To get us started on Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's reflections on the Ottoman Empire, respond to any of the questions below (just be sure to specify which you are answering).
- What differences do you find in the ways that Montagu addresses the various people she writes to?
- What conclusions about Montagu's values can you draw from the differences she observes between the two houses she visits?
- How does Montagu's "literal" translation of the Turkish poem differ from the translation that she casts "in the style of English poetry"? What do the differences tell you about "English poetry" or Montagu's conception of it?
- What is Montagu's attitude towards the Turkish slaves?
- Montagu is perhaps most famous for her role in bringing the concept of inoculation to England, an intention she first conveys in the letter to Sarah Chiswell on p. 178 - 179. What is worthy of note in her explanation of this practice?
- What questions do you have about Montagu's "Turkish Letters." What do you find particularly interesting, significant, or noteworthy about them?
Deadline: Monday (4/4), start of class.
9 comments:
In response to the question about inoculation, one of the most interesting aspects Montagu's letter to Sarah was her account of the Greeks who have the inoculation administered at their forehead, each arm, and breast in order for the scars to form the Christian cross. I think Montagu includes this detail as a way to show Sarah that the Ottomans, who the latter might perceive as uncivilized or entirely alien to European culture, are not the only group that practices inoculation. Despite the differences between the Greeks and British, Montagu may have been trying to advertise inoculation by noting that another Christian group from Europe has already adopted the practice.
Montagu does not want to represent inoculation as a strictly Turkish practice, for people like Sarah might reject it because of their biases. Montagu, too, retains some prejudices and is conscious of her European identity. Although she explains in her first letter that she is "far gone in Oriental learning," Montagu still has difficulty adapting to Turkish culture and thinks, "there is no possibility for a Christian to live easily under this [Ottoman] government" (178). Without explicitly challenging Sarah's preconceptions about Turkish culture, Montagu shows that inoculation has already been adopted by other groups.
I also found it interesting that she describes the Greeks who form the cross with their scars as superstitious. In fact, she notes that Greeks who are not superstitious have their inoculation administered in the legs and arms in a way that conceals the scars. Montagu implies that even superstitious individuals have adopted a medical practice that can prevent small pox, while Britain and other European countries have not. She describes inoculation as a "useful invention" (179) that she wants to promote in Britain. By rejecting an invention, British society rejects progress that even superstitious people in a foreign empire have embraced.
In regards to what can be interpreted of her values from her notings of the two houses she visited,as well as her lengthy descriptions of the surrounding country in her first letter, it is clear that she tends to be appreciative of all things lavish and beautiful. In her descriptions of the houses she visited in the last letter, she comments on her suprise upon entering the Grand Vizier's lady's house "to observe so little magnificance in her house"(p. 180) She gives very minimul detail of her time in that house and quickly proceeds to go to great lenghts to give her reader, Lady Mar, a clear mental picture of the beauty of the second houe, in particular it's inhabitant, the Kahya's lady. She spends paragraphs highlighting her hostesses beauty and concluding that "...our most celebrated English beauties would vanish near her" (p. 181).
I also found the vast differences in her translations of the poem addressed to the Sultana, one in the "Turkish style of poetry", the other translated into the "English style". Upon reading the two poems, it becomes apparent that Montagu view Turkish writers to have infinitely more fluid and passionate. Her translation in the turkish style was noticebly longer, using more graceful technique than she used in the english style of translation. She comments on her opinion between the difference of the two on page 178, "Neither do I think our English proper to express such violence of passion, wich is very seldom felt among us; and we want those compound words which are found so frequent and strong in the Turkish language".
I found her addressing of Alexander Pope quite interesting, in that there is no endearment at the beginning; she simply starts writing. Strangely, she uses the phrase "dear ____" in both of the other letters. While I don't think that it would be entirely appropriate to be mushy with anyone they are not closely acquainted with, I also find it odd that she be writing him with such vivid descriptions of Turkish customs and supply such great literary references without having some degree of familiarity. I'm curious as to their relationship, because this "dear" issue is somewhat problematic.
While I'm sure it's not too significant, she refers to Christianity in many forms quite often in that particular letter. We discussed for the midterm about just how religious Mr Pope was, and so this would only follow a very close political choice of Ms Montagu so as to play to her audience. In support, her other letters refer to "Christians" only to make the distinction between Christians and Muslims (especially in her letter to Lady Mar); as we might categorize people in any context. I found this intriguing, and it makes me wonder a little at just how religious she was.
I am answering question six. What I found notable was how personal some of her letters were. Did she intend for these letters to be published prior to writing them? I thought she used a conversational tone throughout The Turkish Embassy Letters and the letters had an unstructured type of form to them.
I found the following points noteworthy in the letter to Sarah Chiswell:
- 'Engrafting' or inoculation renders the very deadly small pox to be relatively harmless
- After being treated, they are healthy for short time and then they are ill for just over a week before making a full recovery, but on the previous page Montagu has just mentioned how she was totally deceived about staying next to people with the plague or having a cook who fell ill with it (178).
- She is satisfied enough with it to try it on her son
- She sees Doctor's incomes as a barrier to its adoption, but also sees the practice as having the potential to end small pox (which vaccination eventually does).
I think her different manners when addressing different people is interesting (in response to question one). She writes to Alexander Pope to tell him about the culture of the Turkish people and her observations of how and why they behave the way the do, as compared to English people. She also includes some Turkish literature she has learned which she thinks he will find interesting. When she's addressing her female friends, however, she talks about issues relevant to them. She talks to her first friend about vaccination because it was an issue that affected children and a family's health, which are things that were women's concern. To her other friend, she describes the Turkish women she has met and their homes. As opposed to her descriptions of the people to Alexander Pope, she focuses more on the woman's outward appearance and how she organizes her home and how their society functions in the home, rather than on their culture or behavior in general.
I found the "Turkish Letters" interesting. I feel as though while they were interesting to read, they seem like something that the author may have written in more or a manner where they did not want the entire world to see them. They do not have the feel that the author meant to share them with multiple people. The letters seemed too informal which does not fit in with published writings during the time period. I would expect writing meant for publishing to be a little more cleaned up. I wonder how the writer would react to the publishing of the letters.
In response to the question regarding her view of slaves, I found while reading that she saw them as so many beautiful, or not beautiful things, not as enslaved human beings. This was particularly evident when she was being entertained by the Kahya's lady. She frequently refers to the slaves as "fair slaves" whereas when being entertained by the Grand Vizier's lady, she simply calls them "slaves". This differentiation is the one you would make between objects, and in fact follows the line of her description of each of the houses. So, I did not really get the impression that Montagu gave any thought to the slaves except in so far as they aided in the description of the homes she visited.
Addressing the question of inoculation I found two things interesting. First is the idea of superstitious Greeks. Although she writes in a time after the Renaissance, I feel like the stereotype that Greeks would have had at the time as being the epitome of logic and reason. The beginning of the rise of Europe after the Renaissance is rooted in the appreciation for the Classic work of the Greeks. The ideas held by these ancient philosophers were for some time held as inarguable truth. But here superstitious Greeks seems to imply that they are folk-ish and believing in things that don't exist - outside of logic.
The other thing that I found interesting was her description of the practice. People are inoculated and become ill for a period of time. I feel as though for such a practice to develop, people must have had a some degree of faith or superstition related with the practice which made its recipients sick. She makes no mention of ideas of immunity. I wonder if medicine had come up with the idea yet or if the practice itself has some superstition to be carried with it. This would seem kind of hypocritical in mentioning the "superstitious Greeks."
Post a Comment