Prof. Dr. Hans Sauer Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU) Department for English and American Studies English Seminar Schellingstr. 3 D-80799 Munich 26 July 2017 Report on the doctoral dissertation by Ali Şengül, Saracens in Middle English Narratives: An Analysis of Literary Images of the Muslim Other The contact of Christians and Muslims is an important and intensively discussed topic in many European countries today (and also in the USA), because in some countries (e.g. Great Britain, France, Germany) there live many Muslims, and also many new immigrants and refugees come from Muslim countries (e.g. Syria, Irak) to Europe, and some countries welcome them whereas others do not - but it was also an important topic in the Middle Ages, especially due to the Crusades and their aftermath. Although the Crusades were mainly a hostile encounter, many inventions and ideas originally made in Muslim countries (and Spain was partly a Muslim country until the end of the Middle Ages) came to Europe, among many other things the Arabic numerals and Muslim medical knowledge (see also below). In his doctoral dissertation, Ali Şengül discusses how Muslims (Saracens) are depicted in a number of Middle English narrative texts, and one of the advantages of his dissertation is that he discusses a broad range of texts, including Chaucer s Canterbury Tales, some romances, and a travel book (Mandeville s Travel) all of them mix historical or factual information with purely fictitious statements and narratives to a greater or lesser degree. But this is perhaps less surprising today, where we hear and read of fake news and post-factual information every day, and where it is accordingly often difficult to distinguish between fact on the one hand, and fiction and propaganda on the other hand. All of them also represent the European (or more specifically English) and Christian point of view; they do not tell us how the Saracens regarded the Crusaders and how the Christians were depicted in Muslim sources but this would, of course, be the topic of a separate study. The Crusades were an attempt to re-conquer the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem, but their success was short-lived, and on the whole the Crusades were a failure. And although the Crusades were basically over when the Middle English texts discussed here were written (the ninth and last crusade took place in 1271-1272 according to the table given by Ali Şengül on p.31), the Crusades in particular and the antagonism of Christians and Muslims in general were still an important topic that lived on after the end of the Crusades, and various kinds of fighting also continued, as is shown, for 1
example, in the General Prologue of Chaucer s Canterbury Tales in the portrait of the Knight (see also below). For the Christians, the Muslims (or Saracens) on the whole were the Other and the enemy. The general attitude in many of the texts was that Muslims should be killed; a good Muslim was only a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Of course the emphasis in the texts varies; some show a more positive and some show a more negative attitude Chaucer characteristically mixes positive and negative viewpoints, which is another proof that he is rightly regarded as the greatest Middle English poet. Ali Şengül s thesis is well structured. It consists of an Introduction, a useful general survey of the Muslim-Christian relations (ch. 1), a discussion of many Middle English texts (chs.2-4), and a Conclusion. There are also useful Appendices (names of places, peoples and nations mentioned in Mandeville s Travels) as well as an extensive bibliography of works dealing with the topic. There is also a handy table The Chronology of the Crusades (now Table 2, pp. 27-31) as part of ch.1, which should probably rather be given as an Appendix, because then it would be more prominent and readers could find it more easily. Following the Introduction, in his ch. 1 Ali Şengül gives an overview of Muslim-Christian relations during the Middle Ages, with an emphasis on the Crusades. In ch. 2, Ali Şengül discusses The image of the Orient in The Canterbury Tales, with an emphasis on the portraits of Doctor of Physic and The Knight in the General Prologue, as well as on The Man of Law s Tale and The Squire s Tale. In the portrait of The Knight, Chaucer shows the more negative side, namely the wars and the fighting that continued in the 14 th century, whereas in the portrait of the Doctor of Physic, Chaucer shows the more positive side, namely that medical knowledge developed by Muslim doctors was also available to Christian doctors (e.g. Haly, Rhazes, Avicenna, Averroes). Of course what Chaucer gives is just a list of names - how far the texts written by these scholars were actually known and used is still another question. And of course so much has been written about Chaucer, including his sources and the historical background of the Knight and the medical background of the Doctor of Physic, that it is difficult to come up with anything really new; but of course it is interesting that Chaucer in his General Prologue stresses both the warlike and the scholarly aspect of the encounter of Christians and Muslims. And it is also interesting that his Knight fights not only on the Christian side against the Saracens (in Christian sources, including Chaucer, they are usually called heathens, which is, of course, not true), but apparently also for a Muslim ruler against other Muslims ( heathens ; I, 65-66), which (among other things) gave rise to the theory that the Knight, who is apparently praised and admired by the narrator (Chaucer), was just a mercenary who fought where he was paid. The 2
problem with the portrait of the Knight is that Chaucer is openly ironic in some of his portraits (e.g. the portraits of the Prioress, the Monk and the Friar), but he is not ironic (at least not openly) in his portrait of the Knight. In his analysis of The Man of Law s Tale (the story of Constance) Ali Şengül rightly stresses that here we get a negative picture of the Muslims: the Christians (with the exception of Constance) and the Saracens who converted to Christianity (the good Saracens) were killed by those Saracens who were strictly against conversion (the bad Saracens); but it could also be stressed that Chaucer (or his source) characteristically makes things a little more complex, because he connects this with the topic of the evil motherin-law, who kills (or has killed) even her own son, in order to avoid Christianization. Moreover the passage quoted on p. 54 is not only misogynistic, but also strongly rhetorical. The Squire s Tale, which is set at the court of Cambyuskan (i.e. Genghis Khan, the leader of the Mongols), is less about Christian-Muslim encounters, and more about wonderful things and events, e.g. a brass horse that can fly, and a miraculous ring that enables its bearer to understand the language of the birds. In ch.3, Mandeville s Travels are discussed. Mandeville is a very shadowy figure; perhaps he did not even really exist and someone else wrote the extant text under his name. There was an aristocratic family of the Mandevilles in England, but the original version of the Travels was apparently written in French. In any case the geographic materials assembled in Mandeville s Travels became very popular; the book was translated into many languages (including Middle English) and it was used as a geographical source well into the modern period, although Mandeville (or the author who used the name Mandeville) probably took most of his information not from his own experience, but from secondary sources, and much of what he says is purely fictitious. Ali Şengül of course concentrates on the religious aspect; among other things he discusses The Question of Mandeville s Tolerance and Mandeville s Depiction of Saracens. P. 171: When Mandeville s Jerusalem-centered world is mentioned, mention could also be made of medieval maps of the world, which also often have Jerusalem as their centre. In his ch.4 he discusses the images of Muslims (Saracens) in three Middle English romances, namely King Horn, Richard Coeur de Lyon, and Bevis of Hampton. Before the discussion, Ali Şengül gives outlines of the stories, which are, of course useful for readers who are not familiar with these romances (such outlines could also be given for the stories from the Canterbury Tales which are discussed). In Bevis, a very strong young Muslim princess is shown. Whereas King Horn and Bevis of Hampton are purely fictitious figures as far as we know, the romance Richard Coeur de Lyon offers an interesting example of how a 3
historical figure, King Richard I of England, nicknamed Lionheart, is fictionalized in a literary text. The romance obviously mixes historical facts with invented events. Thus the historical king Richard I went on the 3 rd crusade, he was an ally of the French king Philip II, although he had a conflict with him, and he was an adversary of sultan Saladin. But contrary to what the romance tells us, Richard apparently was not a cannibal, nor had he a personal combat with Saladin. Although the literary value of the romance cannot be compared to Chaucer s works, it perhaps shows the popular feeling towards the Saracens clearer than Chaucer does. Of course, there were no Saracens in England in the Middle English period, so similar to the treatment of the Jews in Middle English literature the literature dealt with an enemy that was far away, but was nevertheless strongly resented. But, and this could perhaps be stressed a little more, the romance shows not only the antagonism between Crusaders and Saracens, but also differences and conflicts among the crusaders. Whereas Richard fights relentlessly against the Saracens and kills thousands of them, and also kills prisoners, the French king is more conciliatory and takes ransom for his prisoners. But Richard is also very bossy and aloof towards the French king, and several times tells him what to do and what not to do, which eventually causes the French king to leave the crusade. The text occasionally mentions a French source, but the French source has never be found, and this very anti-french attitude of the narrator (or author) could probably be used as an argument that a French source never existed, or if it existed, it was changed drastically by the English translator. For Richard Saracens are only there to be killed, and on the whole they are not even a worthy or adequate enemy: one Christian knight is worth much more than a Saracen warrior, and the Saracen warriors are often cowards who are easily frightened and put to flight. Interestingly, in the romance Richard s anti-muslim actions are occasionally justified by God himself or by the appearance of an angel. For us, the gruesome culmination is probably Richard s cannibalism in the romance, which for us is certainly very un-christian and also very uncivilized, but which is applauded by the narrator. There are two instances of this, and both are very insulting to the Saracens: Although Muslims are not allowed to eat pork, in the first instance a young Muslim is killed and eaten as pork by Richard. In the second instance Richard presents Saracen ambassadors with the cooked heads of Saracen prisoners, partly their own relatives, and he himself eats from one of the heads. This could also be seen as a piece of psychological warfare to frighten the Saracens, but for us it is very un-christian, and it also shows that, at least in the romance, Richard violated even very strong taboos but the narrator apparently approves of Richard s actions. 4
The study is rounded off by a conclusion, by useful Appendices and a bibliography. It contains also a number of illustrations. Because many geographical locations are mentioned, a few maps might be useful. Many secondary sources are cited in the study (with particular emphasis on Said s ground-breaking book), which show that Ali Şengül has read the relevant literature, and it also gives the reader a good impression of the present state of scholarship on Christian-Muslim relations in the Middle Ages. But occasionally Ali Şengül could be a bit more critical of his sources. Often he quotes them, but does not give a critical evaluation. For example on p. 56 he mentions the so-called marriage group in the Canterbury Tales, which was first postulated by Kittredge in the early 20 th century, but he should also mention which texts Kittredge regards as belonging to this group, and why Kittredge has been criticised (he gives some literature in a footnote). Or on p. 87, he should say whether in his view Mandeville is tolerant or not, or whether this question is really relevant to Mandeville. He points out, however, that Said does not say much about the Middle Ages and Medieval literature, which is, of course, one of the justifications for a study concentrating on Medieval literature. In case the dissertation is going to be published, it should be checked by a native speaker of English (ideally a native speaker who has also some knowledge of Middle English literature). And for quotations from Middle English, a Modern English translation should be added, because readers who are not experts in Middle English might have difficulties with some of the words and phrases. Since the Other is a very important concept throughout the study (and the Other is, of course, explicitly or implicitly contrasted with the Self), it should perhaps be written in capitals throughout. The Introduction could perhaps be subdivided, because it deals with several topics; for example it provides a brief review of research as well as a discussion of terminology (Muslims, Saracens, Moors, etc.) the most famous moor, Shakespeare s Othello, is, of course, post-medieval. For details, see my notes in my copy of the dissertation. I just mention: p.43: When Chaucer mentions wicked stories about Apollonius of Tyre etc., he is perhaps making fun of his contemporary (and friend?) John Gower, who actually tells the story of Apollonius at great length and at a prominent place, i.e. as the last tale of his Confessio Amantis. P.57: The interpretation that the Squire, who carf biforn his fader at the table, might have heard his tale from his father, seems very speculative to me although the tales are allegedly told by the various pilgrims, they are all Chaucer s tales, who in many cases used known sources (although for the Squire s Tale there is no known source, at least not for the tale as such). 5
Ali Şengül occasionally points out that Chaucer uses topoi, e.g. the inexpressibility topos (p. 65; this could also be mentioned on p. 121) he could add on the same page (cf. p. 66 ff.) that Chaucer also employs the humility topos of the author, i.e. that the author is not really qualified to tell the story, because his English and his rhetoric are so bad, etc. (which is, of course, also a literary trick). For topoi, reference could be made to the groundbreaking book by E.R. Curtius. p. 85: For the word tolerance, tolerantia, the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae and the dictionaries of Medieval Latin could be consulted. pp.93-94, Figures 3-4: The interpretation of the pictures is not evident from the pictures themselves. The remarks that Mandeville often reports what he has allegedly heard (from hearsay, e.g. p. 97, 99) are very interesting; there is a branch of recent linguistic research that deals with evidentiality, which could perhaps be mentioned in a footnote. Pp. 152 ff.: Stock Saracen figures from Bevis are described; it would, of course, be interesting to hear whether these occur also in the other texts which are discussed. On the whole, however, Ali Şengül s study is a very good overview of attitudes towards the Muslims (Saracens) in Middle English literature. In line with the comments presented above I hereby state that the dissertation titled Saracens in Middle English Narratives: An Analysis of Literary Images of the Muslim Other written by mgr Ali Şengül under the supervision of prof. Barbara Kowalik fulfils the requirements of a doctoral thesis and I recommend that mgr Ali Sengul be admitted to further steps in the doctoral procedure. (signed: Prof. Hans Sauer) 6