. It is too easy to say that "Mandeville" and other early European writers about Islam were simply building upon each other and were therefore not responsible as individuals for the stigmas built about the Middle East. The Book of John Mandeville is individually responsible, particularly because it is a plagiarized compilation of clear fiction that claims to be history.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find most problematic in John Mandeville is the treatment of Jews vs the treatment of Muslims. In his introduction, Higgins argues that "Mandeville" approaches the non-Christian world with "an open-mindedness" which "extended to nearly every group except the Jews" (ix-x). Though it is true that "Mandeville" uses heavy assault against the Jews - in his prologue, for example, he immediately refers to then as the "cruel Jews" (3) - I would argue that his treatment of the Muslims is even more unnerving.
Instead of simply demonizing Islam and its followers, "Mandeville's" anthropological approach leaves an even deeper mark. Much of the novel acts as a study of Muslims and their practices, which lays foundation to the ideas of a people being "spoken for" which we discussed in class. The Jews are insulted, but still humanized, whereas the Muslims are something to be studied - akin to an animal or beast.
This is furthered even more by the underlying elements of mythology within The Book of John Mandeville. The sense of the "mythic East" deeply remains in our contemporary consciousness - one has to look no farther than Indiana Jones or Lord of the rings before it is evident that we covet the East as a place of magic and mystery. The idea of "Here be Dragons!" remains present in modern day discourse as we try and conceptualize the Middle East. Instead of establishing similarities, we create not just an "other" but a "mythic other" whose very world is fundamentally unrecognizable.
It is The Book of John Mandeville which creates this "Eastern consciousness". Instead of demonizing Islam like Judaism, "Mandeville" approaches Muslims as a group to be studied (and subsequently "owned"). This renders the Middle East as invariably inferior. The Book of John Mandeville is not documentation or continuation, but creation.
I noticed that John Mandeville is very careful about semantics throughout the book, especially when he subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) pins Christianity against Islam. More specifically, I realized that Mandeville often describes eastern locations or points of interest as beautiful and ornate, but then undercuts such descriptions with subversive statements that accuse Muslims of the destruction of supposed “Christian” institutions in the east. He is smart about the way he introduces such ideas and readers may not immediately associate these notions with early Crusader mentalities. An example is when Mandeville describes Nazareth, claiming that it “used to be a great and beautiful city, but now is only a small town with houses scattered here and there” (69). Mandeville continues to talk about Nazareth, subtly claiming ownership of the city on behalf of Christians by way of glorifying biblical events that he believes to have taken place there. Mandeville explains, “There Joseph wedded Mary when she was only fourteen years old. There the angel Gabriel greeted her, saying: ‘Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum’ in the place of a great altar in a beautiful church that used to be there; but it was completely destroyed…” (69). Without directly placing blame on Muslims/Saracens, Mandeville enables the reader draw conclusions about such destruction. These accusations disguised as observations continue as the author introduces Mount Tabor, saying, “Also, from Nazareth one goes to Mount Tabor, which is only three leagues away and is a very beautiful and very high mountain where there used to be a town and many churches. But they are all destroyed” (70). He “stirs the pot” so to speak, allowing Christian readers to feel as if something is owed to them. After reading a section like this, it is only natural that a Christian reader would trust that Muslims destroy all civilization and holy places.
ReplyDeleteI also took notice of the way The Book of John Mandeville paints Islam as this force of destruction and how the book sought to strengthen the “them and us” dichotomy of Catholicism and Islam. Specifically, on page 19 when the book makes allusion to the city of Sur and mentioned the Saracens for the first time, it reads “there used to be a very beautiful Christian city there, but the Saracens destroyed much of it…” If I were to have read this in the 14th century and this is my first time ever learning about “the exotic other,” I would find it hard to not form immediate bias against these Saracens; these people are destroying my way of life and are a fundamental threat to my religion. The problem with the Book of John Mandeville is that passages like these, which drive the narrative that Muslims are destroyers of beauty and Christian greatness, give its Catholic audience justification in waging war and slaughtering those who follow in the teachings of Islam. What is more egregious is that the text speaks from a position of credibility and scholarship; the author is clearly more knowledgeable than most, and yet continues to perpetuate misconceptions within the text in order to direct its agenda against Islam.
DeleteI'd like to go back to the notion of maps we spent a good amount of time on during class, specifically the "T-shaped" map and what it says about the worldview during the time in which Mandeville was written. When I first looked at it in the book, what struck me immediately was the size of Asia in relation to Europe and Africa. Immediately, my mind processed this as a placement of Asia in a role of central importance. Given the European origin of the map, this startled and intrigued me until I took a closer look at the footnote the book provided. The Biblical allusions quickly recontextualized the map for me in a decidedly Christian, Eurocentric context, yet the more I thought about it, the stranger that became to me. Christianity is often thought of as a very white religion, despite the fact that it had its origins in what we would undeniably think of today as the "Middle East" Jerusalem is the center of the T map, made in the late middle ages, so when exactly was there the shift that turned Christianity into a white, European religion? The fact that the T-shaped map places at the world's center a location that is at once the height of Eurocentricism and a bastion of cultures that flourished during Europe's dark ages intrigues me a great deal, particularly in terms of how paradoxically entitled this worldview seems.
ReplyDeleteI also found our analysis of maps and their varying central focus very intriguing. A point that we made was that generally the origin of a specific map would have that particular country or region in the center of the map, such as Australia's upside-down map, or the traditional Western map which has Europe in the center. But a point we did not cover in class is that while many countries have a sense of ethnocentrism to a certain degree, there are some countries that have "reverse-ethnocentrism." Towards the end of our last class we discussed foreign countries that we have traveled to, and how their locals perceived us as Americans. Personally, I have traveled to a few developing countries, in which many of the locals spoke up about their impoverished and struggling home life as if they were ashamed, and very openly displayed envy for those living in the United States. I found this notion very interesting, particularly in contrast with the existence of ethnocentrism which we discussed in class.
DeleteThe Book of John Mandeville plays with the concept of “construction” and the means by which countries/colonies, religions, or even people are constructed. From the start, there has been controversy over the title of the book—originally The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, implies that not only was the knight travelling the East a real person, but also that his accounts of these travels are true. In much the same regard, the construction of this narrative—especially the notion that he’s a knight, and a devout Christian—implies a certain credibility which, as a modern objective reader can see, the narrator lacks.
ReplyDeleteThis “travel narrative”, whether because of the specific biblical details or because of the lack of personal detail, distinctively lacks credibility. Most of the details and much of the narrative voice do not tell of the actual travels—the narrator tells of what he learned (from the bible and from other travelogues) about each place he “visited”.
When Mandeville speaks of the cross in the second chapter, he mentions the specific measurements of each part in cubits and the specific wood each part was made of (cypress, palm, olive, cedar)—as if he had had the opportunity to measure each part, to see each part—while in reality he states that the monastery which claimed to have part of the cross in fact had the cross of the good thief who hung beside Jesus. Mandeville does not disclose the location of the true cross. In the next chapter, the mention of Hermes the Wise—or someone else perhaps—who was buried with a gold plate that predicted the birth of Jesus (and that he believed in him) a thousand years before it happened reads like pure Christian propaganda; there was no real way to verify either the date of the body’s interment, nor the identity. Even the temple he mentions in chapter 11 follows the biblical dimensions of the tabernacle; something he could simply have read about, rather than visit and physically measure.
He describes the Cyprus wines which start out red and turn white after a year, and how rubies and garnets can be found on the seashore, while in Egypt there are emeralds to be found around on the ground; he even brings up Dido, in reference to her being Aeneis’ wife—which she never officially was, according to Virgil; nor would Mandeville have met or even read about Dido in North Africa when he visited in the 14th century. The narrator states that Machomet is buried in Mecca—but Mohammad rests in Medina. He also says that wine is prohibited by Machomet because he accidentally killed a friendly hermit in a drunken stupor (43). King David also apparently had 60 wives and 300 concubines.
Mandeville also discredits himself by contradicting his own opinions. He spends much time extolling the “uselessness” and wrongness of Jews—but on page 15 lists many Old Testament laws regarding a Kosher diet and lifestyle, intimating that these rules should be followed. The irony of the fact that the narrator is prejudiced against nomadic peoples—yet spent 35 years of his own life travelling—is also a fact that should not be missed.
The Book of John Mandeville claims that it provides an objective viewpoint of the diverse cultures of different places that he is visiting. I think it is important to note, as we did in class, that it is nigh impossible for someone to give an objective account of pretty much anything, let alone a culture that you are not part of; especially considering the fact that this book is a compilation of different sources fused together into a “forgery.” The author’s ability to provide information that influenced the most famous and brilliant travelers, writers, and artists of his time proves to me that despite the questionable nature of the authorship, and the inability to get everything right on portraying a culture that he is not immersed in this book is of at least some value to Europe’s literary history. It made way for others to expand on his ideas. His remix of the stories of evangelical pilgrims and everyman merchants created a new concept for literature, travel, art, and the globe. He traced his way through the known world telling the tales of biblical characters with historical references to the political, social, and spiritual atmosphere he was in. It obviously favors Christianity, is indecisive about Islam, and is downright contemptuous towards the Jews. But it provides us with a unique interpretation of history. It is distinctly what we would consider “western.” It is possible that he was only promoting Christianity so much was because he was basing his writings off of the travelogues of Christian missionaries who traveled to many of the places he writes about. It is clear that the author was very well read. He manages to provide the reader with a fair deal of historical accounts from across the globe. The main problem with the text is that he embellishes every story he is reading and adding his own political twists upon it. He is spreading ideas that have manipulated the ideas of Christian European society to lean towards ethnocentrism. It is the seemingly open-minded, but pretty clearly pro-crusade and very Christian narrator that reinforced all of the egotistical negativity towards other cultures.
ReplyDeleteAs I read through this text, I started to reflect on a discussion we'd had in class about the purpose of these genre-defining texts and why they would be so racist. As you said, this is clearly a very well-read writer who is advocating Christianity over all else. He does so via these plagiarized accounts in a mash-up that we are inclined to look down upon, but as I consider it I'm beginning to wonder if this wasn't a carefully orchestrated cultural attack by the writer. We are aware that the author has stolen multiple passages and stories from countless other famous works, whether it's the Bible, the Quran, or even the Aeneid, but we are also aware that Mandeville wrote his text in French instead of Latin to make his text available to the common man. It occurs to me that by providing the essence of all these different famous works and twisting them to advocate Christianity, Mandeville is essentially handing every uneducated person a guidebook on how to debate theology and advocate for Christianity. Despite not having access to the volume of texts Mandeville did, these less educated folk can act as missionaries wherever they travel. Perhaps it will be easier to understand how such a well-read man could be so incorrect about these foreign cultures when his works are viewed through this lens.
DeleteWhat is significant about the Book of John Mandeville?
ReplyDeleteThough the Book of John Mandeville was meant to serve as a guide to the Holy Land of Jerusalem and the far East, that purpose is no longer relevant to a modern audience. What the Book of John Mandeville serves as now is a window into late-Medieval Western perspective- one of deep social and religious concerns.
These social and religious concerns among Westerners originated in ignorance and the fear of the unknown. Because mobility was incredibly limited during this time period, people in the West relied heavily upon authors such as "John Mandeville" to describe the marvelous places of the Far East "...especially for those who have the will and the desire to visit the noble city of Jerusalem and the holy places that are around it." (5)
In modern times, we can look at The Book of John Mandeville and refer to it as an example of an unlikely success- a compilation of works that works as a cohesive unit to serve the purpose of reaching and making an impression on a large audience. The author may be incredibly ignorant in his depiction of religions such as Islam, but he does know what he is doing in terms of narration.
For instance, instead of compiling the work in Latin, the author compiles it in French, so that he may reach a larger audience with his vivid descriptions and exotic tales. From there, the narrator's descriptions of people such as the Saracens are so wild that as a reader one cannot help but be enthralled and inquisitive. The narrator is also incredibly convincing in claiming he is writing to describe customs, manners and diversities, not put any group of people down. (15) These successes on the part of the narrator help us to understand why accounts such as Mandeville's became as popular as they did, and why fabricated accounts still spread like wildfire in modern times.
Kaitlyn,
DeleteI think the point you made about Mandeville as a narrator is important because his purpose behind the language choice was to influence a larger number of readers. Though in class we discussed how well-read and educated Mandeville was, that does NOT mean he was not ignorant-proven throughout the book via his ridiculous claims of other religions. Furthermore, the text shows that although he claims he was trying to make this piece as objective as he could, he utterly failed. My main reason for doubting his objectivity is as follows; throughout the text, Mandeville uses a very judicious tone, not only on the behalf of his fellow Europeans; but he even goes as far as to make claims on behalf of the Muslim community as well. On page 50 when he is discussing Templum Domini he says "Saracens allow neither Christians nor Jews to enter,for they say that such foul people ought not to enter or rest in such a holy place". The author tries to influence the targeted audience not only by making Muslims (and Jews) seem undesirable, but also portraying their views towards Christianity as negative ones, which further perpetuates 'mutual' hatred.
The narration of The Book of John Mandeville is definitely significant because he narrates this book in way that the reader is not given a chance to give their own thoughts about other countries and religions. After informing the reader of other beliefs, he immediately puts in his own opinion and tells the reader that the other ideas are wrong. In chapter 15 when addressing how Muslims view the four prophets, Mandeville tells the reader a combination of fact and opinion in order to persuade the reader to agree with him. He says, “They say indeed that of these four Jesus was the worthiest and the most excellent…” (85). Not only is Mandeville not telling truth about Islam, but he is telling the reader his own beliefs instead. Also by saying, “they say” Mandeville is also showing his indifferent opinion towards Muslims by referring to Muslims using “they” instead of mentioning their actual name. Mandeville claims that he wants to show diversity but he really does not show much respect towards people who have different beliefs than he does.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMany times in reading classic literature, foreign works, or any works considered to come from a source of “otherness” it is productive to consider what you may know about base human instinct and behavior. This method of thinking can support many of the accusations that The Book of John Mandeville was heavily plagiarized. By thinking of this author as just another lazy or desperate author attempting to seem more interesting, worldly, or deep, we can start to recognize patterns of insecurity and dishonesty in even the first few pages of the book.
ReplyDeleteFirst we can consider his construction of a reliable narrator. He insists that these travels are his, that what you are about to read is wholly accurate and true. He asserts this claim by reminding the reader that he is not merely some novice scribe, but a respectable knight. This could get lost in a skimmed reading of the texts, but close consideration makes it seem quite reminiscent of a schoolyard fibber swearing that he’s being totally honest.
Secondly, if the man had been such an experienced and seasoned adventurer would his tales have been so ethnocentric? No person as educated or well travelled as he claims to be would characterize Jews and Muslims with demeaning slang or venomous condemnation. Would someone of this experience box entire cultures into rigid structures with hateful name-calling? Maybe someone who read a few readily available accounts of actual travels by actual travelers could be so mistaken.
The point I’m trying to make is that this author seems more like a disgruntled bully than an educated scholar. The voice he employs oftentimes directly undermines the sentiment that lies in the actual stories. If we, instead of apologizing for and giving credit to classical authors and their works, actually scrutinized them we might lose a little respect for their ideals but gain a little global awareness.
An important thing to bear in mind is that the tales transcribed by the Mandeville author were, as you point out, taken from other sources. At the very least, this means that the base observations were still present in the texts from which Mandeville drew, texts which were written by well-traveled, ostensibly worldly people, and they still managed to contain enough of a seed of ethnocentrism and prejudice that Mandeville was able to adapt it into his own conglomerate work. Without access to the original sources Mandeville used it is impossible to tell how much of the racist overtones of the book were his own and how many were simply drawn from the work of others.
DeleteThe other issue is that Mandeville clearly is well-educated. He has an extensive knowledge of Greco-Roman as well as Biblical myth, an understanding of at least three languages (Latin, French, and English), and, as evidenced by the wording of his analyses of the Qur'an, either a readily available copy of the Muslim holy book or a fair bit of knowledge regarding it. He is well-versed in history as well as geography. These are not the qualities of an uneducated man.
Mandeville's words are therefore the words of a man with great exposure to both global culture, literature. It is from this perspective that his work must be examined for it's intent and cultural trappings. To dismiss it as the ravings of an insecure bully is to do a disservice to critical discourse.
When discussing the different places we had been as part of the “warm-up” question today, I had to admit that the only foreign country I had ever been to is Canada. Not only have I never been overseas, but during my “whirlwind adventure” to Niagara Falls, I was able to see New York state during most of my stay. However, when asked what I would include in a travelogue about my trip, I immediately began listing things that were different about this land far far away. Their money is colorful, they watch hockey instead of basketball, they allow gambling and have several large casinos, and they call Molson and Labatt domestic beers. Things I neglected to mention: they speak English. They drive on the right side of the street. They wear jeans and winter jackets when it is cold outside.
ReplyDeleteThis immediately brought me back to our previous class discussion, when we discussed how Westerners are so quick to highlight differences between themselves and what they perceive as other. When discussing Islam, European Christians often neglect the fact that they share the bulk of their religious canon, including the belief in Jesus Christ and all but one of the other prophets. This became the case even on a tiny level, when I was discussing our Northern neighbors. Because I viewed Canadians as others, the only aspects of their culture I addressed were those that were different from our own, when in reality I probably have a lot more in common with someone who was born and raised just North of Lake Ontario than almost anyone from South of the Mason-Dixon line, or any native of California.
The author of the Book of John Mandeville is guilty of the same as he addresses the Greek Orthodox Church. He takes a society that shares almost the exact same theological views and highlights only the differences between the Greek Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. He mentions how the Greek Orthodox Church uses leavened bread at masses, and clergymen are allowed to marry (p.15). He also takes issue with the fact that they do not follow the Pope, but instead have their own leader, who considers himself so equal to the Pope that he would use and informal tense when writing to him in Latin.
The question I have now, after committing a similar act of misrepresentation, is whether or not it is understandable for the author of John Mandeville to present his account of the Greek Orthodox Church, and many other cultures that he describes. Is a travelogue inherently a catalogue of all that is different between two cultures, or could it be a description of a culture that would allow a third party to notice the similarities as well as the difference between the author and his other?
A lot of people have been pointing out how at one point Mandeville is speaking positively about the east, and how at other times he’s demonizing them. Also, people have been pointing out how foolish/evil/wrong it is to essentially fabricate an entire sector of the world. Without a doubt, these are important things to notice. They inform modern readings of this ancient text. Happily, we have the ability to see through this bullshit because we’re privileged enough to be in college and have our attention pointed at the inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteI think the important thing to get out of this text isn’t that Mandeville is a flip-flop, but that he boldly lies about things he’s never even personally experienced. Maybe he didn’t think they would in his time, but those lies have since had influence on a massive scale. To get a perspective on just how massive that scale is: 500 years later our elected leaders and chosen storytellers don’t bat an eyelash at perpetuating gross misconceptions about the east. This is partially because for 700 years the west has been bread into believing these misconceptions. But what I see as more important and more entirely detrimental is the history of lying.
Even if the east is widely miss-perceived at least the resources to better understand it exist, and people still have the ability to find some truth. What’s more detrimental is the history of lying, and the normality of it. It’s the shameless lying about the east that endangers it more than the cultural bias that western people inherit. What our culture needs to learn - more than what the east is actually like - is that it’s completely unacceptable to miss-represent a culture and pass it off as truth.
I’d like to point out a movie I’ve seen just earlier this week. The Square, directed by Jehane Noujain, is a documentary film about the Egyptian revolutions between 2011 and 2013. First, the people protested in Tahrir Square, resulting in the resignation of then-Egyptian president Mubarak. After this, control of Egypt fell upon the military. This only compounded the nation’s status as a military state, and the people felt like Mubarak’s control was still upon them. More demonstrations and riots ensued. After the election of Mohamed Morsi in 2012, the people of Egypt once again began protesting on a massive scale, resulting in his 2013 deposition. Today, Egypt is again in the hands of military rule that uses live bullets to suppress demonstrations. At the end of the film, principal revolutionary Ahmed Hassan talks about their current status: two years after the start of their fight for freedom, barley any closer to it than when they had started. But he says that what they’re fighting for is not simply a change in politics in Egypt, but “a conscience” that may prevent power falling into the wrong hands, or Egyptian people doing less than they could for their fellow Egyptians.
Similarly, the west needs to develop a conscience against accepting, perpetuating and creating lies about their fellow men and women of the east. The educated young men and women who’re bound to inherit this country will (with any luck) be brought up to speed about just how much they don’t actually know about the east. The next and more essential thing to impress upon them - and holocaust/genocide/civil rights literature serves this same purpose in high schools – is how to stop these misconceptions from having power or happening again.