Interaction between Europeans and the Muslim world dates back to the beginning of Islam, followed by the Muslim conquests. Past scholars often presented the interaction with Islam during the history of Early Modern Europe as one of conflict and competition. The defense of Vienna from the Ottoman Empire in both 1529 and 1683 consumes much of the scholarship surrounding early modern Europe. The Hapsburgs received praise and gratitude from Europe for driving the foe of Christendom from their capital city. In their effort to inspire resistance against the Ottoman Empire, the Hapsburgs encouraged a stereotype of the Muslim barbarian, leading to hatred and fear. Other scholars concentrate on the Reconquista and the conversion and assimilation of the Moriscos. 1609-1614 witnessed the mass expulsion of all Muslims, with people forcibly removed from their homes and expelled from Spain. However, not all interactions led to conflict. Queen Elizabeth I worked to build strong commercial and diplomatic ties with the Ottoman and Moroccan empires and received Muslim ambassadors with ceremonial grandeur. Scholarship centered on the Islamic world received a challenge with the publication of Edward Said’s book Orientalism. Said challenged the practice of Western scholarship treatment of the East as the “Other,” reflecting the prejudices of Western superiority and progress. Said argued that Orientalism reflects an imperialistic attitude of Western supremacy and Eastern inferiority. Said receives credit for forcing historians to reconsider their approach toward Islam and the East and beginning a new discipline of postcolonial studies. Said’s ideas forced historians to re-evaluate the history of Islamic-Western interactions. This paper aims to examine how historians have dealt with the interactions between the Islamic World and Western Europe during the Early Modern period in light of the changes brought about by Edward Said's Orientalism. This paper will examine the following five volumes:
Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism claims that Western
scholarship viewed the Middle East and the larger Eastern world as inferior and
backward, representing the “high-handed executive attitude of nineteenth and
early-twentieth European colonialism”[1] The Western or Occidental view of the Orient
reflected the imperialistic attitudes held by Western writers and historians. Said
presents Orientalism as an overarching attitude of superiority shaped by
imperialism, demonstrating Orientalism as a “sign of European-Atlantic power”
over the East.[2]
Imperialism and the resulting colonialism not only constructed a political rule
over the East but also promoted a philosophy that promoted the idea that the
West was superior to the Orient. According to Said, Western academics were
closely connected to the system of political power ruling the East, thereby
supporting the system of imperial domination over the East. While Said’s field
was literary criticism, his analysis led historians to reconsider their
presuppositions and prejudices dominated by imperialism and assumptions of
Occidental superiority.
Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between "the Orient" and (most of the time) "the Occident." Thus a very large mass of writers, among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators, have accepted the fundamental distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, epics, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, "mind," destiny, and so on.[3]
Said
claimed that Western historians study the Orient as defined compared to the
West. The West is the beginning point, and scholars examine those features that
portray the East as exotic and primitive. By studying the Orient as the Other,
the historian commits a political act justifying Western hegemony. Western
dominance demonstrates itself not only through militaristic campaigns but also
through the use of benevolence.
 |
| Edward Said from Arab News |
Said poses the problem of whether
one can divide human reality into "different cultures, histories,
traditions, societies, even races " without creating a division of us vs.
them.[4] Said contends that
divisions create categories like Oriental and Western, limiting human encounters between cultures and societies. Western power over the Orient
is accepted as natural and scientific.[5] Orientalism entails the
recognition of European domination over the East, with European knowledge of
the Orient becoming entangled with the acceptance of Western rule.[6] Knowledge and
interpretation of the Orient were understood through a Western filter. Said
demonstrates his dependence upon Michel Foucault’s ideas of discourse when
discussing the construction of the Orient and the connection between discourse
and power. Foucault is influential as Said contends that conquest and
domination are linked to the process of construction and categorization. The
political process of subjugation has a direct link to textual representation,
as seen in media, history, and literature. Foucault aids Said in pointing out
the ways in which all power is molded by discourse.[7] The West constructs
preconceived notions that shape the reality perceived by the Western Orientalist.
A text containing knowledge about the East and reinforced by Western expertise
can not only create knowledge or reality about a subject but also produce a
tradition that Foucault describes as a discourse.[8] Orientalism becomes a
“Western projection and will to govern over the Orient.”[9]
 |
| Michel Foucault from Colunas Tortas |
Western representation of the Orient
becomes fundamentally false and unreliable. As representations, Said contends that Western representations of the East are all entrenched in the culture of the West and, therefore, reflect the priorities of the reporter. The difference
between an accurate and false representation is one of degree, because “all
representations, because they are
representations, are embedded first in the language and then in the culture,
institutions, and political ambience of the representer.”[10] Said claims that because
Western representations of the East remain intertwined with the motives and
culture of the West, they need to be viewed as misrepresentations.
Said’s Orientalism profoundly impacted historiography as historians
wrestled with understanding interactions between different people groups during
the early modern period. Said's critique of the Orientalist mindset led many
scholars to question how different groups understood the "values and
customs" of each other, especially during first meetings. Said's impact
led many historians to emphasize the “incommensurability”
innate in early interactions between disparate populations. This concept
influenced historians to believe that people from different cultures would have
no basis for common understanding and would find each other
"unintelligible." The idea of incommensurability
led many historians to believe that societies formed closed cultural
systems that made it impossible for outsiders to understand. Incommensurability
led many historians to question the use of ethnographic sources and seeing the
need to investigate “misunderstandings, misperceptions, and mistaken
assumptions” inherent in European ethnography.[11] While this approach
appears to create skepticism regarding the primary sources used in the study of
early modern Europe and to question global history through a Western
Civilization template, instead, historians began to incorporate global
perspectives and investigate the cultural exchanges that occurred during the
early modern period.[12] Said encourages
historians to avoid a polarized view of history, which interprets the
differences between the West and the Orient as a relationship between a “strong
and a weak partner.”[13]
Said's descriptions of Orientalism
center primarily upon the British and French interactions beginning with
Napoleon's incursion into Egypt. Said's claims that Westerners assumed hegemony
over the Orient might look differently when viewed through the exchanges
between Early Modern Europeans and Muslims when Muslim Turks battled Austrian
Catholics on the outskirts of Vienna. Paula Sutter Fichtner challenges Said's
criticism of Western histories centered on the East while also examining the
Hapsburg response to the Ottoman conquests and the siege of Vienna in her book,
Terror and Toleration The Habsburg Empire
Confronts Islam, 1526-1850. In her examination of the 1529 and 1683 Ottoman
siege of Vienna, Fichtner pays special attention to the Austrian representation
of Turks soon after the sieges and the changes to the way the Austrians viewed
the Turkish image through the years. In contrast to Said, Fichtner points to
the transformation of how central Europeans viewed Muslims through a lens of
suspicion, slowly began to change their minds on how they viewed the Other.
Early modern Europeans remained
convinced that Christianity was superior to Islam and that the future of the
Christian faith depended on defending the faith from the Muslim horde.
Depicting Islam as the Other entailed a description of the Turks using the
darkest language possible. Repeated encounters with the Muslim Turks transformed
the Muslims into "the terror of the world," with Europe painted as
the "geographic synonym for Christendom."[14] The slaughter of
Christians in the village of Perchtoldsdorf became a symbol of Muslim savagery
and barbarity. The distinction between geographic integrity and protection of
the faith became synonymous. Hapsburg propaganda continually painted the Turks
and Islam in the darkest ways imaginable to inspire an urge among the people to
resist the invaders to the death. The fear of losing one's salvation under
Muslim rule received reinforcement from the Church and the practice of Turkish
armies to destroy churches and abbeys. Christians genuinely feared losing their
salvation under Turkish rule.[15]
But the portrayal of Muslims as the Other
rested upon experience through conflict rather than a bigoted desire created by
a need to dominate. Fichtner counters Said, demonstrating that the need to see
Turks as the Other lessened as the military threat passed with the decline of
the Ottoman empire. As early as the seventeenth century, central Europeans
began to view the Ottomans with more balance and curiosity, reporting on the
similarities and differences of the Sultan's empire with their kingdoms.
Ethical, racial, sexual, and ethical denunciations lessened.[16] European rhetoric became
less antagonistic toward the Turks as Europeans desired greater diplomatic
relationships. The eighteenth century witnessed the growth of Russia into a
rival empire, which became a rival for both the Hapsburgs and the Ottomans.
Cultural and commercial exchanges led to a
desire to learn the Turkish language and culture. The Oriental Academy in
Vienna trained linguists and translators for the diplomatic service. Fichtner
pays special attention to the research and writings of Joseph von
Hammer-Purgstall (1774-1856). In contrast to Said’s portrayal of the
Orientalists, Hammer-Purgstall demonstrated openness and a belief in the
oneness of mankind and the universality of reason rooted in Enlightenment
thinking. As he explored Islamic theology, Hammer-Purgstall found certain
aspects of Islam attractive, which reinforced his ideas on the "mutual
intelligibility of all faiths."[17] Hammer-Purgstall and
other central European scholars aimed to increase their knowledge of Ottoman
culture and languages by studying the available texts. Fichtner contends that
these scholars bear little resemblance to what she labels “Said’s compliant
Orientalists, who respected the wishes of patrons more than the actual language
of sources.”[18]
However, Fichtner's critique falls short as Said focuses his complaints on the
imperialistic sources of France and Britain, who made little effort to hide
their desire to dominate the East.
The English engaged in multiple
interactions with Muslims during the English Renaissance. This period is
regularly identified as the Age of Discovery, with most historians mainly
focusing on the expansion of Europeans into the Americas. Nabil Matar
recognizes the importance of European exploration in the Western Hemisphere but
maintains that European exploration and interaction within the Mediterranean
Muslim world was more extensive than American exploration. Matar explores the
interaction of the English with the Muslim world in his book Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of
Discovery. Like Fichtner, Matar examines a period of contact before the
imperialism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that characterizes so
much of Said's concerns. Matar centers his study from the late sixteenth to the
early eighteenth century, demonstrating that diplomatic relations with Muslims
trace back to the reign of Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth was the first English
monarch to cooperate openly with Muslims, and English subjects were granted the
ability to trade with Muslims. Elizabeth offered both Turkish and Moroccan
rulers beneficial trade agreements and viewed the Moroccans as potential allies
against Spain. Neither Elizabeth nor her subjects consider Muslim lands as
potential ventures for colonization. Through the years, Muslims regularly
appeared in English documents after being freed by British sailors or coming to
England on trading missions.[19]
Matar contends that critics misinterpret
the travelogues and drama of English writers in their analysis of the literary
sources using postcolonial sources. This led to literary critics embracing a
"postcolonial template" of a pre-colonial world. Matar gives the
example of Thomas More’s Utopia,
which argued for a colonial discourse through subjugating Native Americans.
But, More’s chief worry regarding the Turks was the ability of the Turks to
conquer Christian lands.[20] Muslims were not viewed
as a target for colonialism in Renaissance England but rather as a potential
foe.
Matar argues that initially, the
attraction to North Africa remained stronger than that to North America, which
King James believed was better used as a destination for unwanted Britons.[21] North Africa was a more
significant source of gold, and the Muslim Mediterranean hosted large numbers
of traders and merchants, giving England connections to North Africa and the
Levant. During the first three decades of the seventeenth century, the English
viewed Muslim lands as an opportunity for wealth and military bravery, with
more Britons within Muslim lands than settling in American colonies. North Africa
appealed to the English over America because the treasuries of Mulay as-Mansur
contained far more gold than that found in the newly established colony in
Virginia. Muslim lands offered more promise of riches than any found among the
Indians of Virginia and Massachusetts.[22]
Said describes the work of the Orientalist
within the colonialism paradigm. The West becomes the "technician of
empire" and the "beneficiary of empire."[23] The mother country
becomes the seat of power, with the imperial specialist serving the interests
of the home country against the interests of the natives. Colonialism became a
form of discourse, with the Oriental becoming a subject race. But, there was no
colonial discourse between Renaissance England and Muslim rulers. Muslim lands
were not colonial targets in the seventeenth century. Matar argues that the
fact that Muslims were beyond their colonial reach led the English to view
Muslims as the Other. Britons began to “demonize, polarize, and alterize”
Muslims.[24]
Stereotypes created by ‘dramatists and travelers, theologians, and polemicists
gained broad appeal and created an image of the Turk as cruel, deceitful, and
tyrannical and the Moor as sexually driven, violent, and superstitious.[25] While most of the
stereotypes were not reflected within government and diplomatic documents, the
anti-Muslim categories that appeared in literature began to mold the national
consciousness of England. Matar maintains that the English started to view
Muslims as the Other by imposing their view of Native Americans onto Muslims.
Because the English could not bring Muslims under their "intellectual and
colonial control," the English employed a "discourse of
superimposition" by linking the image of the defeated Indian to the
undefeated Muslim.[26] This discourse created an
Otherness that separated the English from both the Indian and the Muslim. While
Said described colonialism as a form of discourse, then Renaissance English
writers produced a discourse minus colonialism by taking the discourse of
conquest directed toward Indians and imposing it onto Muslims.[27] Muslims eventually became identified as the
Other and branded as brutal and immoral, despite the frequent contacts Muslims
had during the Age of Discovery.
The accounts of individual English men
traveling within the Muslim world during the Early Modern period are shared in
Gerald MacLean's book, The Rise of Oriental Travel: English Visitors to the
Ottoman Empire, 1580-1720. Matar indicated the importance of the travelogue
in shaping English opinion of Islam. MacLean recounts the stories of four very
different English men as they encountered Islamic cultures before the formation
of the British Empire. Each section provides a different aspect of English
travel and reveals the intricacy of English reactions to the Orient in the
seventeenth century. In addition to the responses of four individuals, MacLean
looks to make "an enquiry into the global formations of Englishness
itself."[28]
In examining these four accounts, MacLean discovers that English approaches
toward the Ottoman Empire were not always characterized by hostility or fear.
While often cautious, English travelers in the early modern period did not
always encounter aggression from Muslims but were often treated with great
hospitality. The notion that conflict has always been the norm between the West
and the Islamic World is developed through a selective use of history. MacLean
also agrees with Matar that life within the Muslim Mediterranean offered many
English an attractive opportunity. Many English journeyed to the Islamic
Mediterranean and stayed, while others who returned found that the experience
transformed what it meant to be English.[29]
The Rise of Oriental Travel divides into four major sections, with each one
dedicated to each of the travelers. Thomas Dallam was an artisan who built an
intricate clockwork musical organ for the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed III. Dallam
played the organ before the Sultan, quickly becoming the most influential
Englishman in the Sultan's court. While Dallam eventually returned to England,
his account offered details about the court and developed a keen eye for his
surroundings. William Biddulph served as a chaplain in Aleppo for eight years. Unlike
the unattached nature of Dallam, Biddulph spent much of his writing condemning
Islam and Catholics but demonstrated interest in clerical culture and the
beliefs of other religious groups. He also stayed aware of any practice that
threatened Christian morality; therefore, Biddulph paid particular attention to
strange sexual practices.[30]
The journeys of
Sir Henry Blount encompass the third section of MacLean's travelers. Blount's
travels to Istanbul in the early seventeenth century reveal a traveler who
viewed other cultures with tolerance and a rationalist investigation into the
Muslim world. As a follower of the Baconian scientific method, Blount
demonstrated a rationalist practice that reveals little evidence of the
Christian supernaturalism that Said claimed dominated discourse before the
French Enlightenment.[31]
Blount appears to be genuinely curious about the East and wishes to judge the
Muslim world rationally, which stands in direct contrast to Said's picture of
Westerners seeing Islam at best as a misguided version of Christianity and, at
worst, a religion begun by religious leaders guilty of moral and doctrinal
failures.[32] Whereas Biddulph carried
a Bible to guide him into the East, Blount carried Caesar’s “Commentary” with
the goal of historical and cultural tourism.[33]
The last section
comprises the tales of an unknown English man only known as "Mr.
T.S." T.S. claimed to be an Englishman enslaved by the Ottomans, allowing
him to partake in military valor and sexual dalliances. His account is far
different than the previous three travelers. T.S.’s account is clearly fantastical
with difficulty determining facts, but MacLean admits that the fiction may
contain reliable historical sources for military and diplomatic missions.[34]
As a travelogue, the account of T.S. reveals more about the English view of Providence,
as T.S. viewed his circumstances as providential, which contrasts closely with
Blount's logical and rationalist approach to the Muslim world. MacLean’s
recounting of the English traveler’s experiences demonstrates the difficulties
voyagers faced during the Early Modern period but also provides a challenge to
Said, signifying the varied responses and attitudes among English trekkers
toward the East. But both Biddulph and T.S. reflect Said’s ideas that the West
views the Orient as inferior and sexually immoral. While many of these views of
“Oriental backwardness, degeneracy, and inequality” were fully formed in the
nineteenth century, it’s easy to observe how travel tales of the seventeenth
century emphasizing Muslim degeneracy lay the groundwork for the view of
Oriental inferiority that Said describes.[35]
MacLean adds
more insights in a series of essays in his book
Looking East: English Writing and the Ottoman Empire before 1800.
He arranges his essays in chronological order to examine "how the early
modern English came to think what they did about the Ottoman Empire at a time
when they were developing ambitions for an empire of their own."[36]
MacLean claims that English attitudes from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
centuries developed an imperial envy characterized by both admiration and
hostility. While they envied the Ottomans, the English “refashioned themselves
as British” as they pursued an empire of their own.[37]
While professing
admiration for the work of Said in his volume, Orientalism, MacLean expresses
regret for the negative effect of many scholars following Said, who began to
reject critical historical works by "skilled and knowledgeable
Orientalists" who still offer scholarship worthy of examination. MacLean
further agrees with Matar that Said’s use of imperial discourses was unsuitable
and led to misinterpretation when used in the early modern period. The great
powers of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries were the Ottomans,
Safavids, and Mughals, not the Spanish, French, and English.[38]
MacLean further
demonstrates common themes common to Said in his book, The Rise of Oriental
Travel, where he discusses the English practice of performing East. Diplomats
and traders often acted using performative gestures, especially when expressing
their national identity. The use of a persuasive voice, such as attempting to
preserve the dignity of themselves and their nation, entailed acts of
performance. Travelers often found that their position as exotic foreigners
within the Ottoman Empire was often risky depending on how they presented
themselves or how their hosts perceived them. MacLean explains,
Performing begins whenever the practices of acting, those forms
of being other that are entailed in any performance, take over from simply
being. By 'performing East' then, I want to draw attention to specific ways
that writing about being in the Ottoman domains entailed discovering that new
forms of self-presentation were required by those who found themselves acting
on what Edward Said called the 'theatrical stage affixed to Europe.'[39]
Performance becomes an act of preserving political
and personal agency while also understanding how encounters between Britain and
the Ottomans obscure the formation of national identity. For Said, the
performance and the stage forced the Orient into an enclosed space and a
“theatrical stage affixed to Europe.”[40]
Orientalism remains a closed system in which the Orient is always staged as
inferior to the West.
Nancy
Bisaha further investigates the division between East and West in her book Creating East and West: Renaissance
Humanists and the Ottoman Turks.
By examining thirty different humanist texts, Bisaha explores humanist attitudes
toward the Ottoman Turks during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. From
the late fourteenth to the early sixteenth century, a large group of primarily
Italian humanists centered on the threat of the Turks and the issue of crusade.
The humanists drew heavily upon medieval and classical traditions as the models
for writing about the dangers the Turks posed to Europe. The Turkish conquest
of Constantinople stunned Europeans, causing particular concern for Italians.
Bisaha contends that the growing Muslim threat laid the foundation for modern
European civilization as the concern over Turkish advance was a threat to
European society.[41]
Casting their gaze backward to the glory of pagan Rome and making connections to
their own time, the humanists proclaimed the superiority of European
civilization against the Muslim threat. The myth of East and West as opposites
originated with the Greeks and was adapted by the Romans. By the eleventh
century, Europeans used the labels of Christian and infidel to describe the
cultural division between Europe and the East. Humanists used numerous classical
archetypes to demonstrate the glory and superiority of Western culture.
Petrarch reminded his fellow Italians of the successes of the Roman military
and cast Julius Caesar into the role of a crusader as a role model to wage
battle against the Turks.[42]
Bisaha
points out that the depiction of the Ottomans as barbarians had little
precedence before the fifteenth century. Ottoman culture bore little similarity
to the barbarism encountered by ancient Rome, as Muslims previously surpassed
Western Europe in learning and cultural accomplishments.[43]
With the fall of Constantinople and ongoing wars
with the Turks, one must remember that continued conflicts with the Ottoman
Empire fed into the European reasoning to view Muslims in the worst possible
light. According to Bisaha, the events surrounding 11 September 2001 serve as
an ominous example of the fear and panic that rose in the years after the fall
of Constantinople.[44]
The reaction of Renaissance humanism aided in the development of how Europeans
viewed their culture. Humanists were instrumental in laying the foundation of
the East and West divide with a discourse of European cultural dominance
against Eastern barbarity. According to Biasha, this tradition of division
remains a sad inheritance of European humanism.[45]
Said
is an essential focal point in Bisaha's study of early modern humanists and the
cultural conflict leading to the European sense of a distinct civilization.
Said's complaint that the West sets the Orient off as the Other was a pattern
that began soon after the fall of Byzantium. Said's premise that the Western
discourse of the East is an exaggeration of otherness and cultural inferiority
continues to shape historians, but Biasha claims that Said's focus on
colonialism as the key focus of the relationship between the East and West
reveals a weakness in Said's ideas. While Europeans believed strongly in their
cultural and religious superiority, they were also fighting for survival
against an aggressive Ottoman Empire. The humanist’s label of the Ottomans as
barbarians occurred in the context of warfare. Like Fichtner
and MacLean, Biasha decries the failure of those influenced by Said to reject
“more open-minded views of a large number of orientalists.”[46] Despite the practice of
Europeans to stereotype and express their superiority over the Muslim East, the
author reminds the reader that Muslims were also guilty of cultural chauvinism.
Muslims also expressed cultural and religious biases when dealing with European
Christians. Muslims also possessed a discourse of otherness reflected in
cultural and spiritual superiority.
The impact of Edward Said and his book, Orientalism, has been widespread. Exploring a hierarchical relationship between the Occident and the Orient has led many scholars to rightly question their presuppositions when examining the history of Western dominance. Past depictions of Muslim people in literature and history have contained stereotypes relaying the message of Muslims as different and inferior to the more enlightened Europeans. Historians know that they must use discernment as they examine histories and sources produced by Westerners. However, Fichtner, MacLean, and Biasha express the need for historians to use discernment not to reject past Orientalists but to give careful consideration instead of total rejection based on possible prejudices. However, as Matar suggests, historians need to use wisdom when employing Said's model based on relationships developed during imperialism before applying the model to early modern Europe. Adopting a postcolonial template onto a pre-colonial world leads to possible misinterpretations and difficulties.
Notes
[1] Edward
Said, Orientalism, (New York: Vintage
Books, 1979),2.
[2]
Said, 6.
[3]
Edward Said, Orientalism, (New York:
Vintage Books, 1979), 2-3.
[4]
Said, 45.
[5]
Said, 46.
[6]
Said, 192.
[7]
Jane Hiddleston, Understanding Postcolonialism. (London: Routledge,
2009), 77.
[8]
Said, 94.
[9]
Said, 95.
[10]
Said, 272.
[11] Charles
H. Parker, "Identities and Encounters," In Interpreting Early
Modern Europe, edited by C. Scott Dixon and Beat Kumin, (London: Routledge,
2020), 55.
[12]
Parker, 65.
[13]
Said, 40.
[14] Fichtner,
11.
[15]
Fichtner, 53.
[16]
Sichtner, 83.
[17]
Fichtner, 136-137.
[18]
Fichtner, 170.
[19] Nabil
Matar, Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of Discovery, (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2000), 20-21.
[20]
Matar, 8-9.
[21]
Matar, 87-88.
[22]
Matar, 86-87.
[23]
Said, 44.
[24]
Matar, 12.
[25]
Matar, 13.
[26]
Matar, 106.
[27]
Matar, 17.
[28]
Gerald MacLean, The Rise of Oriental Travel:
English Visitors to the Ottoman Empire, 1580-1720. (Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), xiii.
[29]
MacLean, xiii-xiv.
[30]
MacLean, 112-113.
[31]
MacLean, 123.
[32]
Said, 61-62.
[33]
MacLean, 154.
[34]
MacLean, 201.
[35]
Said, 206.
[36]
MacLean, Looking East: English Writing and the Ottoman Empire Before 1800 (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), x.
[37]
MacLean, Looking East, 245.
[38]
MacLean, Looking East, 10.
[39] MacLean,
Looking East,98.
[40]
Said, 63.
[41]
Nancy Bisaha, Creating East and West: Renaissance Humanists and the Ottoman
Turks, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 7.
[42]
Bisaha, 52.
[43]
Bisaha, 73.
[44]
Bisaha, 2.
[45]
Biasha, 187.
[46]
Bisaha, 6.
