Hey Alice, I thought your prospectus was very clear and well structured! You said that you want to research Chardin's writing and situate him in relation to other travelers... do you plan on looking at other first hand accounts from that time period and contrasting them? Or perhaps comparing his account to an earlier one where the balance of power had yet to be established? It sounds like you already have a ton of information on your hand, but referencing at least one other account (contemporary or historical) might tease out what makes his travels unique.
Hi Alice, I enjoyed your proposal and it looks like you're in good shape! I like how you pose Said's and Emerson's characterizations of the traveler as two different accounts through which you might be able to understand Chardin at the beginning of your work. I didn't completely understand what Emerson meant from the quote you took and since you're leaning toward his characterization, fleshing it out a little more when you write your paper might be helpful. When he says "balanced", is he suggesting that the traveler viewed political, economic, and cultural power between Europe and the Ottoman Empire as equal? And that, by contrast, 100 years later the traveler would approach the Ottomans with a strong sense of superiority? If that's what he means, how might we account for the comments you quoted from him on the Shah's religion and its poor effects on his judgment?
Congratulations on being almost done with your huge primary source! In all seriousness, you have a great, well-structured proposal here. My only concern (this came up in class already) is the availability of the vast amounts of general, secondary source material you bring up in your last paragraph. Also, just the sheer volume of it seems a little daunting, given that you already have such a hefty primary source. Maybe consider narrowing down the focus of your future research, though, maybe, skimming through some of that background material might give you a more specific direction.
Your project sounds like it's going to be very interesting! Your plan for further research seems very ambitious (/comprehensive), but there is certainly nothing wrong with that. If you are planning on focusing on Chardin's description of the Persian government, Islam and the Ottomans, it seems like diplomacy between French and Ottomans would be one of the more important themes to research, of the ones you mentioned. But it all sounds good and interesting!
I just want to echo what everyone else has already said. Your grant proposal had a clear and concise structure and function which makes it easy for the reader to digest what you are trying to sell us on. Furthermore, I do believe that your primary source seems to be rich with material. However, one of my main concerns is with the scope of your research. You say that you want to research: "diplomacy between the French and the Ottomans in the seventeenth century, the state of religion in each, early modern travelers to Persia and the patterns of their descriptions abroad, and the rise of French orientalism", but I wonder if this is too ambitious for the confines of a roughly 20 page paper. I think it would be better for you to concentrate on one or two topics so that you can really delve down deep into the material.
My other concern is the fact that Chardin, as a French, Huguenot eventually left his country after oppression in France. He then became knighted in England. It was after all this that he eventually he wrote his account. I wonder if the fact that he had to leave France will color his accounts. This may be important to consider especially as you are trying to write about "French/Ottoman diplomacy".
Wow, it seems like you're very far along in your work. I would only suggest that you get some sort of glimpse as to what other contemporaneous travel accounts looked like in order to judge whether or not Chardin followed the orientalist position. This doesn't have to be an entirely new source, maybe you can just find references to it in another secondary source (maybe even Said's book).
I want to echo what others have said. It looks like you have a done a great job investigating your primary source and developing some research ideas from it. It does seem that your scope of your research might be too big for a 20-25 page paper. Maybe try to narrow down your analysis to one or two of the topics you mentioned, ie diplomacy between french and ottomans, state of religion in each, early modern travelers to persia, etc
Hey Alice, it seems like you have identified all of the aspects that need to be analyzed regarding Chardin's writings. It's really a cyclic process: Chardin's writings prompt you to examine various aspects of his travels that he highlights (the Ottomans and Persians, French relations, the religious landscape), and in turn after doing research on those topics, you can further analyze the validity of Chardin's account. I think this will have a nice flow to your narrative, and will give a feeling of completeness to your paper. It's an interesting topic, and I'm excited to see what you come up with.
Hey Alice,
ReplyDeleteI thought your prospectus was very clear and well structured! You said that you want to research Chardin's writing and situate him in relation to other travelers... do you plan on looking at other first hand accounts from that time period and contrasting them? Or perhaps comparing his account to an earlier one where the balance of power had yet to be established? It sounds like you already have a ton of information on your hand, but referencing at least one other account (contemporary or historical) might tease out what makes his travels unique.
Hi Alice,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your proposal and it looks like you're in good shape! I like how you pose Said's and Emerson's characterizations of the traveler as two different accounts through which you might be able to understand Chardin at the beginning of your work. I didn't completely understand what Emerson meant from the quote you took and since you're leaning toward his characterization, fleshing it out a little more when you write your paper might be helpful. When he says "balanced", is he suggesting that the traveler viewed political, economic, and cultural power between Europe and the Ottoman Empire as equal? And that, by contrast, 100 years later the traveler would approach the Ottomans with a strong sense of superiority? If that's what he means, how might we account for the comments you quoted from him on the Shah's religion and its poor effects on his judgment?
Hi Alice,
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on being almost done with your huge primary source! In all seriousness, you have a great, well-structured proposal here. My only concern (this came up in class already) is the availability of the vast amounts of general, secondary source material you bring up in your last paragraph. Also, just the sheer volume of it seems a little daunting, given that you already have such a hefty primary source. Maybe consider narrowing down the focus of your future research, though, maybe, skimming through some of that background material might give you a more specific direction.
Your project sounds like it's going to be very interesting! Your plan for further research seems very ambitious (/comprehensive), but there is certainly nothing wrong with that. If you are planning on focusing on Chardin's description of the Persian government, Islam and the Ottomans, it seems like diplomacy between French and Ottomans would be one of the more important themes to research, of the ones you mentioned. But it all sounds good and interesting!
ReplyDeleteHey Alice,
ReplyDeleteI just want to echo what everyone else has already said. Your grant proposal had a clear and concise structure and function which makes it easy for the reader to digest what you are trying to sell us on. Furthermore, I do believe that your primary source seems to be rich with material. However, one of my main concerns is with the scope of your research. You say that you want to research: "diplomacy between the French and the Ottomans in the seventeenth century, the state of religion in each, early modern travelers to Persia and the patterns of their descriptions abroad, and the rise of French orientalism", but I wonder if this is too ambitious for the confines of a roughly 20 page paper. I think it would be better for you to concentrate on one or two topics so that you can really delve down deep into the material.
My other concern is the fact that Chardin, as a French, Huguenot eventually left his country after oppression in France. He then became knighted in England. It was after all this that he eventually he wrote his account. I wonder if the fact that he had to leave France will color his accounts. This may be important to consider especially as you are trying to write about "French/Ottoman diplomacy".
Wow, it seems like you're very far along in your work. I would only suggest that you get some sort of glimpse as to what other contemporaneous travel accounts looked like in order to judge whether or not Chardin followed the orientalist position. This doesn't have to be an entirely new source, maybe you can just find references to it in another secondary source (maybe even Said's book).
ReplyDeleteI want to echo what others have said. It looks like you have a done a great job investigating your primary source and developing some research ideas from it. It does seem that your scope of your research might be too big for a 20-25 page paper. Maybe try to narrow down your analysis to one or two of the topics you mentioned, ie diplomacy between french and ottomans, state of religion in each, early modern travelers to persia, etc
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
Hey Alice, it seems like you have identified all of the aspects that need to be analyzed regarding Chardin's writings. It's really a cyclic process: Chardin's writings prompt you to examine various aspects of his travels that he highlights (the Ottomans and Persians, French relations, the religious landscape), and in turn after doing research on those topics, you can further analyze the validity of Chardin's account. I think this will have a nice flow to your narrative, and will give a feeling of completeness to your paper. It's an interesting topic, and I'm excited to see what you come up with.
ReplyDelete