Moving across two centuries of Europeans dealing with the ‘Orient,’ Thierry Hentsch seems to mark two main epochs, each yielding to the next and defined by Europe’s view of oriental religion. First was seventeenth-century stereotyping, in which “religion was no longer truly at issue” though it perhaps “sustained a stereotype, or justified negative judgement” (84), and Europe used the Orient as a foil to itself, looking to the East to see a “reflection of its own splendor” (98). The eighteenth century saw a new approach both to Arab history and intellectual history and to Islam as one of the chief characterizers of the Orient or Levant – this century saw “a transfer from religious sectarianism to political criticism” (107). To me, the most interesting aspect of this progression is Hentsch’s statement that by studying the ‘inferior’ Orient, Europe was able to catalyze itself as the enlightened Occident. While this is definitely a plausible and supported claim, Hentsch doesn’t ever explain who is part of the Occident. Nearly all the examples of voyagers and writers cited by Hentsch are French – indeed, l’Orient is originally a French notion. Politically, Europe was much more broken up then than now – Germany as we know didn’t remotely exist, but was rather a geographic space occupied by numerous Bavarian and Prussian fiefs and kingdoms, and from Hentsch’s sources it doesn’t seem to be a part of the Occident at all in the seventeenth century. In fact, Hentsch never really describes what exactly constitutes the Orient, either – in the beginning, he states that Turkey was the main source of stereotyping, the epitome of the uncivilized East, and later he discusses Egypt, viewed as completely uncivilized, and Persia, somewhere between Turkey and Egypt but with respect for its ancient civilization. Though Hentsch does a solid job tracing different periods on European thought on the Orient (including the ambiguities that arose later when viewpoints diverged and multiple contrasting characterizations could be made), he doesn’t account for expanding geographical notions of East and West, or who the changing scholars and travelers of the Occident were.
Hi Alice, Yes, Hentsch could have done a better job of distinguishing between Europe and the Orient. My guess is the lines will inevitably be a little fuzzy, but since there was a distinct sense of identity, it's helpful to explain what that comes from.
ReplyDeleteHey Alice, I agree that Hentsch may be plucking scholars from too narrow of a geographical area; perhaps these notions were primarily French rather than European. However, I'm not sure if there is a wealth of sources from travelers from other countries (though this is purely speculation on my part). However, given past divides between Europe and the Orient (the Crusades, Christianity/Islam in general, envy/fear of the Ottomans) I think the generalization can be made about Europeans.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree too. But wouldn't Hentsch say that the east and the west never really existed-- that they were merely concepts, tropes and rhetoric, and that he is tracing out the idea of the orient (rather than "the orient" itself), which doesnt need to correspond to any specific territory?
ReplyDeleteAs a couple other people have mentioned, I think that Hentsch acknowledges that the Orient was a broad and illy defined area. I think that some of his vagueness on the topic might simply have reflected the fact that Europeans of the time were frequently referring to a vast expanse of the Middle East and Asia when they talked about the Orient.
ReplyDeleteI actually did not notice this until you pointed it out. It does seem strange that he would focus so much on the French perspective when there were so many other European travelers at the time. Maybe that swayed the whole focus on the Orient, and other European travelers would have a completely different perspective?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Tudor
In his introduction, Hentsch stated that he'd primarily be looking at the French point of view since he believed it had a certain universal (European or Occidental) influence during the age of the Enlightenment. I agree that this is not very clear, but it is, nevertheless, his own justification.
ReplyDelete