Turkey:  The threatening, exotic east
 

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu on Turkey

Turkish Embassy Letters (1763)

Lady Mary in Turkish dress

Page contents:
Introduction
Lady Mary at the baths
The problems of travel writing
Links related to Lady Mary
Excerpts

Introduction

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762) is the most famous 18^th-century writer on Turkey.  In fact, she is probably also the most famous female travel writer of her century, as noted by Katherine Turner:  “Fewer than twenty British women published travel narratives during the eighteenth century, and Montagu was the pioneer of this small but highly significant cluster of women, whose works provide a fascinating, often oblique, commentary on the cultural and political trends of their time” (Turner 113). In 1717, she accompanied her husband, Edward Wortley Montagu, on a two-year visit to Turkey, where he was posted as ambassador extraordinary for the British government and a representative of the Levant Company.  Before she went, Lady Mary built upon her already strong education (an autodidact, she taught herself classical languages and other subjects via her father’s library).  Billie Melman describes her background:

Montagu ... had mastered both the Arabian Nights and François Petis de la Croix’s Mille et un jours (1710-1712), commonly known as the Persian Tales and, before and during her journey, had embarked on a Jesuitical syllabus that included the Koran, in the French version, and practically every available report in English and French on the Ottoman Empire (notably the works of travelers like Paul Rycault, Rchard Knolles, François Thevanot, George Sandys, Aaron Hill, Dumont and G. F. Gemelli-Carreri), not to mention the classics (Montagu’s command of Latin was noted in her own days) and Turkish prose and poetry which, by the middle of 1717, she could study in the original. (Melman, 83)

Lady Mary was thus well placed to comment on what she saw in Turkey, in the context of what had already been published on the topic.  Her reading becomes crucial, because one of the main points critics have raised about her reports of Turkey is how they tried to augment and correct the common images of Turks, especially of Turkish women, that earlier reports had propagated. 

Her reports took the form of letters home to England and France, to various recipients:  her sister and her friends, including Alexander Pope.  These letters, as their editor Robert Halsband says, "are not actual letters she sent to her friends and relations; they are, instead, a compilation of pseudo-letters . ... Although they are clearly an accurate record of her experiences and observations during her tow-year sojourn abroad, we may still wonder to what extent they are based on real letters" (Montagu xiv). Though her daughter attempted to prevent it, the manuscript was published as the Turkish Embassy Letters in 1763, one year after Lady Mary's death. Even then, some (including her own daughter and the later traveler to Turkey, Elizabeth Lady Craven), speculated that these letters were too masculine for Lady Mary to have written. A spurious fourth volume of letters was also published.

Her work continues to stimulate discussion to this day, as readers puzzle over whether Lady Mary's letters were feminist efforts to correct images of Turks, or were another orientalizing, and thus a colonizing, attempt of textual domination. This page will explore some of the common and controversial themes in her letters, the images of Turks she attempts to build and destroy, and the conflicted composite that results.

Back to top

Lady Mary at the baths

The most critically analyzed segment of Lady Mary’s Letters is her report of her visit to a Turkish bath or hamam.  Read a three-paragraph excerpt.

The continuing critical attention to this letter is surprising, given that it is merely one out of fifty-two.  However, I believe this critical obsession reveals a tendency of attention with which Lady Mary was familiar in her readers, of which she was conscious in her writing, and which is common to this day. In dealing with a predominantly male readership (and here I speak of her published Embassy Letters and not the private documents from which they derived, though those, too, were somewhat of a public performance), any descriptions of a private female world were automatically sexualized.  Melman and others have spoken to this in their examinations of the fascination of the community of the harem throughout Western literature (Melman 59-162), and we see the same assumptions in British writings about women in convents in Catholic countries.  How can these communities possibly exist without men, the writers seem to ask.  And what happens to the female sexual energy that is not dissipated by regular male attention?

How does Lady Mary show her consciousness of this voyeurism? Does she work to disarm it, or does she hope to use it to pique interest in her account?

One way to consider these questions is to ask whether or not she is able to disarm it, or she is able to avoid piquing interest.  While the first seems to offer her some promise (she could, for example, continue the stereotypical image of the harem), the second seems inescapable for a woman writer of the time who wanted to write on this topic to a Western, Christian, male audience.  No matter what she would have written, given the interpretative community into which she deposited her letters, she could not avoid the eroticized gaze of her readers.  This is the main reason why she states outright:  “there was not the least wanton smile or immodest Gesture amongst 'em.”  She praises everything about the bath experience:  the lack of visible class distinctions (encouraged by the lack of clothing); the creation of a women’s coffeehouse, a community space for women nonexistent in European societies; the beauty of the women’s hair and white skin. While she does introduce male artists and writers into her account (Milton, Jervas), we can see this not as siding with these male voyeurs on this woman’s world, but as a way of aestheticizing this experience, of de-emphasizing the women’s nudity as a moral issue to think of it as an artistic one.  Bohls states that "by comparing the bathing women to works of European art, she attempts to de-eroticize and de-exoticize them, neutralizing Orientalist stereotypes" (Bohls 181).  In addition, she needed cultural touchstones with which to bring the tableau into focus for her European readers, and she certainly did not have many female artists or cultural authorities to which she could turn for analogy or comparison.

The test for Lady Mary comes when the women in the bath implore her to undress and join them.  She states:

The Lady that seem'd the most considerable amongst them entreated me to sit by her and would fain have undress'd me for the bath. I excus'd my selfe with some difficulty, they being all so earnest in perswading me. I was at last forc'd to open my skirt and shew them my stays, which satisfy'd 'em very well, for I saw they beleiv'd I was so lock'd up in that machine that it was not in my own power to open it, which contrivance they attributed to my Husband. (Montagu 314)

By remaining clothed and not “going native,” Lady Mary retains her outsider status, one required by the ethos she needs to maintain for the respect of her European readers.  As Srinivas Aravamudan says,

in continuing to maintain herself in full dress, she appears both dignified and ridiculous, imprisoned by her own culture.  She has pulled off a beautiful improvisation, successfully negotiating the Scylla of offending her Turkish hosts and the Charybdis of scandalizing her English readers.  By banking on Turkish cultural misapprehension, she narrowly escapes the sacrifice of her English virtue.  However, doubly bound as her body is by her lingerie, she is also in a fictional double bind as she is masquerading in the same costume for two audiences simultaneously. (Aravamudan, 178)

Aravamudan continues that by showing the women her undergarments and letting them believe them the work of an overprotective spouse, “she allows the Turkish women to interpret her cultural limitations, about which she may not want to complain directly” (180).  Kahf holds that “here it is the Turkish women who see the English women as deprived of a liberty they consider basic” (Kahf 122).  Thus, what begins for the English reader as a titillating view into the women’s bath—a way of maintaining British superiority—becomes a way for Montagu slyly to criticize how her own culture restricts freedom for women while simultaneously congratulating itself on being a land of liberty.

Teresa Heffernan sensibly concludes about the critical debate of Lady Mary as colonist that "it would be reductive either to dismiss Lady Mary's text as irredeemably orientalist or to herald it as unquestionably feminist" (Heffernan 202).

Back to top

The problems of travel writing

Montagu was conscious of her readers throughout the construction of this series of letters, and her rhetorical sense guided much of what she wrote. As noted previously, she was particularly conscious of the position of the Embassy Letters in the intertext of earlier works on Turkey. She refers to them in her work, sometimes by name but often in general as simply "writers," both to establish her own credibility and to set her account apart from theirs. She is also impatient with the assumptions that a traveler who leaves the safety of the West will undoubtedly be met with the incredible, the magical, and the frightening.

She mockingly dismisses one of the most well-known of these writers: "Sir Paul Rycaut is mistaken (as he commonly is)" in some of his assumptions about Islamic sects (Montagu 318). She may have his book in mind when she counters several common myths of marital relations in the Turkish royal household, the Seraglio:

I did not omit this oppertunity of learning all that I possibly could of the Seraglio, which is so entirely unknown amongst us. She assur'd me that the story of the Sultan's throwing a Handkercheif [to a virgin he wishes to deflower] is altogether fabulous ... Neither is there any such thing as her creeping in at the bed's feet. She said that the first he made choice of was always the first in rank, and not the Mother of the eldest Son, as other writers would make us beleive. (383)

As with most of her letters, she is especially concerned that the lives of Turkish women be perceived properly, since most of the previous travelers to the region have been men and thus were writing out of speculation, since they would not have been allowed in the women's quarters. In writing of their vanities and transgressions, she notes to her correspondent: " 'Tis just as tis with you'; and the Turkish Ladys don't commit one Sin the less for not being Christians. Now I am a little acquainted with their ways, I cannot forbear admiring either the exemplary discretion or extreme Stupidity of all the writers that have given accounts of 'em (327-28). Turkish women are similar to European women, in their interest in clothes and family, but also in their faults: this is a gesture that can humanize these women for her correspondent, as well as to give these women agency by showing how they are free to choose right and wrong.

The situation of the perceiver determines what the person perceives, and thus what the person can and should write (for writing truth seems to be a moral imperative to her).  In addition to gender, social class and occupation will direct what the traveler observes:

Tis certain we have but very imperfect relations of the manners and Religion of these people, this part of the World being but seldom visited but by merchants who mind little but their own Affairs, or Travellers who make too short a stay to be able to report any thing exactly of their own knowledge. The Turks are too proud to converse familiarly with merchants etc., who can only pick up some confus'd informations which are generally false, and they can give no better an Account of the ways here than a French refugee lodging in a Garret in Greek street [French Protestant London neighborhood] could write of the Court of England. (316)

Her irritation at her correspondents' unrealistic expectations of travel writers in general and in her letters is evident in several places.  In this one, she chides a noblewoman who has apparently been asking for the relation of marvels:

'tis my regard to Truth and not Lazynesse that I do not entertain you with as many prodigys as other Travellers use to divert their Readers with. I might easily pick up wonders in every Town I pass through, or tell you a long series of Popish miracles, but I cannot fancy that there is any thing new in letting you know that preists can lye and the mob beleive all over the World ... Would you have me write novelles like the Countesse of D'Aunois? and is it not better to tell you a plain Truth, that I am etc." (292-93)

She distinguishes herself from novelists and romance-writers like Aubin who irresponsibly depict the barbaric conduct of Muslims and their exotic world. Later, she repents a bit of her tone and writes to her sister,

I have writ a letter to Lady --- that I beleive she won't like, and upon cooler refflexion, I think I had done better to leave it alone, but I was downright peevish at all her Questions and her ridiculous imagination that I have certainly seen an abundance of wonders that I keep to my self out of sheer malice. She is angry that I won't lie like other travellers. I verily beleive she expects I should tell her of the Anthropophagi [and] men whose heads grow below their shoulders. (296)

In another passage, also to her sister, she sums up the whole problem:

We Travellers are in very hard circumstances. If we say nothing but what has been said before us, we are dull and have observ'd nothing. If we tell anything new, we are laugh'd at as fabulous and Romantic, not allowing for the difference in ranks, which afford difference in company, more Curiosity, or the changes of customs that happen every 20 years in every Company. But people judge of Travellers exactly with the same Candour, good Nature, and impartiality they judge of their Neighbours upon all Occasions. ... But I depend upon your knowing me enough to believe whatever I seriously assert for truth, thô I give you leave to be surpriz'd at such an account so new to you. (385)

As an Enlightenment thinker, Montagu "aims her debunking arsenal at the narrow, parochial, scholastic mind that rejects not only deductive reasoning, but empirical evidence, because they do not fits its preconceptions" (Kahf 124). Whatever her shortcomings, she is committed to her vision: a gesture of confidence in her perceptions, which, though accessible to her because of her aristocratic standing, was still an admirable act of will in 18th-century Britain.  One of that nation's clearest portrayals of the East came from a woman's pen.

Back to top

Related links:

Selected poetry and prose

Lady Mary and smallpox vaccination

Selected Turkish Embassy letters

Back to top

Excerpt from the letter about women's baths (April 1, 1717, Adrianople):

In one of these cover'd Waggons I went to the Bagnio about 10 a clock. It was allready full of women. It is built of Stone in the shape of a Dome with no Windows but in the Roofe, which gives Light enough. There was 5 of these domes joyn'd together, the outmost being less than the rest and serving only as a hall where the portress stood at the door. Ladies of Quality generally give this Woman the value of a crown or 10 shillings, and I did not forget that ceremony. The next room is a very large one, paved with Marble, and all round it rais'd 2 Sofas of marble, one above another. There were 4 fountains of cold Water in this room, falling first into marble Basins and then running on the floor in little channels made for that purpose, which carry'd the streams into the next room, something less than this, with the same sort of marble sofas, but so hot with steams of sulphur proceeding from the baths joyning to it, twas impossible to stay there with one's Cloths on. The 2 other domes were the hot baths, one of which had cocks of cold Water turning into it to temper it to what degree of warmth the bathers have a mind to.

I was in my travelling Habit, which is a rideing dress, and certainly appear'd very extrordinary to them, yet there was not one of 'em that shew'd the least surprise or impertinent Curiosity, but receiv'd me with all the obliging civility possible. I know no European Court where the Ladys would have behav'd them selves in so polite a manner to a stranger.

I beleive in the whole there were 200 Women and yet none of those disdainfull smiles or satyric whispers that never fail in our assemblys when any body appears that is not dress'd exactly in fashion. They repeated over and over to me, Uzelle, pek uzelle, which is nothing but, charming, very charming. The first sofas were cover'd with Cushions and rich Carpets, on which sat the Ladys, and on the 2nd 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, without any Beauty or deffect conceal'd, yet there was not the least wanton smile or immodest Gesture amongst 'em. They Walk'd and mov'd with the same majestic Grace which Milton describes of our General Mother. There were many amongst them as exactly proportion'd as ever any Goddess was drawn by the pencil of Guido or Titian, and most of their skins shineingly white, only adorn'd by their Beautiful Hair divided into many tresses hanging on their shoulders, braided either with pearl or ribband, perfectly representing the figures of the Graces. I was here convinc'd of the Truth of a Refflection that I had often made, that if twas the fashion to go naked, the face would be hardly observ'd. I perceived that the Ladys 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 companions. To tell you the truth, I had wickedness enough to wish secretly that Mr. Gervase [Jervas] could have been there invisible. I fancy it would have very much improv'd 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 (generally pritty girls of 17 or 18) were employ'd in braiding their hair in several pritty manners. In short, tis the Women's coffee house, where all the news of the Town is told, Scandal invented, etc. They gennerally take this Diversion once a week, and stay there at least 4 or 5 hours without getting cold by immediate coming out of the hot bath into the cool room, which was very surprising to me. (Montagu 313-14).

Compare this description to that of the baths by Elizabeth Lady Craven.

Back to top

Source of image Lady Mary image: http://www.twickenham-museum.org.uk/detail.asp?ContentID=180

Source of image Ingres image: http://mulot.free.fr/art/03%20-%20Ingres%20-%20le%20bain%20turc-1-0.html

Return to Turkey homepage.