THE TURKISH EMBASSY LETTERS
Lady Mary’s Turkish Embassy Letters are a group of letters she wrote 1716-1718 while she was with her husband in various parts of Europe and Constantinople. One of the most significant is her letter on vaccination which eventually lead to the eradication of small pox. Her letters are important early examples of women’s travel writing and serve as a work of cultural commentary. The topics she wrote about in her Letters varied, sometimes depending on the addressees. When writing to Alexander Pope it would often be concerning politics or poetry. When she wrote to clergymen (like the abbot Antonio Conti) it would be an explanation of the religious beliefs and practices in Turkey. To her female friends she took great care in describing the fashion and lifestyle of the local women she met. Lady Mary wrote extensively about the manners and customs of Turkish women in comparison to their Western counterparts.
Publication History
Lady Mary had kept copies of all her letters for “future reworking as a travel book” (Grundy). When she returned to England (after 1718) she edited the letters but they were not published until 1763, a year after her death (Grundy). When Lady Mary returned to London after her years in Italy and Paris, she left her manuscript “with a protestant clergyman at Rotterdam, Benjamin Sowden” (Grundy) in order for it to be published. However, the first publication was an unauthorized copy: the manuscript was copied by two men (one of which was Thomas Becket’s son) and published by Becket and De Hondt. It is “believed to have been edited by John Cleland” (Melville). It was published it in three volumes as Letters of the Right Honourable Lady M--y W---y M---e Written during Her Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa to Persons of Distinction, Men of Letters, &c. in Different Parts of Europe(aka: Letters Written during her Travels). After Sowden returned the manuscript to Lord Bute (Grundy), more editions were published and her family added some poetry as well as other selections from her personal letters. The first full edition of her letters was published in the 20th century in 3 volumes (ed. Robert Halsband, 1965-67) (Britannica).
Fourth Volume
Many of Lady Mary’s works were pirated during her lifetime and the situation after her death was no different. In 1764, an alleged extra edition of the Letters was “said to be ‘Printed for A. Homer in the Strand, and P. Milton in St. Paul’s Church-yard’” (Grundy). It included forged works falsely credited to Lady Mary. These works were joined to the Becket and De Hondt edition as a fourth volume in 1767.
Publication History
Lady Mary had kept copies of all her letters for “future reworking as a travel book” (Grundy). When she returned to England (after 1718) she edited the letters but they were not published until 1763, a year after her death (Grundy). When Lady Mary returned to London after her years in Italy and Paris, she left her manuscript “with a protestant clergyman at Rotterdam, Benjamin Sowden” (Grundy) in order for it to be published. However, the first publication was an unauthorized copy: the manuscript was copied by two men (one of which was Thomas Becket’s son) and published by Becket and De Hondt. It is “believed to have been edited by John Cleland” (Melville). It was published it in three volumes as Letters of the Right Honourable Lady M--y W---y M---e Written during Her Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa to Persons of Distinction, Men of Letters, &c. in Different Parts of Europe(aka: Letters Written during her Travels). After Sowden returned the manuscript to Lord Bute (Grundy), more editions were published and her family added some poetry as well as other selections from her personal letters. The first full edition of her letters was published in the 20th century in 3 volumes (ed. Robert Halsband, 1965-67) (Britannica).
Fourth Volume
Many of Lady Mary’s works were pirated during her lifetime and the situation after her death was no different. In 1764, an alleged extra edition of the Letters was “said to be ‘Printed for A. Homer in the Strand, and P. Milton in St. Paul’s Church-yard’” (Grundy). It included forged works falsely credited to Lady Mary. These works were joined to the Becket and De Hondt edition as a fourth volume in 1767.
Content
One of the main features of the Letters is that Lady Mary provides an alternative to the male-centric perspective on the Orient. Below is an image of the title page which specifies that the work is “Drawn from Sources that have been inaccessible to other Travellers”.
One of the main features of the Letters is that Lady Mary provides an alternative to the male-centric perspective on the Orient. Below is an image of the title page which specifies that the work is “Drawn from Sources that have been inaccessible to other Travellers”.
One of the intended selling points is to advertise
the differentiating feature between this work
and others of its genre.
the differentiating feature between this work
and others of its genre.
In Letter XXXVII she writes to one of her friends:
Your whole letter is full of mistakes, from one end to the other. I see you have taken your ideas of Turkey, from that worthy author Dumont, who has wrote with equal ignorance and confidence. 'Tis a particular pleasure to me here, to read the voyages to the Levant, which are generally so far removed from truth, and so full of absurdities, I am very well diverted with them. They never fail giving you an account of the women, whom, 'tis certain, they never saw, and talking very wisely of the genius of the men, into whose company they are never admitted; and very often describe mosques, which they dare not even peep into. The Turks are very proud, and will not converse with a stranger they are not assured is considerable in his own country. I speak of the men of distinction; for, as to the ordinary fellows, you may imagine what ideas their conversation can give of the general genius of the people.
-Vol. 2. 131-132.
The following are examples of works that included “these often imaginary accounts” (Heffernan, “(Un)building the Empire”):
Lady Mary makes it clear that previous accounts of the Orient fall short from her example because both her gender and class allow her entry to certain spaces that are inaccessible to others. One example of an area that required special permissions for entrance was the Hagia Sophia. The Hagia Sophia had been converted to a mosque in the earlier centuries of Ottoman rule and only a few exceptions were made as to which Christian visitors could enter it (Heffernan ,165). Lady Mary writes about the experience she was allowed as a result of her persistence:
- Aaron Hill, A full and Just Account of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire
- Jean Dumont, A New Voyage to the Levant
- John Covel, Early travels in the Levant
- Robert Heywood, A Journey to the Levant
Lady Mary makes it clear that previous accounts of the Orient fall short from her example because both her gender and class allow her entry to certain spaces that are inaccessible to others. One example of an area that required special permissions for entrance was the Hagia Sophia. The Hagia Sophia had been converted to a mosque in the earlier centuries of Ottoman rule and only a few exceptions were made as to which Christian visitors could enter it (Heffernan ,165). Lady Mary writes about the experience she was allowed as a result of her persistence:
[The] St Sophia … is very difficult to see. I was forced to send three times to the caimairam, (the governor of the town) and he assembled the chief effendis, or heads of the law, and enquired of the mufti[(Muslim legal expert who gives rulings on religious matters)], whether it was lawful to permit it. They passed some days in this important debate; but I insisting on my request, permission was granted. I can't be informed why the Turks are more delicate on the subject of this mosque, than on any of the others, where what Christian pleases may enter without scruple. I fancy they imagine, that, having been once consecrated, people, on pretence of curiosity, might profane it with prayers, particularly to those saints, who are still very visible in Mosaic work, and no other way defaced but by the decays of time; for it is absolutely false, though so universally asserted, that the Turks defaced all the images that they found in the city.
-Let. XLI, vol. 3., 13-14.
This letter illustrates Lady Mary’s subversion of popular portrayals of the Ottomans as destructive barbarians. Another way she subverts prevalent understandings of the East is by forgoing the fetishization of the exotic, oppressed veiled women. In a letter to her sister, the Countess of Mar, Lady Mary redefines the women’s veils from being a form of limitation to a means of moving around freely and with a modicum of privacy:
As to their morality or good conduct, I can say, like Harlequin, that 'tis just as 'tis with you; and the Turkish ladies don't commit one sin the less for not being Christians. Now, that 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 them. 'Tis very easy to see, they have in reality more liberty than we have. No woman, of what rank soever, is permitted to go into the streets without two murlins, one that covers her face all but her eyes, and another, that hides the whole dress of her head, and hangs half way down her back. Their shapes are also wholely (sic) concealed, by a thing they call a serigee, which no woman of any sort appears without; this has strait sleeves, that reach to their fingers-ends, and it laps all round them, not unlike a riding-hood. In winter, 'tis of cloth; and in summer, of plain stuff or silk. You may guess then, how effectually this disguises them, so that there is no distinguishing the great lady from her slave. 'Tis impossible for the most jealous husband to know his wife, when he meets her; and no man dare touch or follow a woman in the street. This perpetual masquerade gives them entire liberty of following their inclinations, without danger of discovery.
-Let. XXIX, vol. 2., 32-34.
It is evident that Lady Mary sees Turkish women (or at least aristocratic Turkish women) as being virtuous regardless of the fact that they are of a different religion. However, this description is contradicted by the fact that she continues to say how their disguise allows them to cheat on their husbands—an immoral act which she does not disapprove of. She uses it as further evidence of their freedom.
The great ladies seldom let their gallants know who they are; and 'tis so difficult to find it out, that they can very seldom guess at her name, whom they have corresponded with for above half a year together. You may easily imagine the number of faithful wives very small in a country where they have nothing to fear from a lover's indiscretion, since we see so many have the courage to expose themselves to that in this world, and all the threatened punishment of the next, which is never preached to the Turkish damsels.
-Let. XXIX, vol. 2., 34-35.
She moves on to detail the financial freedom of the female Turkish aristocrats. This lies in stark contrast to English women who were seen as property of either the father or the husband and who could only gain financial agency when they became widows (Potter, Feb. 25).
Neither have they much to apprehend from the resentment of their husbands; those ladies that are rich, having all their money in their own hands. Upon the whole, I look upon the Turkish women, as the only free people in the empire; the very divan pays respect to them; and the grand signior himself, when a bassa is executed, never violates the privileges of the haram, (or womens apartment) which remains unsearched and entire to the widow. They are queens of their slaves, whom the husband has no permission so much as to look upon, except it be an old woman or two that his lady chuses.
-Let. XXIX, vol. 2., 35-36.
In a letter to Pope, Lady Mary’s writing fluctuates between challenging and reinforcing orientalist discourse of the 18th century as she claims that the women were freer than what was normally conceived.
The women here are not, indeed, so closely confined as many have related; they enjoy a high degree of liberty, even in the bosom of servitude, and they have methods of evasion and disguise, that are very favourable to gallantry; but, after all, they are still under uneasy apprehensions of being discovered; and a discovery exposes them to the most merciless rage of jealousy, which is here a monster that cannot be satiated but with blood. … their persons, manners, conversation and amusements, are very far from being destitute of elegance and ease.
-Let. LV, vol. 4., 29-31.
The “contradictory concepts of womanhood” are a reflection of the myriad perceptions of femininity during the 18th century (Flohr). Her description of the women’s bathhouses (bagnio or hammam) and the Turkish women who use them seem to combine the idea of the women’s grace and beauty with “erotic appeal” (Flohr). This description is further complicated by the fact that Lady Mary adds an implication of innocent/purity for maximum appeal. She clarifies that there is nothing unseemly or “wanton” in the way they act.
I went to the bagnio about ten o'clock. It was already full of women…I was in my travelling habit, which is a riding dress, and certainly appeared very extraordinary to them. Yet there was not one of them that shewed the least surprise or impertinent curiosity, but received me with all the obliging civility possible. I know no European court, where the ladies would have behaved themselves in so polite a manner to such a stranger. I believe, upon the whole, there were two hundred women, and yet none of those disdainful smiles, and satirical whispers, that never fail in our assemblies, when any body appears that is not dressed exactly in the fashion…The first sofas were covered with cushions and rich carpets, on which sat the ladies; and on the second, their slaves behind them, 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 defect concealed. Yet there was not the least wanton smile or immodest gesture amongst them. They walked and moved with the same majestic grace, which Milton describes our general mother with. There were many amongst them, as exactly proportioned as ever any goddess was drawn by the pencil of a Guido or Titian,—and most of their skins shiningly white, only adorned by their beautiful hair divided into many tresses, hanging on their shoulders, braided either with pearl or ribbon, perfectly representing the figures of the Graces.
-Let. XXVI , vol. 1., 157-162.
The tables turn on any prudish 18th century reader who would have associated nudity with immorality. It seems that the stereotype of the barbarous East and the civilized West are reversed because Lady Mary is very impressed with the civility of the women at the public bath but becomes “barbarous” in her thoughts. She describes a “wicked” thought of an “invisible” painter would paint all these naked women. It would seem that she invites the reader to engage in this voyeuristic fantasy. This is ironic because her vivid descriptions of the bagnio inspired the French painter Jean Auguste Domitnique Ingres to paint the famous Le Bain Turc.
In the praise for the East lies an implied criticism of the West. Lady Mary becomes the foreigner to the Turkish women. They remove their veils and outer coverings and emerge as naked, free women. In contrast, when Lady Mary strips down her constricted body is revealed. The following passage provides a challenge to the tired out narratives of the “enslaved oriental woman (Heffernan, “(Un)building”) and presents a critique of the English woman’s place in the social order.
In the praise for the East lies an implied criticism of the West. Lady Mary becomes the foreigner to the Turkish women. They remove their veils and outer coverings and emerge as naked, free women. In contrast, when Lady Mary strips down her constricted body is revealed. The following passage provides a challenge to the tired out narratives of the “enslaved oriental woman (Heffernan, “(Un)building”) and presents a critique of the English woman’s place in the social order.
The lady, that seemed the most considerable among them, entreated me to sit by her, and would fain have undressed me for the bath. I excused myself with some difficulty. They being however all so earnest in persuading me, I was at last forced to open my shirt, and shew them my stays; which satisfied them very well; for, I saw, they believed I was locked up in that machine, and that it was not in my own power to open it, which contrivance they attributed to my husband…
-Let. XXVI, vol. 1., 163-164.
The Turkish Embassy Letters are intricately nuanced works which cover many more topics such as:
- Architecture of Turkish houses (Let. XXXII)
- Turkish poetry (Let. XXX)
- Turkish Marriage and funeral customs (Let. XXVIII)
- A view on Turkish female slaves (Let. XXXVII)
- Turkish epistolary tradition: specifically, love letters (Let. XL)