2011 is the 400th birthday of Evliya Celebi's birth. There's a gorgeous online exhibition about him here. Horseback riding enthusiasts might be interested in this project, to make it possible for riders to recreate one of Celebi's journey, just as this crew is doing right now. A number of different websites inform me that Evliya Celebi has been announced as the 2011 UNESCO Man of the Year (except for the UNESCO website, which doesn't seem to acknowledge that category of distinction at all).
Celebi's Book of Travels presents a different set of challenges than the some of the other nonwestern works that we've looked at thus far. Unlike Matsuo Basho's Narrow Road to the Deep North, Cao Xuequin's Story of the Stone, and Chikamatsu Monzaemon's Love Suicides at Amijima, this narrative is not an explicitly literary one. Whatever its merits, it is not the work of a consciously literary artist working within a recognized genre. In that respect, it may present similar interpretive challenges as the text you've selected from ECCO for your second assignment.
The question for you to address: how does one begin with such a text? What kinds of interpretive questions does it make sense to ask? What kinds of interpretive issues here invite exploration? Respond with some thoughts about how we readers can find our way into this text.
Deadline: Monday (3/28), start of class.
5 comments:
The Book of Travel may pose some interpretive problems for us since it cannot be entirely reduced according to a particular genre or a combination of genres, but I think identifying Celebi’s audience and his position in the Ottoman court can offer us insight regarding the types of observations Celebi makes on his journey. As a member of Murad IV’s court, Celebi wrote mainly for Turkish intellectuals who wanted an account of the diverse populations and geographies that constituted the Ottoman Empire (397). As a result, he balances two competing demands: giving a detailed account of his travels and conveying information that the court would find informative, entertaining, and reassuring.
When describing the people of Diyarbekir, Celebi notes that they “arouse the envy of the whole world because of the pleasures and enjoyments that they have on the bank of the Tigris for seven or eight months of the year” (402). Members of the Ottoman court would have probably been pleased with this account, for they would much rather rule over foreign populations that are prosperous and content than those that are destitute and therefore disposed to rebellion. As further assurance that Ottoman rule is welcomed by conquered groups, Celebi claims that the people of Diyarbekir “continually pray for the welfare of the imperial state” (402). He suggests that conquered populations accept their status as subjects and affirm the legitimacy of Ottoman imperialism.
Even though Celebi was a scholar who wanted to capture the diversity of the Ottoman Empire’s vast territories and multitude of populations, he was also conscious of the demands placed on him by virtue of his role in the royal court. We can still appreciate the artistry of his accounts, but understanding Celebi’s professional responsibilities offers valuable context for understanding the choices he made when documenting his journey.
I think that the main interpretive question to ask is why Celebi chose to write this Book of Travels, and how what he wrote would have served that purpose. As suggested by the above post, Celebi would have written this piece at least in part to promote Ottoman rule and praise the court of which he was a part. I think that it is interesting in reading this work to see what values were upheld by this society. If the above purpose was in fact why Celebi wrote this work, than it can be presumed that what he wrote about was meant to be read in a positive light by his audience. Given this, I found one of the most striking passages to be that regarding the "chastity and devoutness" of the women in Diyarbekir. He praises these women and this city because "If people were to see a young girl in public they would kill her or at least reprimand her father" (403). Celebi speaks of this as a positive facet of society in Diyarbekir. It was this passage which, for me, most emphasized the "foreignness" of the places and time Celebi described. I think that it is key in reading this work to remember the precise geographic and historic moment from which it arises.
On a more technical note, I think one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome in reading a work which is not inherently literary is it's lack of a coherent plot line. The work has a purpose, but without a plot it can be difficult to fully immerse oneself in the moment and place that Celebi describes. This makes for somewhat slower reading than the other works we've dealt with.
One thing we need to ask ourselves is how strong is our western bias? After all, since the days of Persia and Classical Greece, the West and the Middle East have been rivals on the world stage. While reading this account of Celebi's travels, you'll notice that many of the stories of battle speak of Europeans and Slavs as infidels, and if we don't distance ourselves from our Western "instincts", we could begin to be annoyed by Celebi's accounts. Suddenly, we might not be judging the work for its historical significance or from Celebi's point of view, and I don't think it's fair that we should judge Celebi for demonizing these people when Europeans have done the same thing to the Ottomans and other Middle Eastern nations. My point is, when beginning this reading, put any feelings of nationalism and Western pride you have and start considering this from an Ottoman's point of view.
I think that everyone that has posted so far have a point, we are not able to fully understand Celebi's manner of thinking because we are not from the same country. Our believes differ, that is not to say that we also do not have things in common. Dema argued that Celebi may have posted that they “arouse the envy of the whole world because of the pleasures and enjoyments that they have on the bank of the Tigris for seven or eight months of the year,” because of the pressure that he felt from his fellow citizens (402). I am not so sure that that is true, is it not possible to think that maybe Celebi like any other man or women in the world would have pride in their own country and is thus not being forced to write this, but wrote this because he believes it himself. RJB states that Celebi praises these women and this city because "if people were to see a young girl in public they would kill her or at least reprimand her father" (403). Of course like I have stated this could be because he honestly believes that there is no place with better inhabitants than where he lives, though to the outside world we cannot share the same opinion. To us who believe that a women should have the same choices and men have come to look at the ways that women are treated in Muslim countries as very repressive. This shows that the manner in which we may look at things from the outside are not how people within the country may see it. Also one thing that really did confuse me was when Celebi began to speak about pilgrimages to various places. As far as I know the five pillars of Islam only state one place to which every muslim must journey to when they are in good health and financially able to do so at that is Mecca at least once in their lifetime. I was really confused in why he was mentioning other places, could it be that he though they had some historical importance. I am also assuming that this is talking about Muslim countries, I could be way off.
Having the ability to research the background of Celebi's life and story I have a different outlook on this story. I understand that he found interest in travels and the land therefore made this is profession in a sense. He does not provide a explicitly literary account of the travels, but his text served and still does serve as a way of understanding the life and times of the Ottoman Empire. The way one would begin with this text is to approach it as something that will enlighten you on this nonwestern area. The many volumes that he produces explores numerous other genres or subjects than the piece of information that the Longman Anthology provides. One thing that is important to bring up is the way that this text serves to the community of readers. With having such detailed accounts of the area, are we forced to understand and believe that this was the way that the land was? Or does it still fall into that category of things that we can not believe completely because it is a single and partially proven perspective?
Post a Comment