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.

 

Temporarily Turk

Throughout “A True and Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mohammetans, with an Account of the Author’s Being Taken Captive (1704),” Joseph Pitts asserts his position of the analogous Muslim-Catholic practices. Being immersed in the culture and religious practices of Islam, I think he couldn’t help but try to find a common connection between the practices of his captors and his devout faith of Catholicism. He’s forced to participate in this pilgrimage to Mecca and along the way, he witnesses a first-hand account of how devout they are in their faith, consequently being temporarily converted himself in the process. This is expressed in the quote, “and I profess, I could not choose but admire to see these poor creatures so extraordinary devout and affectionate.” (274) Being immersed in the culture, he becomes conditioned to think like them and believes that Catholic and Muslim religions have the similar ideologies. But, towards the end of chapter 7, the tone changes when he says, “the translator saith that the vulgar are not required to read the Alcoran but (as the poor Romanists) to live and die in an implicit faith of what they are taught by their priests. This I utterly deny, for it is not only permitted and allowed of, but it is (as I intimated before) looked on as very commendable in any person to be diligent in the reading of it” (290). With this quote I think he is saying to not just blindly and implicitly follow the teachings of the priests. Reading the Alcoran closely and deriving your own meaning would be something to be admired. I think his tone also changes because there is a specific audience he wants to connect with.

Joseph Pitts: Tourist or Turk?

It seems like Pitts’ recantation of analogous Catholic-Muslim practices reveals a certain psychology of the British writer. Is he insulting Islam by deducing the ornate and disciplined faith to Catholic parallels? Is he abandoning his Christian background?

The account provides immense insight in terms of setting: not only is Pitts participating in the Mecca pilgrimage, but also he is chronicling the journey and converting himself into the subject of his own account. This is evident in the writer’s departure from asserting personal intimations by parenthetical use of “I”, into transcendence of the “we” form. “As soon as we come to the town of Mecca, the dileel, or guide, carries us into the great street…he first directs us to the temple,” (276). To what extent is the writer’s voice his own, actual voice?

In a world where power is held and demonstrated by the civilized, knowledgeable nation, how likely is it that the influence of the effendis and dileels actually trumps the European frame of mind and alters Pitts’ perceived account? A modern reader will be enticed to analyze Pitts’ position under the guise of journalistic integrity and thus will objectively place Pitts under an investigative light; however, close reading indicates that Pitts is not so much biased nor aloof, as he is conditioned, much like a tourist who feels like he/she has to buy a souvenir from the gift shop in order to appreciate a trip abroad. “Here are many Moors who get a beggarly livelihood by selling models of the temple unto strangers and in being serviceable to pilgrims. Here are also several effendis, or masters of learning, who daily expound out the Alcoran, sitting in high chairs…” (288). He identifies the Moors who are selling souvenirs in front of the temple, who are of service to pilgrims. Now imagine the British writer, gazing up at the towering, intimidating counsel of high priests; Pitts is no different than those who are being sold the models of the temple and who are being served by the Moor beggars. It is this part of the account that reveals an image of Pitts himself, enthralled by deep observation, susceptible to transformative emotional and economic triggers, as well as the overwhelming piety for a religion he is eager to discover, document, and bring home.

Ultimately, the reader perceives a shift in Pitts’ identity and this, in turn creates the illusion that he himself is disavowing his own narrative of the Muslim-Catholic parallel. My impression is that Pitts is mentally-usurped; the “masters of learning” who surround Pitts are like the locals of a tourist village that know how to exploit (with money, language, etc.) any unsuspecting foreigners.

Pitts ideas on Catholicism and Islam

Along the reading, Pitts black talks the Catholic religion by stating with a number of different examples how Catholicism is the same as Islam. He explains  trough comparisons of the western religions so the readers can have a better understanding of how similar they all are. Pitts explains his theory of giving examples of something that you are familiarized while introducing something new, will get people more excited about learning about it. In this case, he is using catholicism ideas to explain Islam, pointing at the similarities and contrast to get a better idea about Islam and to change people’s thoughts about Islam. He slowly brings up the point the even though catholicism and Islam are very similar, Catholicism is the worst between the two of them in his opinion. Pitts doesn’t think that Catholics are as devoted to their religion as Islams. At the end of chapter seven of his book, Pitts take a moment to state: “the translator [of the English Quran] saith that the vulgar are not required to read the Alcoran but (as the poor Romanists) to live and die in an implicit faith of what they are taught by their priests. This I utterly deny, for it is not only permitted and allowed of, but it is (as I intimated before) looked on as very commendable in any person to be diligent in the reading of it” (290).  Pitts completely rejects the idea won’t make the holy text available for the common people, but they still expect for people to live in the faith of it.

Pitt’s Need for Redemption

Sprinkled throughout Pitts’ “True and Faithful Account,” are a number of subtle parallels between Catholicism and the religion of Islam. According to Pitts, the Islamic hell may be compared to Roman purgatory and Dervish dress mimics that of certain orders of Catholic friars. However, Pitts digresses from this theme of Islamic-Catholic unity in his assertion that unlike Catholics, poor, uneducated Muslims, or the “vulgar”(290) are encouraged to read their respective holy book, the Qur’an, independent of a priest. Initially, Pitts identification of a major difference between Islam and Catholicism seems contrary to his objective of emphasizing commonalities between the two religions. However, by invoking this major difference, Pitts successfully furthers his purpose of injuring Catholicism. Because individual Muslims are encouraged to read the Qur’an, they are not, as the majority of Catholics are, “condemned to live and die in an implicit faith of what they are taught by their priests” (290). To note that the religion of Islam is superior to Catholicism in any respect is a devastating insult to Catholicism, and serves as a progression of Pitts argument against the Catholic faith. Initially noting that Catholicism and Islam are similiar, Pitts finally concludes that in some way, Catholicism was actually worse than Islam. By attacking Catholicism at a time in English history when anti-Catholic sentiment was still high, and the advocation of Catholicism was considered contrary to British interests, Pitts attempts to establish himself as both a true Protestant Christian as well as a patriot. As a result of converting to Islam and “turning Turk,” both of these identities were questioned.