Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Accounts of the Ottoman Empire by Busbecq and Montesquieu: The Role of Orientalism
For centuries Europeans have had changing perceptions of the Middle East that
have been shaped by various forces. I would like to analyze two very different Western
European descriptions of the Ottoman Empire from two different times, and analyze why
they are so different. The first is The Turkish Letters, written by Ogier Ghiselin de
Busbecq, who described the Middle East in a series of letters that he wrote when he
served Ferdinand I of Austria as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1554 to 1562.
The second account of the Ottoman Empire is that from The Persian Letters, written in
depiction is told through a story in the form of fictional letters supposedly written by
Persians, Montesquieu paints a picture of the Ottoman Empire and voices his opinion of
it. What is most noticeable about these two accounts is the contrast between them.
While Busbecq praises the Ottoman Empire for many great aspects, Montesquieu
describes these same aspects in different ways and disparages them. But why does such a
difference exist? It is true that both of these individuals wrote about the Ottomans at
different times and had different motives in their writing. However, I want to suggest that
Edward W. Said in his book Orientalism. This style of dealing with the Middle East is
present in Montesquieu’s writing and explains where his inaccurate facts and negative
attitude comes from. I begin this paper by describing with specific examples how
2
Busbecq and Montesquieu offer opposite accounts and opinions of the Ottoman Empire.
I then explain that Montesquieu is an Orientalist, which is not true of Busbecq, and this is
one of the main reasons why such a drastic difference exists between the two.
It is first important to understand the two different ways that Busbecq and
Montesquieu treat the Ottoman Empire. The point of comparison that I would like to
start out with is how the two writers describe the system by which individuals gain higher
positions within society. Busbecq praises the Ottoman system because “no single man
owed his dignity to anything but his personal merits and bravery; no one is distinguished
from the rest by his birth.” He thinks that this is a good system, because “there is no
struggle for precedence, every man having his place assigned to him in virtue of the
function which he performs” (59). This is just a small part of the many elaborate and
society, but offers a very different opinion. He does this through the voice of the Persian
Usbek in one of his letters. In the context of discussing how “sick” the Ottoman Empire
is, he explains in a negative tone that pashas “obtain their offices only by bribery” (36).
Having the means to bribe one’s way into a high position is almost the opposite of
obtaining such a position through merit. Busbecq and Montesquieu offer opposite
the treatment of women. Busbecq describes a good way in which women are treated,
which is one of the strengths of the Ottoman Empire. He explains that most sultans do
not marry wives and only have children with slave women. However, he provides a
3
rational explanation for why this is true. The tradition began after Sultan Bajazet I, who
after “having been defeated and having fallen, together with his wife, into the hands of
Tamerlane, underwent many intolerable sufferings, but there was nothing which he
regarded as more humiliating than the insults and affronts to which his wife was
subjected before his very eyes” (28-9). Therefore, sultans only have slave wives upon
whom “disgrace would fall less heavily than upon legal wives.” So this system is
practiced for the sake of women. Busbecq goes on to elaborate and same that “the Turks,
indeed, do not think less highly of the children of concubines or mistresses than of those
born from wives, and the former possess equal rights of inheritance” (29). While
Busbecq praises this system, Montesquieu disparages the treatment of women in the
Ottoman Empire less than two hundred years later. The main way that he expresses this
is through the story that he tells about Usbek and his harem. (It should be pointed out
that this story technically takes place in Persia, not the Ottoman Empire. However,
commenting only on Persia. The story that he tells is meant to apply to the entire Middle
East, including the Ottoman Empire.) In the story, the relationship between Usbek and
his harem is representative of relations between men and women in the Middle East. The
way that Usbek controls his harem through fear is expressed in the letter that Roxana, one
of the women in the harem, writes to him: “How could you have imagined me credulous
enough to believe that I existed only to adore your caprices, that in permitting yourself
everything, you had the right to thwart my every desire? No: I have lived in slavery”
(272). It is clear that Montesquieu presents women as being unhappy with their situation
in which they are dominated by men. Again we see that Busbecq and Montesquieu tell
4
different versions of the way women are treated and have different attitudes toward what
While on the topic of the treatment of minorities, I would like to comment on the
that Ottoman system while Montesquieu only has bad things to say about it. Busbecq
explains that the advantages of Ottoman slavery outweigh the drawbacks: “The Turks
both publicly and privately gain much from slavery” (101). Meanwhile, Montesquieu
expresses negative thoughts about the Ottoman institution through the voice of a
Frenchman who talks to Usbek. He explains, “What most offend me among your
customs is that you are required to live with slaves whose minds and hearts always reflect
the baseness of their condition; these servile creatures, who beset you from infancy,
weaken and eventually destroy in you those sentiments of virtue implanted by nature”
(59). He goes on to explain the problems with slavery in the Middle East. This is
basically the voice of Montesquieu explaining one of the many aspects of society that
Both of these writers also comment on the characters of the Ottoman people and
how these traits contribute to either the strength or weakness of the empire. As usual,
Busbecq acclaims them for several reasons, such as their discipline, frugality, and
praiseworthy in that great multitude was the silence and good discipline” (61).
Throughout The Turkish Letters, he frequently brings up the thrift of the Ottomans: “The
Turks are so frugal and think so little of the pleasures of eating that if they have bread and
salt and some garlic or an onion, and a kind of sour milk, […] they ask for nothing more”
5
(52). Here and in other places, he goes on to elaborate on how with such economy, in
addition to patience and sobriety, the Ottomans can “struggle against the difficulties
which beset them, and wait for better times” (111). Such a character trait present in their
society contributes to the strength of the empire. One additional point by Busbecq is how
the Ottomans are very practical in certain ways. Examples of this are the clothes that
they wear, which lack useless trimmings and are very warm, and the fact that they are
always careful to carry tents that can hold many men. While Busbecq praises the
Ottomans for these qualities, Montesquieu seems to have differing opinions. Rather than
considering the Ottomans as disciplined, he explains, “an insolent militia submits only to
its own caprices.” Rather than being frugal, pashas “enter the provinces penniless and
ravage them like conquered countries.” An additional contrast, is rather than being
barbarians have so completely abandoned the arts that they neglect even the art of war,
and while European nations become constantly more refined, these people remain in their
outmoded ignorance and consider adopting new instruments of war only after they have
been used a thousand times against them” (36). It is these flaws and others that have
The last point of contrast between these two writings that I would like to bring up
is the difference in how the power of the sultan and others in authority is described.
Busbecq does explain that the sultan has absolute authority and “that his slightest wishes
ought to be obeyed,” but at the same time, he makes this sound acceptable, by saying that
he is “full of majesty” (59) and that “his dignity of demeanour and his general physical
appearance are worthy of the ruler of so vast an empire” (65). Meanwhile, Montesquieu
6
describes this same power and authority, but with a negative attitude: “No title, no
possession prevails against the whims of those in authority” (36). Another quote
describes this evil despotism: “A Persian who, by imprudence or misfortune, attracts the
displeasure of the prince is sure to die” (170). While Busbecq makes it seem that
authority uses its power to do good and make careful decisions, according to
powerful and admirable, while Montesquieu considers it weak with many problems. It
seems that their differing opinions are a direct result of both the different knowledge that
they have of the Ottoman Empire and the conclusions that they draw from what they
know. The next logical question to ask in analyzing these two primary sources is why
they differ so much. It might make sense that the difference in these descriptions is due
to actual change in the Ottoman Empire. It is well known that the empire did decline, or
at least decline relative to Western Europe, in the period from its peak in the sixteenth
century when Busbecq wrote about it, up through the eighteenth century in the time of
Montesquieu. However, decline of the empire does not account for the radically different
attitudes seen between the two writers. It also does not account for the extreme
difference in the descriptions of Ottoman institutions. There is no way that the position
of women or the characters of the Ottoman people changed in less than two hundred
years as much as the disparity seen between the descriptions of Busbecq and
Montesquieu. The difference between the two writings is not due entirely to an actual
Another possibility for why such contrast exists between these two writings is that
7
both Busbecq and Montesquieu were exaggerating what thought and knew about the
case, he was writing near the time when the Ottoman Empire was near its peak in power,
and one of his objectives was to frighten European rulers and governments into
reforming. This is clear when he says, “I tremble when I think of what the future must
bring when I compare the Turkish system with our own; one army must prevail and the
institutions and the overall power of the empire because he wants Europeans to feel like
they have some serious competition. Meanwhile, it can be argued that while
Montesquieu is talking about the Middle East, he is doing this to make a point about
France to get it to reform. He focuses on how horrible the institutions are in the Middle
East to show France what it should not be like. Therefore, while Busbecq exaggerates the
greatness of the Ottoman Empire and uses this version as a model for what Europe should
be like, Montesquieu exaggerates the sickness of the empire, and uses this as a model for
It is possible to account for the drastic difference between the writings of Busbecq
and Montesquieu using the facts that the Ottoman Empire did decline relative to Western
Europe between the times of their writings, and that they both exaggerated there points in
an additional reason for this disparity, and that is that in Montesquieu’s book there is a
usage that I will be using was coined by Edward Said. He defines Orientalism as “a way
of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in European
8
Western experience” (1). (By the Orient, he is referring to the entire Eastern part of the
Eurasian continent, but this does apply to the Middle East and specifically the Ottoman
Empire.) To be more precise about the meaning of the word, he provides three separate
definitions. This first is the academic designation, which refers to the study of the Orient.
distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and (most of the time) ‘the Occident’” (2). The
third and final definition treats Orientalism as a way of dealing with the Orient, and Said
calls this “modern Orientalism” (22). This did not get started until the late eighteenth
century. The specific definition of Orientalism that we are dealing with in The Persian
Letters is the second one. The first definition is not the best choice, because we are going
beyond simply the study of the Ottoman Empire in comparing Busbecq and Montesquieu,
and we are discussing the different attitudes that these Europeans have. The third
definition is also not relevant, because we are looking at a different time frame.
Therefore, we a talking about the “style of thought” used by Montesquieu that leads to
I would like to elaborate on exactly what this second definition of Orientalism is,
and how it applies to Montesquieu but not Busbecq. Said explains several key aspects of
this definition of Orientalism, and two of them help us understand how only Montesquieu
is an Orientalist and how this contributes to the disparity between the two accounts. The
first idea about Orientalism is that it involves the idea that to Europe “the Orient was
something more than what was empirically known about it. […] European understanding
[…] was ignorant but complex” (55). Often the image of the Orient was due to
“European imagination” (56). Based on these ideas, it easy to see why Orientalism is not
9
present in Busbecq, because he actually visited the Ottoman Empire, and did his best to
accurately describe what he saw there. For example, he actually observed the Ottoman
system of slavery or the frugality of the Ottomans, and did his best to recount what he
learned. However, Montesquieu never actually traveled to the Ottoman Empire. The
knowledge that he had of this part of the world was based on what he read from other
travelers. Therefore, it is much easier for him to invent details not based on empirical
evidence and to use his own imagination. It is hard to believe that Montesquieu could
write so elaborately on such things as how slavery works and the characters of the
and inaccurate recounting of the Middle East is due to his Orientalist attitude, and this
attitude, in turn, causes his account to be so different from that of Busbecq, who was not
an Orientalist.
The second aspect of this particular definition of Orientalism that can be applied
to the writing of Montesquieu but not that of Busbecq is that Orientalism always involves
the Orient being “inferior to a European equivalent” (72). While “Europe is powerful and
articulate, Asia is defeated and distant” (57). In the words of Said, Islam in the eyes of
Europeans eventually came “to symbolize terror, devastation, the demonic, hordes of
hated barbarians” (59). It is obvious that these attitudes are present in Montesquieu, such
as when he disparages the Ottomans for their system based on bribery and their evil
rulers. However, we see the opposite in Busbecq, because he respects the Ottomans in
many ways and almost considers them superior to the great European nations. Related to
this “inferiority” of the Orient, there is the idea in Orientalist writing that the Orient is
incorporated “on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are for Europe,
10
and only for Europe” (71-2). We see this in Montesquieu’s portrayal of the harem, but
not in Busbecq’s attempts to accurately describe the role of women. The fact that
Montesquieu has this Orientalist attitude in which the West is just better than the Middle
East explains why he offers so many negative opinions on that part of the world. In
summary, the information that Montesquieu gives about the Ottoman Empire is not only
very different from the more accurate version of Busbecq, but also is presented with a
much more negative attitude, and this can in part be explained by his being an Orientalist.
Busbecq and Montesquieu are two different Western Europeans from different
times who wrote very different accounts of the Ottoman Empire. While Busbecq
described and praised certain Ottoman institutions, Montesquieu less than two hundred
years later described the same institutions in a very different way and disparaged that
which he wrote about. This disparity between the two accounts can be explained by
actual change in the Ottoman Empire and the different reasons that the two writers had
for commenting on the Middle East. However, I have suggested that the presence of
Orientalism in the writing of Montesquieu but not that of Busbecq also helps explain the
difference between the two. This shows us that we cannot take all European accounts of
the Middle East literally, because many powerful forces, such as Orientalism, can
influence individual writers. As a result of this, Western perceptions of the East have not
matched reality for centuries. For all this time and even today, the nature of these views
has played a key role in the conflict that has existed between these two parts of the world.
11
Works Cited
Busbecq, Ogier Ghiselin de. The Turkish Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq.
Translated by Edward S. Forster. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1927.
Montesquieu, CharlesLouis de Secondat, Baron de la Bréde et de. The Persian Letters.
Translated by George R. Healy. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.