 |
 |
Seems to me that there is some confusion, or at least some unstated disagreemen t, over what "orientalism" means in the first place. If we take the definition offered by Edward Said, then the use of "Mahound" or its many variations in la te medieval/early modern England is most certainly orientalist. Said suggests that orientalism's "orient" is "man-made" (_Orientalism_ 5), and argues quite persuasively that orientalism is less about any reality of the orient than about Western constructions of the " Orient" through representation. According to Said, "The things to look at [in these representations] are style, figures of speech, setting, narrative devices , historical and social circumstances, _not_ the correctness of the representat ion not its fidelity to some great original" (_Orientalism_ 21). Thus, we do not need to determine whether the creators of the texts in which characters s wear by "Mahound" had access to any "great original" (and "truthful") represent ation of Islam. The reference to some vaguely "eastern," certainly exotic, and most definitely evil heathen god is part of the process by which the "west" ha d been constructing the "orient" for centuries (even, in the case of English cy cle drama, in the absence-or at least relative infrequency-of "real" encounte rs between Englishmen/women and "orientals," "Muslims," or any other "exotic," "foreign" other. All best, Mary Sokolowski Binghamton University [log in to unmask]