During Tuesday’s lecture, we had the chance to analyze specific passages of The Wonders of Vilayet. I think the one that was the most thought-provoking was the scene where Lord Clive and the Nawab exchange the Bible and Koran respectively. I think this scene can offer the reader a view into if fits the mold of counter-hegemony. I think the scene feels like is trying its hardest to show that it is in fact, counter-hegemonic. I mean the Bible and Koran trading feels a little on the nose doesn’t it? After this strange interaction, the Emperor goes on a bit of a tangent telling Clive that he: “..wish to abandon me amidst treachours and treasonous people.” Pretty strange to include this line especially if the intent the author’s intent was to have a counter-hegemonic agenda. I believe this is supposed to be Hegenomy in a sense. There’s definitely irony present, but I think the fact that the Emperor states that Clive “abandoning him” kinda says a big message in hegemonic practices. In which people who do such things try to deny that they aren’t hegemonic. They try to do good things such as accepting their religion, even though the Emperor knows they’re faking it or the reaction isn’t genuine. In short, this section gives the reader some insight into how Hegenomy exists with fallacy and lies.
Tag Archive: Truth
The Giour is an interesting read because you can feel the politics running rampant throughout the story. You wouldn’t be wrong by calling the titular protagonist of this story a walking political statement regarding Western Hellenism. This is only true if you consider this political stance when reading and interpreting this character because it’s hidden in the subtext. However, what exactly is the “Hidden Hatred.”
Lord Byron has a really strange way of conveying his thoughts. He doesn’t explicitly say anything relating to Hellenism triumphing over the Orient, but I think it’s through symbolism is where it makes sense. The first noteworthy moment is the section regarding the Fisherman in lines 180 – 205. This section is told from the perspective of a supposed Fisherman who has a pretty negative perspective over the Giour. He says the following: “‘Tis clamer than thy heart, young Giaour! I know thee not, I loathe thy race.” (Byron 46.) It is pretty literal towards how the Fisherman seems pretty antagonistic towards the Fisherman, but why? I believe that Fisherman is supposed to be from the Orient and he’s supposed to be a hater towards the Giour. This story emphasizes how the Orients hate him and believe he is crazy. I think this is a situation where this is also the case. However, this section has more evidence to support this claim. That being the setting and what the Giaour is doing. Consider this quote: “Though weary waves are sunk to rest, There’s none within his rider’s breast.” (Byron 46.) In this quote, the Giaour appears to be riding a horse alongside the ocean. Reconsider that the speaker is a Fisherman who is fishing in the ocean. What’s interesting is the “weary waves” and that there’s “none within his rider’s breast.” It makes it seems like the Giour can’t be in tune with the waves. In fact, it is almost like the waves are rejecting him. I believe this is a specific method of rejecting the tyrannical Orient. The Orient is written to be despicable by the reader. They hate on The Giour and reject him from their society. A final line that supports this is the final line of the section: “Whom Othman’s sons should slay shun.” (Byron 46.) This sense of creating an antagonistic force in the Orient is why the triumph of Western Hellenism is valid. The Giaour is meant to be the misunderstood Hellenist who is trying overcome the evil and tyrannical Orient. While the Giour may not be completely good per se, I believe that the Orients being this antagonistic, then it justifies his case on how he can triumph over the Orients.
Enrique Aguilar
From the illustrations provided by James Stuart, I believe the piece of art that is best interpreted by Lady Montague in Letter 45 correlates with representation of Ottoman Greece and Aegean Sea. The illustration titled “View of the Gate of Athene Archegetis, Athens.” (1750-60) She gives a pretty vivid description of the places she visits as well as people she has encountered. In the image we see a big concrete gate with a chunk missing from top left. It gives a ruin vibe and the alley seems a bit dim although there is sun out. There is not a lot of color going on besides the horsemen and somewhat of the people have colored clothes. It seems like a regular day. There are men sitting in a group talking to a horsemen, we also see a horsemen fueling up his horse (with water of course, they do not run on gas yet), next to a lady and dog. The dog seems to be on guard for the horsemen.
“I cannot imagine such fine pillars were designed for the ornament of a stable. I am apt to believe they were summer apartments under their palaces, which the heat of the climate rendered necessary.”(193) Towards the end of the letter she starts putting more focus on describing the imagery of the architecture around her. She believes the Greek people have extreme decor, in a good way. She is in disbelief of the style of pillars they used for animals here. Lady Mary puts a lot of emphasis when it involves describing, she can paint the image of beat up ,worn down place. Something I noticed about these places she visits similar to this is how she repeatedly uses ruins to leave an imagery throughout her letters. Lady Montague got a grasp of the islands and I feel she enjoyed her time here. She got to explore and wanted to emphasize how different this place was from other she has been to before. “Twas with regret I saw us sail from this island into the Aegean Sea, now the Archipelago, leaving Scio (the ancient Chios) on the left, which is the richest and most populous of these islands, fruitful in cotton, corn, and silk, planted with groves of orange and lemon trees, and the Arvisian Mountain still celebrated for the nectar that Virgil mentions.” (188)
By: Suki Kaur
What is going on with Joseph Pitts?
After adorning and observing the religious methods worshipping in Islamic cultures, why would Joseph Pitts start condemning those methods? I thought the methods of worshipping God in the Islamic cultures were supposed to be an inspiration for the Western World religion(s). Just at the mention of the word “vulgar” is making me wonder, maybe Joseph Pitts value(s) are being compromised and that, for him would be an intolerable and unacceptable act from the viewpoint of Islamic religion and Catholic religion. It would be going out of the boundary that Joseph Pitts has drawn around according to his viewpoint of religion. When Joseph Pitts mentions that once he started to carefully read the Alcoran, the preface stated the vulgar are not allowed to read the Alcoran but they are supposed to live life and die in faith by the absolute teachings of the priest(s), this action is seen as a highly praised or desired act in the reading of the Alcoran. So as Joseph Pitts is doing the reading of the Alcoran, he seems to imply that he should be looked at as a believer of the Islamic religion, he clearly states in the following quote, “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” (Pitts 290) it could be referring to (the Alcoran). As a person who did not want to and was forced to conform to the Islamic religion externally, it seems to me that Pitts might be conforming to the religion internally as well. I am also not sure why Pitts would read the Alcoran when it is not suppose to be translated into any language other than the “Arabian Language.” (Pitts 290)
There are contradictions in how our class was affected by the works of Indian writers Sake Dean and I’tessamudin. These contradictions manifest by self-collapsing arguments, are constructed by bias in unconscious word-choice, & from over-reducing the complexity of identity within characters such as female prostitutes, religious scholars, and the Indians who are participating in European Imperialism. The first instance where my peers failed to note unspoken criticisms underlying Lady Mary’s performative acts of cultural transvestism involve an obsession with her descriptions of the female body, rather than implorations into form. Why did we fail to note the issues of classism in Lady Mary? The answer is due to our post-modern tendency to romanticize our fictional heroes, but Lady Mary is not a fictional character, in fact, she published post-humously, but her notes about daily life are almost ignored as we talk about the sex, and not her hybridity of positions, as a European aristocrat who is sneaking through the streets, as a woman, and how this content intersects. We see the surface of a bath house scene, wonder if Lady Mary is a lesbian, and then, approach her with the sensibility of a writer of erotic fiction, when the opposite is occurring, she is discovering a new world, expressing a counter-hegemonic feminine voice, and yet, because of her daily life, she is in contestation of her own liminal zone by slipping into derogatory rhetoric. Our class was affected by subjective vilifications of her diegetic existence, and by ignoring her double-voicedness as having agency as not only an upper-class member, but also an outsider, we relegated discourse on classism/feminism to the background of our minds, allowing for a conversation about her moral integrity. This affect is problematic because it perpetuates unconscious practices in Imperialism which de-signify classisms and elitisms in order to enthrall ourselves with the life, and not work, of a character largely reconstructed by our own idealogy.
Hypocrisy in our interpretation of Middle Eastern texts presents further problems. We are Giaours, upset that Hasan has raped our post-modern values (of monogamy), and eager to slay his infidel nature as consequence of our own, scholarly demands for a hybrid-space which apologizes for Imperialism yet simultaneously, satiates our Western ideas about Romantic conflicts regarding sinful, cheating Indians. We use words to reconstruct the narratives of Sake Dean Mohamet and I’tessamuddin such as, “allegiance,” but in doing so, upset the multiple dimensions that exist in order to identify these writer’s allegiances and loyalties. Do they owe allegiance to their motherland? Are they cowards for aligning with the Europeans? Even my implorations into this oversimplification use reductionist words such as “align” to misunderstand both the economic values and the sociopolitical roles encouraged in the lives of these Indian writers. Our class repeatedly attempted to re-contextualize historical figures in the search for post-colonial critique. Isn’t this the same behavior that is criticized by theoretical, post-colonialists? When I’tessamuddin’s home is located down the street from a lucrative military base, then there is a unique cultural heritage that must be noted in which his identity may upset our current racial and gender norms. Sure, he disobeyed his mother, but he also tapped into the riches of Europe, so we must be vigilant in contesting our own criticisms about “allegiance” which dismiss essences of différance existing between the 18th century projected-hybridities and an unconscious state of authoritarianism.
In Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin’s memoir “The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir,” the narrative openly participates in the discourse of Orientalism and takes the opportunity to criticize the Hellenic society from his elite Mughal perspective. However, at times he does criticize his own country, even praising the English as, “the most powerful race on earth.” During his travels, the I’tesamuddin recounts his observations of Western societies in Britain. This narrative is a Western account, the “othering” of an Indian as experienced by I’tesamuddin – which has implications of reverse Orientalism. Although I’tesamuddin is steadfast in his Islamic faith, there are moments in some of the tales that have the reader as well as I’tesamuddin questioning his own culture and Islamic faith. One example of reverse Orientalism can be seen during the Dover dance party scene, the English treated him as a “spectacle” and thought he was a dancer or actor dressed in costume to entertain them. Without knowing the English insulted I’tesamuddin, but at the same time he was not completely disapproving of their culture as well, he says, “in such attractive company, I mused, even the wisest were apt to lose the wits.” (53) The English exoticized I’tesamuddin, in the following scene describes children screaming, “Look! Look! A black man is walking down the street… Many children and small boys took me for the black devil and kept away in fear.” (54) The Wonders of Vilayet are a compilation of tales for entertaining, and although he is reluctant at first because of the way Indian culture and society view performers as low class, he eventually becomes one almost unconsciously and consciously as well. He begins to see himself as a performer at Captain Swineton’s dinner parties, one in particular where he defend’s Islam on marriage, polygamy, religion, wine and eschatology. He refers to the British as his “guests” and says, “My audience was vastly amused and burst out laughing.” (100) The shift in his reaction in the beginning to being appalled and insulted at the thought of being an entertainer to kind of embracing it is interesting to see.
Throughout his narrative, I’tesamuddin remarks on many aspects of the English culture and traditions both praising and denouncing them, but ultimately participating in the discourse of Orientalism.
I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. I’tesamuddin’s narrative initially seems to be the reverse of Orientalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts gave an ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuudin gives an ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamudden was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. The reason being is that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tessamudin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.
In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This could be seen as a reverse form of Orientalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesammudin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.
I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. It involves the stereotyping and subjugating of the “orient”, under the guise of critique or outright racism. We see examples of such Orientalism in Joseph Pitt’s account, as well as flecks of such in Lady Mary Wortley’s travels. Upon reading I’tesamuddin’s narrative, initially it seems to be the reverse of Orientalism, also known as Occidentalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley give a critical ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuddin gives a critical ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamuddin was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. Similar to other voices we have explored thus far, like that of Lady Mary Wortley and Joseph Pitts, who focus on primarily on giving objective observations (though they often fail at the objective part), I’tesamuddin likewise describes with his lens the new world into which he has been thrust; however, he does not do so with an unclouded gaze.
On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, and instead facets of Occidentalism (or appeared Occidentalism), Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. One must not forget that I’tesamuddin criticizes his own country several times, considering it not as advanced as its British counterpart. We see this when I’tesamuddin shames India for not celebrating learning and the arts as much as Britain does. In this same passage, he laments how India is not as technologically advanced (73-4), mentioning in a separate passage that they are stupid people everywhere, not just Britain, but India as well.
In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This can be seen as Occidentalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesamuddin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.
Another example of Orientalism within I’tesamuddin’s narrative is the fact that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tesamuddin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.
Lady Mary and Lord Byron have a poetic way to express their points of view about women and their roles. They both see how women lived in the shadow of their husbands, they role was to be obedient and subservient to men. A lack of civil rights has always been an issue for women even more in the Hellenistic time, and even Joseph Pitt with his concept of orientalism will give barely or nonimportance to women. He sees women lack of involvement in society as a negative recognition for women. Lady Mary, in her letter, will focus and will give more importance to the upper-class women. Lady mary is a vivid representation of how women have a place and feeling trap in a marriage without being able to do anything for herself that will make her happy but has the desire to escape from this situation. But, at the same time she judges and discriminates women from a mixed race without acknowledging it, because to her eyes mixing races is just wrong. It is interesting how she doesn’t really com to the realization that they are women as well who might be needing an escape from their lives and husbands just like her. It is important to mention how she writes the letter to her friend about the Turkish bathhouse and explains her fascination with the women body. She provides an explanation of the beauty of the Hellenic time represented by the bathhouse structure, and the division what seems the division of social classes, by this meaning the slaves and the attendees.
In contrast, Lord Byron, in his poem the Giaour, the portraits women as an object, and uses his Leila into an object of beauty but not recognizes her as a human being. A third narrator portraits her as “Bright as the jewel of giamschid, yea, soul,…” (479-480). They know and recognize her as a human being with a soul. He presents her as a but toy of a, a soulless toy for tyrant’s lust, even though he has already acknowledged her as a gorgeous woman with a mind. Again, we see how he sees women as a toy that can be used and left behind when he feels like it is appropriate. She is being underpowered just like any other women during this time. To conclude is important to notice how women are underpowered and judge not only in real time but are also is being used as inspiration for poetic art.
Throughout the texts, orientalism and the way women are portrayed are reoccurring themes. The internal fight of the authors and narrators to stay true to their own cultures despite being immersed in the others could be seen as a conflict between Orientalism and the Western ideologies as well. Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu recount their experiences as Western English travelers while immersed in these Islamic and Muslim cultures of the Ottoman Empire. Both authors set out to give a truthful and unbiased account of events. However, we begin to see that there is this natural desire to belong and be accepted and as a result each of the writers begin to identify and relate to the cultures that they write about. Though, in some passages with more criticism indicative of the influences of orientalism. “Without any exaggeration, all of the women of my acquaintance that have been married ten year have twelve or thirteen children… and are respected according to the number they have reproduced”(152). This specific quote was from the post on “Female Reproduction”, there was a comparison on the way these women were depicted for their sexuality and reproductive habits, which Lady Mary also attributed to their power and amount of respect they garnered as a woman. Lady Mary actually began to respect these women as well, despite what the ideals of her own culture say about women’s power. Through each of the texts, there is an internal conflict of the narrators to stay true to their culture, so there is a lot of flip-flopping. This could be influenced by who they think or want their audience to be, which would be the readers back home. But it seems they always return to the notion that their own cultures are superior by the way they denigrate aspects of the Islam/Muslim cultures and religions. Specifically in the “Turning Turk” post with Joseph Pitts, where he struggles with his identity, and only describes his faltering as a result of his captivity and torture. Both of these authors and their narratives have influences of orientalism and western ideologies flowing through them, though Lady Mary tries to combat orientalism, she is influenced by it as well which can be seen in various passages throughout the Turkish Embassy Letters.
Transnational Encounters with Islam in 18th- and 19th-Century British Literature 