Lack of Freedom

In The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, Abu Taleb Khan composes his accounts through a judgemental and oppressive lens. He presents ideas about women, some of which are still found within society. He points out that women “require costly presents” (84). Furthermore, he depicts English women as sexual objects and property of men. “They are upon no account allowed to walk out after dark; and they never think of sleeping abroad, even at the house of their father or mother, unless the husband is with them.” (173). The English women were not able to complete simple tasks without being escorted by their husbands. He continues to declare that in the eyes of English law a “man may beat his wife with a stick” (173). With that being said, women were treated like dogs, if not lesser. This was to prevent “an improper use of liberty they had” (173). This is ironic as in reality English women had very little liberty; any liberty they do hold is diminished and devalued. Ultimately, Khan admits this as he writes that although Mohammaden women “are prohibited from mixing in society” (174), they are still allowed to visit their family and female friends. Like Lady Mary Montagu, both authors recognize that Muslim women held more independence than English women. Abu Taleb views English women in the same way British imperial culture views them: as possessions with no actual freedom (unless being accompanied by their husbands). On the other hand, Khan differentiates from English men as he declines to spend money in order to talk to a woman.

Maya Carranza

Reconstruction of Greece: Poetic Justice

Lord Byron’s The Giaour demonstrates the ideal of a collapsing Greek empire. There are many explicit references to ancient Greece, “‘Tis Greece- but living Greece no more!” (Byron 91), as well as an implicit reference to the modern Greece, “Approach thou craven crouching slave- Say, is not this Termopylae?” (Byron 108-109). The speaker here refers to what seems like a Turkish slave wandering the same mountain that was in antiquity the site to the battle between King Leonidas’ alliance of Greek city-states and Xerxes of the Persian Empire. The speaker of The Giaour thus creates the poetic reconstruction of Greece within the Hellenistic perspective.

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, a British, ex-diplomat’s, aristocratic wife is herself the innovator of the very Hellenistic perspective held by Lord Byron’s speaker in The Giaour. In The Turkish Embassy Letters, after hand-copying the Latin inscriptions from the castle pedestals, she gleans over the modern day use of the architecture- “Here are many tombs of fine marble, and vast pieces of granite,” (Montagu 187); however, she then proceeds to insult the Turks for their cheapening of the “fine marble” tombs, “…which are daily lessened by the prodigious balls that the Turks make from them for the cannon,” (Montagu 187). Lady Mary does not simply discriminate against the Turks for daring to live in the same geographic location as these once-glorious sites, but also she characterizes the new occupants as being savage-like, warmongers that make weapons out of these sacred artifacts. It is at this point that the reader’s understanding of Hellenism becomes conflicted by the fact that the figures involved with poetically reconstructing Greece-as-source-of-culture themselves were troubled by the mere sight of slaves, in the dirt, languidly obstructing the richness of the land.

The irony of both Lord Byron and Lady Mary’s perspectives serves to underplay the overwhelming classism that imbues the Hellenistic construction of Greece. The Giaour‘s speaker portrays a “loveliness in death,” (Byron 97) because in his imagination, limited by the bias of the times, there is no loveliness in the geography preserved by the Turks actually living in Greece. Lady Mary stirs a poetic justice by hand-scribing the Latin inscriptions off the pillars and romanticizing the ancient Greek monuments and vistas described by Homer himself, and yet refuses to recognize those who are there, physically living- the Turks, without describing the women’s garbs (Montagu 184) or proceeding to call the peasants “baboons,” (Montagu 193). Both writers are symbols for a Hellenistic movement that exists despite the inconsistencies of perceived beauty and the works’ poetic reliance on nostalgic classicism. The only thing missing in the texts is a foreword by each author that explicitly confesses their own, double-overdetermination in reinvigorating the Grecian ideal.

 

Lady Mary and Identity

Perhaps one of the most original ideas posed in thisismyusername’s “Lady Mary and Her Little Lambs”, is the idea that Lady Mary regards reproduction as the redeeming factor in a loveless marriage. Thisismyusername writes that Lady Mary feels “imprisoned by the oppressive English laws”, that she comes off as a “resentful wife” who lacks companionship and closeness with her husband. Thisismyusername points towards the letters between Lady Mary and her husband as specific evidence; Lady Mary writes to him to request more money and to update him on his son, despite the fact that Lady Mary, seething, writes “your son is very well; I cannot forebear telling you so, tho’ you do not so much as ask after him”. “Lady Mary and Her Little Lambs”, in arguing Lady Mary’s life circumstance, suggests the reasons as to why Lady Mary believes that reproduction is important to Muslim women. As an afterthought, Thisismyusername writes that Lady Mary’s identity is found in her children, or rather that it in an essential part of her identity. What Thisismyusername fails to recognize is that Lady Mary, while dedicating a few letters on the subject of family, reproduction and children, it is not central in her letters. This is to say that Lady Mary’s letters, more concern matters of politics, history and culture of the Ottoman Empire than her children. If it was such a central part of Lady Mary’s identity, her children would be more of topic. Instead, Lady Mary’s identity resides in her independence, her curiosity, and her wit. Her children are more of a marginal part of her identity.

Power and Female Reproduction

In response to hpga26’s, “Lady Mary’s Obsession with Power,” I found the writers connection with sexuality and reproduction with power to be an idea worth exploring. Lady Mary spends a lot of time focusing on the role of reproduction and sexuality in the Ottoman Empire. At one point she makes the comment, “…but in this country, ‘tis to more despicable to be married and not fruitful than ‘tis with us to be fruitful before marriage.” (151) Which is basically saying that in the Ottoman Empire it was more disgraceful for a woman to be fertile and not bear children than it was taboo or disgraceful in England to have a child out of wedlock. In this culture, a woman’s value was calculated on her ability to produce offspring. In the quote, “They have a notion that whenever a woman leaves off bringing children ‘tis because she is too old for that business, whatever her face says to the contrary, and this opinion makes the ladies here so ready to make proofs of their youth…” (151) She makes the connection of a woman’s ability to reproduce as a proof of their youth, and possibly even a measure of a woman’s value. Where in England, the goal of reproduction was to produce an heir, so numbers didn’t mean much, but in the Ottoman Empire, your ability to reproduce and provide offspring was equivalent to the amount of respect and power you had as a woman. I think the sheer quantity and numbers in which the women are able to reproduce, was also fascinating for Lady Mary. She says, “Without any exaggeration, all of the women of my acquaintance that have been married ten year have twelve or thirteen children, and the old ones boast of having five and twenty or thirty apiece, and are respected according to the number they have reproduced.” (152) However, I do disagree with hpga26, when they said that, Lady Mary doesn’t see the Muslim women’s roles as mothers as a limiting one, because it is limited, in this culture your ability to reproduce is a determining factor to the value of your worth. The Muslim women do know how to take advantage of their sexuality and sex, but those without the ability to produce offspring are definitely limited in that aspect.

Orientalism in the Account of Lady Mary: the Glory of Prostitution

In response to the September 18, 2013 post entitled “Symbiosis: Trading Children for a Life of Ease,” the student raised an issue about Lady Mary in Turkish Embassy Letters  in regard to her encounters with women in the “bright and mysterious Turkish landscape and society.”  The author claims that Lady Mary “deeply envies” the Turkish women’s status quo as “glorified” and “prostitutes.” Such a view indicates the transverse effect of Orientalism that ripples from Lady Mary’s marriage itself to the student blog post.

Lady Mary isn’t jealous or envious of Turkish women, but is decidedly biased. Lady Mary’s biography tells us of her bad-business marriage. This background thus informs us of Lady Mary’s outlook on society, on gender, and class. Lady Mary herself is affected in such a way by her husband’s elite status that she enters the conversation about women’s role in society and reflects in her own participation with and observations of the Turkish women an element of Orientalism.

If the student in 2013 is making the claim that Lady Mary herself is accusing the foreign women’s marriage practice as merely a glorified form of prostitution, then that student is now responsible for such implications. However, the post offers no further critique in exploring what the author believes is a European repulsion against Turkish gender norms. If the student is so quick to vindicate Lady Mary’s opinion against foreign women, then what explanation is there for the political, economic, and cultural fallout that entails such a derogatory outlook? The original question prompted the student to answer why Lady Mary “admires” the Turkish women, yet the student responded with an overwhelming disdain for Lady Mary’s contemptuous words. If we are unable to ascertain the truth about Lady Mary’s othering of the Turkish women, then how is the student able to assert the contradictory viewpoint that Lady Mary not only “deeply envies” the Turkish women but also “venerates the ease at which these wealthy women languish” without informing the reader of the significance of Lady Mary’s own discriminations?

Issues of Elitism and Sexism: Going Beyond the Painting

Lady Mary Wortley Montague in The Turkish Embassy Letters is penning Letter 27 to a madame in which she describes her visit to the bagnio bath houses- only (nude) women are allowed in the domed-building. “Ladies of quality generally give [the portress] the value of a crown or ten shillings, and I did not forget that ceremony,” (Montagu 101). She immediately evokes classism when she makes note of the payment process for entering the building and notices that the richer woman leave a significant amount of money; this emphasizes Lady Mary’s European, outsider status.

Lady Mary is writing this letter under the notion that she has observed something novel, to the point that her friend will “no longer reproach [Lady Mary] that [she] tells [her friend] nothing extraordinary,” (Montague 100). Lady Mary ironically continues to write about this unique experience- one that has never before been written- before reaching an unfortunate shift. She shifts by the end of the passage as she surrenders her own narrative authority: she suddenly adopts a male, European perspective when she confesses that her painter friend would have benefit from seeing such a scene. “To tell you the truth, I had wickedness enough to wish secretly that Mr. Gervase could have been there invisible. I fancy it would have very much improved his art to see so many fine women naked, in different postures, some in conversation, some working, others drinking coffee or sherbet, and many negligently lying on their cushions, while their slaves…were employed in braiding their hair,” (Montagu 102). How can Lady Mary go from marveling something so extraordinary as the naked, female bodies in the bath house, to then expressing that a creepy painter from back home should be there to “improve his art”? This is the equivalent of someone today saying, ‘I wish the rapper Lil’ Wayne was here to have sex with all these women!’ However, in today’s culture, we take a stance against the objectification of women, and it is generally frowned upon for someone to say to Lil’ Wayne, ‘have sex with all these women;’ and yet, Lady Mary herself says that she wishes the painter was “invisibly” in the bath house to capture the scene. This presents the problem of aristocratic Europeans, rich, white men who subject the “exotic,” naked body into a spectacle to be marveled. This subjugation and subtle sexism ultimately extends into Lady Mary’s own vision, and she fails to see her own enacting sexism. As she plays further into the notion of female objectification into paintings by rich, white males, she evolves to more specific observations of the Turkish women from the perspective of male-dominant hegemony: “I perceived that the ladies with the finest skins and most delicate shapes had the greatest share of my admiration, though their faces were sometimes less beautiful than those of their companion,” (Montagu 102). She is describing what I call a ‘butterface,’ much like a college-dorm-bro who is laughing with his friends, ‘Her body was great, but her face…’ Lady Mary’s disturbing perception of ladies with glorious bodies but ugly faces finally climaxes at the conclusion of the passage with her perspective on English coffee-houses: “…’tis the woman’s coffee-house, where all the news of the Town is told, scandal invented, etc.,” (Montagu 102). She says the bagnio is the Turkish equivalent of an English coffee-house, and yet, women are not allowed in the coffee-houses except to work and serve the male customers.

This irony of Lady Mary herself subjugating the other, nude, Turkish woman into mere objects-for-some-European-to-paint cannot be imitated. The bath-house painting by Ingres one hundred and fifty years or so later serves to create a surface representation of the bagnio scene but does not adequately represent the issues of sexism nor aristocratic elitism illustrated in the words of Lady Mary.

Exoticism in Lady Montague’s Experience in the Turkish Bathhouse

The description of Lady Montagu’s experience in the Turkish bathhouse is similar to the Ingres visual representation, in which they both depict “sofas [that] were covered with cushions and rich carpets, on which sat the ladies, and on the second their slaves behind ‘em, but without any distinction of rank by their dress, all being in the state of nature, that is, in plain English, stark naked” (101). Although they both describe the Turkish bathhouse in a similar manner through different mediums, there is a difference in Lady Montagu’s description. In Montagu’s description, her depiction of the ladies in the bathhouse is exoticized. For example, when Montague notes that they are naked she explains, “they walked, and moved with the same majestic grace which Milton describes of our General Mother” (102). Here, Montague is exoticizing the Turkish ladies in using the words, such as “majestic grace” and comparing them to a character in Paradise Lost, because it romanticizes their lifestyle. In doing this, Montague removes their humanness and turns them into objects to be admired. Another instance in which Montague demonstrates the objectification of the Turkish ladies is when “the Grand Signor’s eldest daughter was married some few days before [she] came, and upon that occasion the Turkish ladies display all their magnificence” (103). By mentioning that they “display all their magnificence” Montague continues to separate them by objectifying their bodies in a manner to explain something that is not seen in England, as she notes earlier.

An Honorable Duty

Constantly sharing her opinions about Muslim women’s sexuality and reproduction in The Turkish Embassy Letters, Lady Mary seemed to find in these women what she lacked back home in London: a respectable goal in life.  “Mahomet…has entrusted them with an Office which is not less honourable, even that of multiplying human Race,” (229) she says. This letter emphasizes the idea that although Muslim women will not enter the same paradise as their husbands, a special afterlife awaits them so long as they fulfill this task.  Thus, Muslim women are encouraged, even steadfast in, having sex and creating children.  When Lady Mary compares these religious Muslim women to women of Convents, it is clear that she sees more value in the former party: “What will become of…the whole Bead-roll of your holy Virgins and Widows?” Although I do not believe Lady Mary is making the claim that Islam is better than Christianity, she is making a statement about gender roles. These women are charged with the duty of reproducing, an act that connotes sexual liberty, and one that English women cannot take pride in.  When she alludes to her pregnancy in a letter, she describes it as an “uneasy situation” (151).  Again, we can revert to the discussion that Lady Mary envies these Muslim women for their sexual freedoms.  More than that, however, her appreciation for the respect that women get for reproducing elucidate her desire to be appreciated and respected for what she does.  Whether that be letter writing, her contribution to the Enlightenment era, or simply her role as a mother and wife, Lady Mary craves acknowledgment, praise, and reward.

A Sight As You Never Saw In Your Life

Lady Mary’s experience in the bath house is of particular interest in that it reinforces Said’s ideas of Orientalism.  While much of Lady Mary’s experiences contribute to the Enlightenment of the time, her refusal to undress highlights the “otherness” she felt about these women.  She constantly compares these women to objects of perfection: “There were many amongst them as exactly proportioned as ever any goddess was drawn… and most of their skins shiningly white, only adorned by their beautiful hair… perfectly representing the figures of the Graces” (102).  Though these are praises, she is still clearly distancing herself from the Orient.  By refusing to concede to these women, Lady Mary maintained her distance from them.  Another example of this is when she comments: “I was charmed with their civility and beauty, and should have been very glad to pass more time with them but Mr. W__… was in haste to see the ruins of Justinian’s Church” (103).  It is as if she was surprised that these women were able to be “civil” and may simply have found their company amusing/preferential to looking at “a heap of stones” (103).  DId Lady Mary truly respect and admire these women or was she amused by their behavior?