Author: Juliana (Page 2 of 2)

Link to map

Key:

Purple cross: Religion (Mandeville focuses on religious practices or legacies in these locations)

Blue walking figure: Passing through (Mandeville doesn’t linger on descriptions at these locations)

Locations: Sopron, Hungary; Belgrade, Serbia; Sofia (Sternes), Bulgaria; Edirne (Adrianople), Turkey; Istanbul (Constantinople), Turkey; Rhodes, Greece; Cyprus, Greece; Fustat (Babylon), Egypt; Mt. Sinai, Egypt; Jerusalem, Israel

At the beginning of Chapter Five, Mandeville explains that pilgrims to Jerusalem can pass through Babylon and obtain permission from the Sultan to visit Mt. Sinai before continuing their pilgrimage (19). He relates Babylon to several biblical stories and religious figures from different points in time, explaining the city’s relationship to the Virgin Mary, St. Barbara, Joseph (Exodus, not Mary’s husband), Nebuchadnezzar and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (I found it surprising that he did not mention Daniel, who was taken to Babylon with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and is arguably an even more notable figure than his three companions). By mentioning all of these figures in the first full paragraph about Babylon, Mandeville emphasizes the city’s religious heritage.

Mandeville then proceeds to describe the history of the area and how it came under Muslim rule, followed by an extended genealogy of the sultans up to his present day. This section emphasizes violence in the election process (20), perhaps as an attempt to ‘other’ a culture different than his own and paint them in a negative light; the majority of the sultans are described as having been murdered, poisoned, driven into exile, or imprisoned, so that someone else could take the throne. This violence stops with the most recent Sultan, who reigned for a long time, and governed with such great wisdom” [21]. Following this genealogy, Mandeville describes some of the Sultan’s customs, giving details about the army, the Sultan’s wives, and how foreigners should behave at court (22).

Mandeville then clarifies that he is not talking about the “Great Babylon where the confusion of tongues was made, when the Tower of Babel existed,” but about a different Babylon which is “forty days travel” away (22-23). He explains that the Great Babylon is under the rule of the Great Khan, whom Mandeville describes as “incomparably greater and stronger than the Sultan” (23). This description complements Marco Polo’s account of Kubilai Khan and the Mongol Empire, and I found that reading these two texts simultaneously provided me with a useful context in this moment!

It seems to me that Mandeville’s purpose in writing about Babylon in the way he does is to provide other travelers with a guide to what they might find there, or to help people plan out their routes and know what to expect. He repeats several times that pilgrims should travel through Babylon to Mt. Sinai and then on to Jerusalem; the religious significance of the area is extremely important to him and he gives it notable space. He is also concerned with the history of the area, which I find interesting. Generally, I would assume people do not need to know the ruling class’ family tree to travel through an area, but Mandeville spends a large amount of time explaining the history of the city and how the current Sultan came to power. The effect I see from this is to ‘other’ the Muslim rulers by focusing on the violence in the process of electing a new Sultan, which works hand-in-hand with his emphasis on Christian stories and tradition to lift Christianity above other religions. Mandeville’s text is extremely centered on Christian pilgrims (especially in the Prologue, where he explicitly states his purpose) and while the Prologue is clearly anti-Semitic, this section seems to illustrate his prejudice against Islam as well.

(pp. 19-35)

Mandeville is especially concerned in this section with the religious history and religious significance of Constantinople. He writes at length about relics that are housed there, including the sponge and reed which Jesus drank from on the cross, one of the nails that held him to the cross, and part of the crown of thorns which he wore as he died (8-10). He also writes about saints who were buried in Constantinople, listing St. Anne, St. Luke the evangelist, and St. John Chrysostom. It seems that he wants his readers to know the fullest extent of Constantinople’s religious heritage, and he picks back up on this a few pages later when he talks about religious differences between Greek and English Christians.

Mandeville also writes about buildings, discussing the Emperor’s palace and drawing attention to its beauty. He claims the palace “is really lovely and beautifully adorned” and notes its practical design features as well as the aesthetic elements, stating that the Emperor’s stables were built underneath tiered seats in a jousting court (using space that may otherwise have been wasted) and that the stables’ pillars were made of marble (12). He draws attention to the wealth of Constantinople through these details, as well as when he describes the geography; he writes that “Constantinople is a very beautiful and great city with strong walls and it is three-cornered” (11). Mandeville seems to make a connection between wealth, beauty, and political strength by listing beauty, greatness, and strength as equal descriptors of the city, and echoes this sentiment when describing the Emperor’s palace.

Mandeville links beautiful buildings with religion in his description of St. Sophie’s church, which he calls “the finest and most beautiful church in the world” (8). He continues to describe a statue of the Emperor Justinian in front of the church. Here Mandeville slips from describing what he sees to reporting what people tell him: he presents a legend about this statue, explaining that it used to hold an apple which represented the emperor’s political power. Mandeville claims that “people have tried many times to put the apple back into the statue’s hand again, but it will not hold it; this apple signifies the lordship he once had over the world” (8). This moment is interesting to me in its intersection of politics and religion; not only does a statue of an emperor stand outside of a church, but the symbolism of a fallen apple reminds me of the fall of Adam and Eve in Christian mythology. I wonder if Mandeville is making an implicit connection that his contemporary readers would have picked up on.

Mandeville states his purpose in recording “things [that] are not relevant to the journey” at the end of this chapter, after he spends three long paragraphs describing the ways Greek Christians differ from English Christians in the ways they practice their faith (13-14). He claims he wants to show his readers differences in faith and culture for entertainment purposes, arguing that “many people take great pleasure and comfort to hear talk of unfamiliar things” (14). This points both to his purpose in writing and what his audience would have found unusual; Mandeville provides an impressive list of the differences in Greek Christianity compared to the Christianity of his readers (13), giving the impression that these details would provide a kind of shock value to his audience.

(pp. 7-14)