Post on 28-Apr-2015




1 download




Orientalism in Early Modern FranceEurasian Trade, Exoticism, and the Ancien RgimeIna Baghdiantz McCabe

Oxford New York

Disclaimer: This eBook does not include the ancillary media that was packaged with the original printed version of the book.First published in 2008 by Berg Editorial ofces: 1st Floor, Angel Court, 81 St Clements Street, Oxford, OX4 1AW, UK 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA Ina Baghdiantz McCabe 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of Berg. Berg is the imprint of Oxford International Publishers Ltd. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data McCabe, Ina Baghdiantz. Orientalism in early modern France : Eurasian trade, exoticism, and the Ancien Rgime / Ina Baghdiantz McCabe. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 9781845203740 (cloth) ISBN-10: 1845203747 (cloth) 1. FranceCivilizationAsian inuences. 2. FranceRelations Asia. 3. AsiaRelationsFrance. 4. FranceForeign relations1589 1789. I. Title. DC33.3.M33 2008 303.48'2440509032dc22 2008001197 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 1 84520 374 0 (Cloth) Typeset by Apex Printed in the United Kingdom by Biddles Ltd, Kings Lynn


ContentsAcknowledgments Introduction PART I: ONE NATION, ONE WORLD UNDER FRENCH RULE 1 2 3 4 5 The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel The Ambassadors France in the World Orientalism As Science: The Production of Knowledge under Louis XIV The Turks and the Other Within: The Huguenots PART II: CONSUMING THE EXOTIC 6 7 8 9 Coffee and Orientalism in France A Barbarous Taste: The Transmission of Coffee Drinking Domesticating the Exotic: Imports and Imitation The Politics of Pleasure: French Imitations of Oriental Sartorial Splendor and the Royal Carrousels Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 163 183 205 15 37 69 101 137 v 1

231 257 291 299 361 381 399


Epilogue Notes Primary Sources Selected Secondary Sources Index


DedicationTo Anna and Bill

AcknowledgmentsI was privileged to receive a grant from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies at Harvard to support the work for this book. My rst thanks goes to the Radcliffe Institute and to its dean, Drew Gilpin Faust. The rst meeting held at Radcliffe that year was on September 12, 2001. We arrived to sit in a room full of sad and silent people. Dean Faust, as new to the institute as we were, acknowledged that this was a time like no other; she told us that we would be a special group and forge special bonds. No one knew what was going to happen next on that day. Monica H. Green, new to Boston, was worried about her children, both of whom had Arabic last names; she had just dropped them off in a school where they knew no one. Afsaneh Najmabadi and I, perfect strangers until that moment, did not exchange a handshake but rather a tearful embrace. A fellow who was a New Yorker, a writer who lived on Canal Street, never came to the institute. With innite gratitude I write that the year went on and it was one of the best years of my life. I planned and started three books, not one, and nished an old project planned since 1998. Yet sadly, as we all knew would happen that morning, views of Islam became topical, and the book took on a new urgency in hopes to show that dialogue and exchanges had long existed between cultures. One person in the room did something much more extraordinary than any of us there. As I write this, it had just been announced the day before that Drew Gilpin Faust would be the next president of Harvard University. Few words could have been spoken on that day that would not have sounded shallow, but Drew kept us all together and focused us on work in the midst of emotional chaos. My thanks go to my colleagues at Radcliffe and at Harvard who helped me shape my ideas by commenting on this book project at its inception or who asked important questions that transformed it: Lizbeth Cohen, Monica Green, Wilt Idema, Cemal Kefadar, Alice Kessler-Harris, Afsaneh Najmabadi, Irene Silverblatt, and Judith Vicniac. Many other people, whether privately or publicly, have commented on this book and have read it at least in part; I claim all errors as mine and thank Suraiya Faroqhi, Leila Fawaz, Vartan Gregorian, Alisha Rankin, Edward Said, Robert W. Thomson, Dirk Van der Cruysse, and Abby Zanger. My gratitude goes to my friend and colleague Jeanne Marie Penvenne for her unfailing support during an especially difcult year as I was completing corrections to my manuscript. My thanks also go to Lucette Valensi and Madeleine Dobie for sending me bibliographical information. Special thanks goes to Franois Moureau for inviting me to present the book to a seminar at the Sorbonne, Paris, where I was once a student myself. Many students


vi Acknowledgmentshave contributed to this book: Emma Wright from Harvard, Rachel Bingham from the Fletcher School, and most of all my research assistant Julie Foster. Tufts graduate students Jodi Larson and Lindsay Schakenbach helped to proofread the nal manuscript. I owe much to my editors at Berg: Ian Critchley, Julia Hall, Julene Knox, and most of all Kathleen May, who commissioned this book. Others who have been instrumental with many aspects of the book are Julia Rosen, Emily Metcalf, Ellie Wilson, and Ken Hassman. Annette Lazzara at the history department facilitated all the administrative aspects of the travel to France that this book required for several years. This book could not have been written without my nearly twenty years in France. For ten years I lived in Rue Laplace, a few feet from where Guillaume Postel, Frances rst Orientalist, had studied at the College Sainte Barbe, now a noisy high school. From my window I could see where Antoine Galland had been buried. The initial idea for this book dates back to the late 1970s, when it would have been near impossible to write; since then so many other books have made this one possible. I would like to thank a fellow historian who has been formative in my life, my friend and classmate Philippe Riv, whose love for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries made me abandon working on the twentieth; ironically he now focuses on World Wars I and II. Other friends or family that have helped me in one way or another include my beloved stepmother Anoush Baghdiantz, Sylvie Merian at the Morgan library, Rubina Saidkhanian and Ren Jacobs, and in the very last phase of the book Jan Fidjeland. I thank my professors at the Sorbonne Pierre Chaunu, Jean Ganiage, Jacques Heers, and Michel Mollat; although they have taken no active part in this book, my education in Paris is at its very foundation. The book is dedicated to the two people that are my life, my husband Bill McCabe and my daughter Anna. February 13, 2007


Furs, silks and ne cottons, stimulantstea, coffee, sugar, rum, gin, tobacco and spices of all kindsscrimshaw and curios for cabinets, travel books and atlases, topazes, feathers, orientalizing and Americanizing changes in clothing and ornament: these things did not simply improve the quality of life in the metropole, they altered it, and altered the people who wore, ate, owned, contemplated, and changed their moods with them. You are what you eat, and Europe was cannibalizing the places and peoples that eventually made up its empires.1 Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science

One moment marks the inception of French imperial presence in Asia. In great secrecy on April 12, 1798, the French Directory ordered the creation of the Army of the Orient, naming Napoleon Bonaparte (17691821) its commander in chief. On May 19 the French forces left Toulon, comprising 400 vessels, 50,000 men, over 1,000 pieces of artillery, 567 vehicles, 700 horses, and a slew of French scientists and artists, who were not apprised of their secret destination. The aims of the Egyptian invasion were not only to defeat the English and to establish a French empire in the Mediterranean, but also to conduct a scientic survey of Egypt. Edward Sads famous book Orientalism begins with Napoleons invasion of Egypt. He argued thirty years ago that empire and orientalist science went hand in hand. The mission of the Arme dOrients orientalists and scientists was to study Egypt to advance French knowledge of the world. Most of the orientalists who accompanied the French expedition were the students of one man, Sylvestre de Sacy (17581838), a man closely studied by Edward Sad in Orientalism.2 In October 1798, as French cannons were shelling the Al Ahzar mosque, Joseph Marcel risked the ames to rescue some invaluable Quranic texts.3 After the end of the expedition, he was appointed director of the Imprimerie nationale in Paris where he assisted with the publishing of the multivolume Description of Egypt. Silvestre de Sacy and his many students were of great service to Frances imperial project and were rewarded with peerages and government posts. This well-known Napoleonic expedition to Egypt, and its resulting scientic survey, were the products of very long-held French imperial hopes. The earlier history of French Orientalism is less well known.4 This book is as much about the orientalizing of France and the French accumulation and consumption of oriental goods as it is about Orientalism in France. It ends with


2 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceAnquetil Duperron, the man Sad considered to be the rst orientalist.5 The book ends where Edward Sads book began, with the imperial age, the invasion of Egypt. The history of French orientalism starts after the very rst French diplomatic relations with the Ottomans, established by a letter that traveled hidden in a boot in 1526 under Francis I. The Egyptian invasion itself had an older history, a textual one. As early as 1672, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (16461716) traveled to meet Louis XIV (16381715) and present him with his pamphlet titled Thoughts on Public Safety, which argued for an invasion of Egypt. Leibniz contended that the states of Europe should not ght each other, but conquer the Muslim world. In Leibnizs plan of global conquest, Egypt was the rst stage in the domination of the Muslim world. According to his plan, the rule of Egypt should fall to France and make France the mistress of the Mediterranean; Egypt was the cornerstone of a French empire and crucial for the control of a route to India. Leibniz had depicted Egypt variously as the eye of countries, the mother of grain, the seat of commerce.6 Attacking the Ottomans would have spared the German provinces from French aggression. A century later, in 1769, Louis XV (17101774) was approached by the Duc de Choiseul, who argued against continuing the costly French colonial efforts in North America and recommended the conquest of Egypt in its stead. As a consequence of de Choiseuls policies, during the last decades of the eighteenth century, even as a revolution took place in the American colonies and then later in France, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was inundated with reports and accounts from Egypt by French travelers, merchants, and consular agents. A few years later, in 1777, Baron de Tott was sent by the Foreign Ofce on a secret mission to explore the advantages of securing Egypt as a French colony. He was accompanied by several specialists, including Sonnini de Manincourt, a naturalist who wrote his own travel account.7 Such examples make the relationship between imperialism and travel and Orientalism clear, as Sad has long argued. However, until the late seventeenth century such direct links between policy and travel accounts were not as common, nor always as overt. The birth of French Orientalism was a long and complex process that was not always directly commissioned, nanced, or even instigated by the French court. Did this mean that early Orientalism was not imperial? A scrutiny of Orientalisms early days answers this question in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 by exploring how it was sponsored and what transformations of knowledge it produced in France. This is a book about France. Early Orientalisms had an immense impact on French culture and on French institutions, not on the Orient.8 It is argued here that if the Orient was an object of study, it was France that was the subject of transformations. France shaped itself while engaging with the rest of the world. Upon Louis XIVs long-awaited birth on September 5, 1638, the famous astrologer Campanella predicted that Louis XIV would grow to be the hero anticipated by the mystic Abbot Joachim of Fiore, the solar hero who would at last eliminate the Muslim anti-Christ from the face of the earth.9 This is often a predictable clich in discussing Islam and France. Yet, this was predicted of a monarch who succeeded

Introduction 3a line of kings allied to the mightiest of Muslim rulers, the Sultan. Since Francis I, the French were the main European allies of the powerful Ottomans, enemies of the Hapsburgs who loomed large on the borders of Europe. The concept of Gallia Orientalis, Louiss dream of empire in Asia, was based on the belief that it was his duty to reconquer Charlemagnes empire and to extend it, and he fought the Hapsburgs for the title of emperor.10 Louis also wanted to convert everyone in the world, including the king of Siam, to Catholicism. There was a large difference between this predictable, deep-rooted, and rather repetitious imperial discourse, and actual policy. This makes it all the more important to study Orientalism within its historical context, as the gap between discourse and reality was often a vast one. While discussing crusades, as his predecessors had done for over six centuries, everything was done to maintain Frances friendship with the Ottomans for the merchants of Marseilles. Most of Frances trade depended on the Levant markets. It is stressed here that the Normans ran the Atlantic trade and the Proveneaux ran the Levant trade, quite independently from the court. Frances Eurasian trade grew exponentially during Louiss reign. The merchants of Marseilles were instrumental. Antoine Galland and many other orientalists were all attached to diplomatic missions funded by the merchants of Marseilles, not by the court. The kings discourse was just one among many. The rst three chapters examine Frances contacts with the world and some of the writing it produced, while Chapter 4 concentrates on the creations of institutions under Louis to gather, control, and classify the writing produced by French travelers. It highlights the role of Orientalism in the birth of science and in the creation of the French Academy of Sciences. Antoine Galland in his Paroles remarquables, bon mots et maxims remarquables des Orienteaux wrote: [U]nder the name oriental I do not only mean the Arabs and the Persians, but the Turks and the Tartars and nearly all of the peoples of Asia all the way to China, be they Muslims, pagans or idol worshipers.11 Additionally the Americas were often conated with Asia. The French term les Indes referred to both, and despite the adjectives of orientales and occidentales, there was often a fusion of Asia and the Americas in French views. A crucial shift took place over the century. In the 1606 Nicot dictionary, orient only denoted where the sun rises. In 1694 in the rst dictionary of the Acadmie franaise it becomes geographically dened: Orient, Se prend aussi pour les Estats, les Provinces de la grande Asie, comme lEmpire du Mogol, le Royaume de Siam, de la Chine, &c. Les regions de lorient. les Peuples dorient. les Princes dorient. voyager en orient. cela vient dorient. des perles dorient. une agate dorient.12 Even the denition pointed to oriental goods, pearls, and agates. Orientalism was closely tied to Eurasian trade, and this is how it is studied here, through merchants, travelers and diplomats. The st ve chapters argue in different ways that Frances trade relations were closely tied to this very diverse and often contradictory textual production. Chapter 5 concentrates on the Huguenots and their importance as sailors, merchants, and explorers. The role of the Huguenots is alluded to in Chapter 3 and is

4 Orientalism in Early Modern Francestudied more closely in Chapters 4 and 5 as their role in Louiss navy and his overseas ambitions was crucial and has often been overlooked. Several very important French merchants were Protestants and were among the chief purveyors of exotic goods to court. The most striking case was Louiss new and unsurpassed diamond collection brought from India. Exotic goods solicited a discourse that was both social and economic in nature as they transformed daily life and also had a concrete impact on French society. From Asia came the many exotic luxury goods such as silk, cotton, coffee, tea, china, gems, furniture, owers, lacquer, and paper, all of which altered daily life and transformed French society and culture. From Chapter 6 through 10, these material transformations, the discourse about them, and the epistemological consequences of exotic goods are explored. Not only did these imports change material life, but the travel accounts written by French merchants, missionaries, and diplomats involved in the trade had a tremendous cultural and political impact on the social structures of French society and how it viewed itself. It is these views, about what was French and what was foreign, that metamorphosed the exotic goods of earlier centuries into what the French considered national goods by the end of the eighteenth century. Exotic is used here as a category, as meaning outside of things French; exotisme and its adjective was not part of the French vocabulary until 1845, as it was largely a nineteenth-century phenomenon. How a foreign, exotic good was naturalized is the object of Chapters 6, 7, and 8. A striking example of this transformation is the creation of the caf as public space in imitation of the coffee houses in Cairo, Istanbul, and Isfahan. Today the caf is seen as a Parisian institution, and coffee is seen as a national drink by the French, its oriental roots forgotten. This cycle of cultural integration was the fate of many luxury goods imported from Asia. This is historicizing objects and commodities. Bruno Latour wrote best about the dilemma that arises when studying the reception of objects in society:Social scientists have for long allowed themselves to denounce the belief systems of ordinary people. They call the belief system naturalyzation (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Ordinary people imagine that the power of gods, the objectivity of money, the attraction of fashion, the beauty of art, come from some objective properties intrinsic to the nature of things, fortunately social scientists know better and they show that the arrow goes in fact in the other direction, from society to the objects To become a social scientist is to realize that the inner properties of objects do not count. That they are a mere receptacle for human categories.13

In studying the exotic and its reception in France, one studies perceptions, not the exotic. Through contact with the exotic an interest in categorizing of the domestic arose; the clearest example is herbalism, later called botany, explored in Chapters 4 and 8, which partly rely on the work of historians of science such as Paula Findlen and Londa Schienger.

Introduction 5What was exotic or domestic was an intellectual construct that had little to do with reality. Some domestic products were still perceived as exotic, and vice versa. This is true intellectually as well. Slavery existed in France, but it was silenced and seen as exotic to France and impossible on French soil. Another case in point is oriental despotism, a notion present in Greek texts. There was a similar naturalizing in the political cycle that moved from identifying despotism with the oriental other to the despotism within in eighteenth-century France, noticed by many scholars working on literature. As importantly, Orientalism also shaped economic writing, much of it concentrating on luxury, once seen as oriental and tied to despotism, as examined in Chapter 10. Luxury was viewed as a marker of class within France, as it was elsewhere, until the Revolution discourse tied it exclusively to the French monarchy and aristocracy. In the discussions on luxury the Orient was a point of reference. Beyond luxury, through comparison, a whole political system was being gauged. China loomed large in the thought of the famous French physiocrats, while Persia and the Persian kings as oriental despots infuse French political philosophy from Jean Bodin (15291596) to Montesquieu to the Abb Raynal. A dominant issue before the French revolution, as Frances economic decit became clear, was the battle between the physiocrats and a group of bankers around Necker (17321804) who argued for more investment and for speculation in the French overseas commercial trade companies. The last chapter, Chapter 10, picks up this discussion, begun in Chapter 2 with Bodins views on oriental despotism. Through Louis XIVs personal efforts Paris became the fashion capital of the world, a center for luxury goods. Paris outmoded Spanish dress in Europe. Louis set the example of wearing shimmering brocades, colorful silks, enormous ostrich plumes, diamonds, and high-heeled shoes. He set a amboyant example that he required to be imitated by the courtesans at Versailles, who in turn were imitated by others. There is little question that it was through cooks and coiffeurs that the court of France exercised its cultural imperialism on Europes elites.14 Famously, Norbert Elias has argued that the extravagant expenses of life at Versailles, including the costumed balls where aristocrats dressed as Turks, Persians, and Moors, were a matter of establishing political control. He argued that Louis used fashion and the extravagant consumption it imposed as a tool of political submission. It is argued here that, ironically, endorsing oriental sartorial splendor at court gave rise to the creation of Frenchness through fashion, which became an umbrella denition that broke through the class barriers. It can be argued that social mobility was the greatest factor in increased consumption. Social mobility was a matter of policy, as merit was rewarded beyond the aristocracy. Louis gave titles of nobility to many merchant families. Display became a mark of rank. Chapter 8 examines the role of merchants and artisans amending the Elias model, while Chapter 9 concentrates on fashion and display at court as it pertains to Orientalism. French fashion, as constructed by Louis, also proted the French silk industry. Colbert reformed an inefcient silk industry that had existed since Francis I to turn

6 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceit into a major one.15 The silk manufacturers of Lyons produced for the new French fashion, making the brightly colored striped and owered silks imposed by Louis on his court, and in turn on the rest of Europes elite. France went from an importer of silk textiles to become an exporter. It exported over 30,000 pounds sterling worth of French silk to England in 1674 alone.16 Nevertheless, recent scholarship has rightly moved away from a totally court-centered view of consumption. Merchants and markets, and their mechanisms, are correctly seen as central in transforming demand. Scientists and artisans also had a central role in taming the exotic and shaping it, as Chapter 8 discusses. Yet, court policy, sumptuary laws, imports, mercantilism (and its demand for imitation), and built-up domestic productions in expectation of bans against imports were still central. When and how modern consumption was created is the subject of much debate and disagreement among scholars, but the range was within the early modern period; the sixteenth century at the earliest, the eighteenth at the latest.17 Carolyn Webers new book on the woman who was called Madame dcite, Marie Antoinette, was a tremendous boon. The book closes with a few moments spent with the foreign queen, guilty of using exotic foreign goods. A decade or two before the French Revolution, the mood had turned protectionist, xenophobic, and nationalistic by all accounts. Foreign goods, foreigners, and foreign ways were publicly reviled, and Chapter 10 argues for a longer history of this discourse. Marie Antoinette and her abandonment of the French court dress and its silken sartorial splendor was seen as causing the economic distress of France.18 It is argued here that resistance to things foreign had a very long history in Frances political economy. While the process of Westernization and resistance to it in the Middle East, especially in the nineteenth century, has long attracted the attention of scholars, there is scant literature on the adoption of oriental goods, manners, fashions, techniques, and modes of thinking by European society. The orientalization of France and the resistance to it deserve study. This is just a beginning, as the material is vast. Here only a few examples were chosen. The custom of drinking coffee was imported via Cairo, the Ottoman empires chief marketplace. These manners were of course transformed by European adoption, yielding a myriad of hybrid cultural customs that arose in that age of archaic globalism. These new beverages are only the most striking and evident examples of many goods that had an effect on French manners, daily life, economic policy, trade, and industry. Their adoption and integration apparently speaks of a cosmopolitan society open to change, yet there is a whole discourse of resistance to the exotic to study. Looking at the adoption of new goods by the French helps diffuse the binary model used in many works on Orientalism, and already amended by Homi Bhahbas views on hybridization and by Marie Louise Pratts contact zones.19 Latours work adds the very useful view of networks and hybrids, well suited for studying the Early Modern period. A few good books look at French Orientalism in the arts and in literature, centered on France looking at the other through theater or painting, but not on the

Introduction 7transformations within French society instigated by these contacts.20 Closest to the focus of this book are the works of Madeleine Dobie and Michle Longino, although they are concerned with the literary. Nothing has been written on the material transformations that occurred in French daily habits by the adoption of some oriental customs, with the notable exception of a small passage in Madeleine Dobies book about orientalist literature containing a fascinating mention in passing about how furniture and chairs transformed by Ottoman models might have changed body posture, as sofas and ottomans were adapted and adopted in France.21 In Furnishing the Eighteenth Century, Dobie has continued to look at stylistic transformations in furniture.22 Stylistic change and imitation is another way Orientalism has been well studied. In this category the taste for chinoiserie has the largest literature devoted to it. Most works are on the eighteenth or nineteenth century, with the exception of Michle Longinos study of Orientalism in French theater in the seventeenth century. It is an exceptional study, as it ties literary production and historical circumstances.23 Another very relevant work on the seventeenth century is Dominique Carnoys work on the representation of Islam in France.24 Contrary to the impact of the Ottomans on Europe, the impact of France on the Ottomans and their tastes has been well explored: Fatma Muge Gcek has studied the effects that this encounter produced on Istanbul and on Ottoman customs and views.25 Here it is argued that Paris was just as affected, if not more so, and transformed by its contact with Asia and the Americas. Both were seen as the Orient, and both were labeled les Indes, even as there was a clear division in the seventeenth century between les Indes orientales for Asia and les Indes occidentales for the Americas; the confusion existed even in the eighteenth century. This is one of the issues explored throughout the book. For France the effect of contact with les Indes has been presented as textual and stylistic but not transformative. Perhaps because of the European view that progress belonged to Christianity and to Europe alone after the Age of Exploration, in the wake of Europes very successful expansion and colonialism, there has been some reluctance to give the Orient, save for China, any agency in transforming Early Modern Europe.26 Yet, there was a dialogue in the exchanges between Asia and Europe. Even as Europe started dreaming of empire, it was integrating the world it lusted after into its own domestic sphere. It did this through the accumulation that characterized early capitalism: cabinets of curiosities, collections of objects, books, manuscripts, and exotic plants and owers. These goods brought not only epistemological innovation, but orientalized Europeans and changed their consumption habits. The second part of this book examines these material changes. New consumption habits created demand, which in turn brought technological innovation to create imitations and new industries within France. The collection of exotic plants and animals marked the birth of zoology and herbalism, later called botany. Frances exchanges with the Orient produced profound socioeconomic and intellectual changes. Of all the new oriental goods, the one that had the largest impact and was chosen for study in

8 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethis bookcoffee consumptionbrought on innovations in social institutions and medicine. But all of these new goods and information collected in travel books had the largest impact on the birth of sciences in France, despite resistance from the Sorbonne, as explored in Chapters 1, 2, and 4. How to plant a tulip or sip a cup of coffee became part of the vocabulary of daily life in France. Contacts with other societies stimulated a whole discourse around new goods. This study of the transformation of French material, intellectual, and cultural life is inuenced by recent scholarship on patterns of consumption.27 Eurasian trade is explored for its cultural, material, and intellectual ramications in Early Modern France. With one look at the scant scholarship there is on the effects of Orientalism or oriental goods on Venice, Antwerp, the Portuguese, and the Dutch, one realizes that this silence is not unique to France.28 There is an inspiring precedent for analyzing the Ottoman empires impact on European material life. Lisa Jardines Worldly Goods successfully challenges a monolithic view of European life by integrating knowledge about the Ottoman empire through the work of scholars such as Glru Necipoglu.29 Previously held ideas about the East and West have been dismantled in some important corrective efforts for the sixteenth century: the works of Kim Hall for England, of Jerry Brotton for the Portuguese, and the well-known contributions of Lisa Jardine bring a global view of the Renaissance.30 Lisa Jardine and Jerry Brotton have also dissolved the alien exotic other in the same breadth as they have dismantled clichs of the Renaissance man.31 Mary Campbells book Wonder and Science breaks disciplinary boundaries in every sense, reminding us that the disciplines did not exist then. This book hopes to express the same spirit of exchange and dialogue between cultures and disciplines.32 In contrast to Eurasian trade, the literature on production and trade, and on slavery and plantation life at this later stage of European exchange with the New World is too vast to cite in this introduction; it highlights European expansion and is readily studied. Europes taste for exotic goods was not only at the root of Europes colonial plantations, but of many new manufactures that imitated foreign luxury goods and strived to produce them domestically. Many of these innovations and imitations were in textiles and were at the root of a proto-industrial revolution. Many travelers were sent to study, or less politely put, spy on manufacturing techniques in Persia, India, and China and report home. The oldest effort of imitating oriental goods in France began as a fascinating experiment that involved planting mulberry trees in the garden of the Tuileries palace under Henri IV. Manufactures, gardens, shops, public spaces, guilds and their organization, economic theories, and philosophical writings were all deeply affected by the commercial exchanges that France had with Asia. Each aspect would demand a book of its own. The main sources used here are travel accounts combined with some archival sources and with many secondary works on France. The many secondary sources by historians of France that helped me along the way are acknowledged in the notes. French travel accounts have attracted the attention of major literary scholars;

Introduction 9Franois Moureau, Dirk Van der Cruysse, and Frank Lestringant are leaders among a group of researchers that have unearthed and studied many forgotten texts at the Centre de recherch sur la literature des voyages at Paris IV, Sorbonne. Based on Boucher de la Richarderies Bibliothque universelle des voyages, compiled in the nineteenth century, Daniel Roche gives us the prodigious number of travel accounts produced in Europe in the Early Modern period. The accounts that appear in the repertory made by the Bibliothque universelle are numbered at a total of 5,562. For the sixteenth century, one counts only 456 travel accounts in European languages and 1,566 in the seventeenth, then 3,540 for the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century.33 The numbers alone speak of the growing engagement of Europe with the rest of the world. This was not a space where I could linger on an account, nor create a complete list of them. I attempted to choose relevant travelers to look at their networks. Famous travelers are often viewed alone, in a heroic tradition, but they were part of a network of exchange that was all-important to the birth of science in France. Chapter 4 concentrates on the birth of the French Academy of Sciences and its links to travel and Orientalism. One cannot write about France alone, as ntre Europe, our Europe, is a concept found constantly under the pen of French travelers to Asia.34 The network of exchange between travelers was European. I have tried to keep the freedom of spirit to think simultaneously of some of the multitude of concrete transformations that occurred in Early Modern Europe and of the desires and hopes and dreams that were not always directly tied to any real results. For French commerce in Asia the latter category is prodigiously large. This is a discontinuous history, one punctuated by accident and interruption, and as far as policy and discourse goes, one nds at least two voices if not more. Nevertheless, if most of the French courts ventures in Asia were miserable failures, they had immense cultural consequences domestically. Much of the courts discourse about its role in the world was about how it was destined to rule it, while policy did not follow this agenda. This book considers discourse, stated policy, and action on the terrain captured at different moments. Beyond the court, there were many other voices writing about the Orient: merchants, doctors, jewelers, and adventurers. The court did, however, consider them informants, once it got organized to do so. Was the information collected used? If so, how? Did this collection serve imperial aims? Did it ever help any imperial projects that took into account the observations sent in by travelers? Was there any true utility in writing about Asia? Did the travelers themselves participate in any imperial hopes? These may not be the right questions, but they are summoned by the word Orientalism, now marked by Sads denition of it since 1978. Early Orientalism was shaped by a multitude of voices writing about les Indes, and they are full of contradictions. They slowly built up the modern dichotomy so well described by Latour as the divide between culture and nature, between science and society. The quarrels between the ancients and moderns was apparently won by the moderns. The travelers, many of them doctors, in this book are the moderns, building a new worldview as observers. According to Bruno Latour, we have never

10 Orientalism in Early Modern Francebeen modern: Seen as networks the modern world, like revolutions, permits scarcely anything more than small extensions of practices, slight acceleration in the circulation of knowledge, a tiny extension of society, minuscule increase in the number of actors, small modication of old beliefs.35 The way Orientalism has been studied is linked to modernity, to conquest, and to imperialism. Modernity linked power and knowledge together in the monism invented by Hobbes, borrowed by Foucault, and used by Edward Sad and many others in his footsteps. This view itself is a modern construct in which we all participate. Bruno Latour sees that we are only beginning to critique modernity now as we are hoping to escape from its consequences of global warming, ecological disasters, and genetically modied foods that bring modernization under criticism. Before Hobbes and Boyle wrote out the contract that dened the modern world, and eventually made us view the sciences as distinct from the humanities, how was knowledge utilized? How was knowledge linked to power? Was the knowledge gathered by French scientists and travelers used by those in power? Did the court and its institutions use scientic knowledge under Louis XIV when the French Academy of Science was born? This book has no pretension to uncover how modernity was built in France, but it hopes to uncover the role of travel and Orientalism in building that modernity through transforming both Frances political and scientic institutions and its patterns of consumption. This book argues in Chapters 1, 4, and 8 that Orientalism was at the inception of the Collge de France, and of the Academy of Sciences. The world before modernity and after it has been described as another world:When we see them as networks, Western innovations remain recognizable and important, but they no longer sufce as the stuff of saga, the vast saga of radical rupture, fatal destiny, irreversible good or bad fortune. The antimoderns, like the postmoderns have accepted their adversaries playing eld; another eldmuch broader much less polemicalhas opened up before us: the eld of nonmodern worlds, it is the middle kingdom as vast as China and as little known.36

Latour falls in the trap of modernity, seeing the nonmodern as a foreign country. Many preceded him in looking for Europes past across the world, or better still for paradise lost. This was the legacy of modern social science built up slowly after Early Modern exploration: the primitive, the other without modern ideas or modern tools to transform his world. Latour argues that until recently, modern Europeans felt invincible, that only now in the face of a world invaded by frozen embryos, expert systems, digital machines, censor equipped robots, hybrid corn when our daily news papers display all these monsters on page after page and when none of these chimera can be properly on the object side or the subject side.37 Who would divide science and social politics today? Universities still do. Yet, the binary order of things established in the modern period is daily questioned by contemporary reality.

Introduction 11With new hybrids, these new monsters, the modern dichotomy created between natural laws and political representation can no longer withstand serious scrutiny. In Early Modern Europe, in an era of primitive capitalist accumulation, travelers and scientists were in close correspondence and formed cosmopolitan networks. Speaking in terms of Europe and being cosmopolitan did not exclude national sentiment even as early as the sixteenth century, whether in collecting or writing patriotic sentiment; and imperial hopes were clearly expressed.38 Religious aspirations were also inherent to Orientalism. There was as yet no difference between religion and science, and it was acceptable to observe as a modern and to have religious faith, as Postels path demonstrates.39 A century later Pierre Gassendi wrote in order to reconcile modern observation and skepticism with religion; Abelard had tried centuries before him to marry reason to faith and was condemned. One life exemplies all the dimensions of the nonmodern orientalist quest very clearly. One of the most cosmopolitan of Europeans, with an agenda for France and his king, was the inimitable and mysterious Guillaume Postel, the kings royal professor in mathematics and Arabic. Through an overview of the complexity of Postels thought and remarkable destiny, the book opens with what many consider to be the beginnings of Orientalism in France.

This page intentionally left blank

Part I One Nation, One World under French Rule

This page intentionally left blank

1The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel

En occident nous lverons icy lestandart israelogallique. [In the Occident we will carry the Israelogallique ag]. Guillaume Postel1

The man considered to be the rst French orientalist walked to Paris from a village in Normandy to become a renowned humanist at the court of the king of France. Guillaume Postel (15101581) is remembered as a visionary and a mystic. His pacist universalistic vision was the city of God on earth. He envisioned a world at peace, with Muslims and Christians united in harmony under one rule. He longed for a return to the long-lost primordial unity before Babel. His vision was as political as it was religious. It is his contemporary, Jean Bodin (1529/301596), who is remembered as the father of universalism, yet Guillaume Postels view of a universal religion and of a unied state preceded Jean Bodins by two entire decades. In Guillaume Postels writings, there was to be no East or West, and no divisions between Christianity and Islam; he had a universal vision of a united world at peace, albeit one with a clear hierarchy: France was at the helm of the universe. Postel imagined a world state under the rule of the French monarch, Francis I (r. 15151547), who would unite all Christians, Jews, and Muslims once they understood what they had in common and forgot their differences.2 This was a rather novel stance in France, as most crusading literature advocated salvation only after the world was set free from the dreadful tyranny of this brutal and barbarous sect, as the Muslims were often described.3 As we will examine, this idea places Postel closer to some Orthodox theologians of the Byzantine Church than to the French crusaders. The imperial theme in his writings, however, had precedents in golden age propaganda in association with the crusading traditions of France. The notion of the king of France as world emperor had roots in previous literature about the French monarchy. Charles VIIIs (14831493) Italian conquests gave way to the writings of Marsilio Ficino (14331499) and Andr de la Vigne, who both associated the universal king, Christ, with Charles during his royal entry into Florence in 1495.4 King Charless triumphal entry into Florence was described by Marsilio Ficino as the second coming of Christ. Ficino modeled his account on the Adventus of Christ


16 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceinto Jerusalem. King Charles was Christ bringing eternal salvation to Florence. Yet, Ficino perceived no contradiction between Christianity and classical tradition: he also equated the French king with the Roman God Jupiter, capable of reordering the world with one nod of his head. Masilio Ficino was one among several writers who described the French king as the king of kings. In this tradition of religious imperial propaganda, the king of France must not be called merely the ruler of France, but ruler of the whole world.5 The Kingdom of God was not only possible but imminenta millenarian idea that Postel shared with Columbus and many others after the discovery of the New World. He envisioned a universal monarchy. Yet, despite his universal views, some of Postels deepest beliefs were acquired in Normandy. Normandy had a strong millenarian eschatology, a tradition kept alive by its sailors and explorers. Postel had utopian visions and implied the teleology of a great instauration under a just ruler in the New World.6 One such utopian aim was the instauration of universal unity and peace under the rightful king as world ruler. In Postels view this king was none other than his own monarch, Francis I. The pacist who dreamed of a united Europe and of world peace, at a time when Europe was torn by war and divided over the Reformation, had many incarnations. He was a vagrant, a schoolteacher, a student, a Jesuit, a heretic, an orientalist, a traveler, a royal professor, a geographer, an astronomer, a historian, and a mystic who witnessed a miracle that transformed him into a prophet. Like Jean Bodin after him, Postel had a religious vision of history. He perceived history as revelation. He was deeply interested in geography, yet many of Postels contributions, such as his forgotten map of the world and his very early maps of Japan and France, have never been examined by scholars.7 Postels rich and multifaceted existence was extraordinary, even for the Renaissance. His life was dominated by a quest for primordial unity through astronomy, alchemy, geography, languages, and anything else he could master in order to reach the primordial re of creation. In this quest, both the study of languages and traveling would play key roles. Postels career as an orientalist was not distinct from his mystical quest or his strong political agenda. His worldview had practical political aspects, which are usually far less noticed than his mysticism by his biographers.8 Guillaume Postels interest in oriental languages was closely tied to his quest for Frances origins. Tracing and narrating the biblical origins of France through the study of language and sacred texts was a quest for the role of the French nation in the world.9 Postel believed that it was Gods will that made him write one of his major works, Orbie terrae concordia. This immense tome on achieving universal peace took him a scant few months. Postel remarked about his own book that it was only slightly shorter than Augustines City of God. Discourse about the Turks and the Muslim Orient appeared predominantly in Postels works on universal peace, yet it was tied to a discourse about the role of France. He presented his ideas about the role of the French nation to the king. He went to visit the king in his palace to present

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 17a political program. Postel viewed human history through ecclesia, and he saw it in four stages: nature, law, and grace, followed by restitution. Restitution in his views, the cordial harmony of the world, was also reected on earth.10 Postels theory of sovereignty, however, was not that unusual; he held that monarchy was a hierarchical emanation from the universal sovereignty of God. In 1544 Postel went to meet King Francis I in Fontainebleau to argue that should the king reform himself, his court and his realm would attain true universal sovereignty. In Postels reformed republic of God, the angelic pope would be sovereign in spiritual affairs and the monarch, guided by reason, would rule temporal affairs. Guillaume Postels belief in the role of a universal monarchy on earth was so strong that he argued for it in several of his works. His idea was that the republic of the world was to be divided into twelve seats, with another twelve seats as alternates, and that the entire realm should be administered as a theocracy. Twelve was seen as the perfect number; it represented the apostles, the tribes of Israel, and the signs of the Zodiac. The signs of the Zodiac were seen as twelve doors represented by the twelve seats. Each seat should have six ministers, giving the republic seventy-two judges. The politia, or state in which God is revealed to man, is ars artium, the highest state. It is no small wonder that these beliefs did not appeal to Francis and raised the kings suspicions. Postel seemed to advocate a republic under a monarchy. Postel maintained that the French nation had a prominent universal role and that Francis would rule this republic of God. He was seen as seditious and had to make a formal retraction to the queen, Catherine of Medici. Postel had to apologize for his political ideas, as they seemed to suggest that if there was no reform within the French monarchy, dissidence, and worse, revolution would be justied.11 Postels concept of nation was biblical; it had its roots in his reading of the Old Testament in Hebrew. Nevertheless, Postels quest for the origin of all things, especially of language, was a discourse about the French nation.12 Yet his choice of Frances origin was unusual. Postels theory was that the French nation descended directly from the Hebrew nation. After his return from the Ottoman empire, Postel devoted much time to discussing what he saw as the rightful role of the French nation at the helm of the world. His views were not nationalist or imperial in the modern sense; rather, it was a religious imperial project, but certainly an imperial one even at that. The major sources for Guillaume Postels worldview, his vision of the French state and the French kings universal monarchy, were Jewish. He drew his rst inspiration from the Zohar, the Midrashim, the Old Testament, and the Kabbalah.13 His personal interpretation of these Jewish texts, however, was totally heretical and unique. How could a poor boy from Normandy draw from Jewish sources to form a personal vision of the king of France as universal monarch, and see a second Jerusalem in the city of Venice? The Jews had been banned for over a century in France. How did he learn Arabic when it had never been taught in Paris? Postel is remembered as having an uncanny aptitude for languages. It was coupled with an enormous

18 Orientalism in Early Modern Francedose of perseverance, as his extraordinary destiny proves. Even his entry into the University of Paris was extraordinary.

Postels Intellectual Milieu: Sainte BarbeGuillaume Postel was born in Normandy in 1510 or earlier. His contemporary, the famous geographer Andr Thvet, knew Postel during his lifetime. Guillaumes family was poor and his parents were illiterate. Orphaned at the age of eight, both his parents lost to the plague, he became the ward of several unnamed tutors. What little he inherited from his family permitted him to study unfettered for two years, after which he had to work for a living. He left home at thirteen, earning his way to Paris as a schoolteacher. Rejected and laughed at in many places, he was nevertheless hired as a matre dcole in the village of Sagy near Pontoise. He was not an exception; the vast efforts toward increasing literacy that France undertook in the early sixteenth century counted many young masters like him.14 The geographer Andr Thvet, famous for writing a cosmography of the Levant, wrote about Postels early youth. Thvets version was repeated in many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century biographical dictionaries. There is nothing else with which to trace his birth to the district of la Dolerie in the village of Barenton, Normandy.15 Later in his reign, Francis I established the custom of keeping parochial records, but when Postel was born no records were kept. Postel had saved his earnings to study in Paris, where he arrived at the age of fteen or sixteen. The average age to begin studying at the university was thirteen. He hoped to become a university student and join the prestigious Collge Sainte Barbe. On his rst night in Paris, Postel met some rogues posing as students. After dining with them they stole all his money and his clothes when he was asleep. They left him naked to freeze. As a consequence of this incident, he became severely ill with dysentery. He was put in a hospital, which was a refuge of the sick and the poor, for over a year and a half. When he was strong enough, he went to work as an agricultural worker in Beauce. Postel returned to Paris dressed in new clothing. At last, on his return to Paris, Postel entered the gates of the University of Paris to enroll at the Collge Sainte Barbe.16 This was the account of Postels early life as told by Thvet, who heard it from Postel himself. At the time, Sainte Barbe was the center of geographical knowledge in Paris. It had strong links to the voyages of discovery by the Portuguese and Spanish. The Collge Sainte Barbe was run by Jacques de Gouvea, a member of an eminent Jewish Portuguese family. De Gouveas family had been in Paris since the 1500s as New Christians. In 1526, once his fear of the Inquisition had vanished, de Gouvea took a trip back to Portugal. Through his many contacts, he arranged for Sainte Barbe to be subsidized by the king of Portugal and by some of the Portuguese gold from the overseas trade. Many of the teachers at Sainte Barbe were also Spanish and Portuguese.

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 19It was at the collge that Postel came into contact with the Basque Inigo Lopez de Loyola, often referred to as Ignatius Loyola. The future founder of the Jesuits, Loyola was studying theology with the Dominicans after abandoning a life of luxury and adventure. Loyola attended some classes at the collge, where he was an older student. Loyolas views linked geographical knowledge with evangelical spirituality, and they had signicant inuence on Postels intellectual formation.17 For a short period, Postel would become one of the rst Jesuits. Knowledge of the world through travel and the study of languages became a divine edict for Postel, as it was for Loyola, and later, for the Jesuits. Shortly before he graduated at Montmartre in the year 1534, Loyola and six friends founded a community who pledged to convert the Turks to Christianity, and when they felt this was too limiting, they pledged to defend the kingdom of Christ everywhere. Loyola graduated in 1535 and was ordained a priest two year later. In 1540 the group he headed was recognized as the Society of Jesus by Pope Paul III. The pope probably could not foresee the future political impact of this new order, which like all others demanded vows of obedience, poverty, and chastity. By Loyolas death in 1556, there were more than a thousand Jesuits who were based on four continents.18 The Jesuits were to play a pivotal role in Frances foreign policy for centuries to come and were especially important to Louis XIII in New France and to Louis XIV in Asia. By the end of the sixteenth century there were 10,000 Jesuits in thirty-two countries. French Jesuits experienced an era of inuence and prosperity in the seventeenth century when their numbers doubled.19 Postels views, however, were quite different from the reforming and proselytizing zeal of his rst Jesuit mentor, and his inclusion within the order was very temporary. Postels ideas were infused with mysticism, which was a dangerous bent during a period of inquisitor popes. Loyola was one of his inuential contacts at Sainte Barbe. The other important contemporaneous student lodger at the collge was none other than John Calvin. Both Calvin and Postel were poorer than most of the wealthy students of the collge, and of the two, Postel was by far the poorest. Calvin, son of a provincial lawyer, entered the lodgings of the collge as a companion to a young nobleman. Postel entered as a domestic servant. In the records it appears that Guillaume Postel was Charg de balayer et dcrotter le collge, [in charge of sweeping and taking lth away]. Between chores he had to nd the time to get an education. Though both were among the poorest students, there is little to no evidence of Calvin having the kind of contact and inuence that Loyola had on Postel. There were several kinds of students; the cameristes were rich students with valets, and they lived outside the collge. The teachers and professors also had valets, who were allowed to attend classes in return for their services. These domestic servants were the lower tier of a second group, the boursiers, who lived in the collge and received nancial aid from either religious institutions, patrons, or the collge itself. Last, there were the galoches, gypsy students who came and went in Parisian institutions as

20 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethey pleased, to the great irritation of teachers and administrators. Loyola was in his forties. He was one of these detested galoches, whose inuence on the other students incited much fear in the governor of the collge, Jacques de Gouvea.20 He was quite right; within Sainte Barbe, Loyola had successfully recruited the core of the spiritual army that he would later form as the Jesuits. From his classmates at the collge came the famous Jesuits-to-be: Pierre Lefbre, Francis Xavier, Jacques Layne, Simon Rodriguez, and ve more Jesuits, some of whom would go as far as India.21 Loyola had come to Paris from Castille, and he was not the only Spanish master to inuence Postel at Sainte Barbe. Classes began at ve oclock in the morning. Guillaume Postel rose at 4 A.M. to do his chores. Soon he became the valet of his renowned Spanish master, Jean Gelidius. Some of Postels new chores as Gelidiuss personal valet consisted of preparing his masters courses with him. At 5 A.M., the students gathered in empty rooms where they sat on the oor at their teachers feet. The oor was made more comfortable with fresh hay in the winter and by grass in the summer. Still responsible for providing clean hay and sweeping away garbage and lth, Guillaume also made translations from Greek for his master.22 Initially, Guillaumes main interest was Greek philology, which the collge excelled at teaching. His rst works were translations of Greek epigrams into Latin.23 At Sainte Barbe, Postel was immediately noticed for his gift of learning languages. He picked up Spanish and Portuguese effortlessly as it was spoken around him. We are told that he also had learned Greek and Hebrew on his own. According to Andr Thvet, Postel was passionate about learning Hebrew. He had heard from a companion that there were still Jews living in Paris.24 He borrowed a book with an alphabet from them, and learned Hebrew on his own. This account is of course possible, even if Charles VI had banned all Jews from France in 1394. Some could have visited Paris clandestinely or even lived in hiding as New Christians. Many autonomous provinces received Parisian Jewish refugees for a time, such as the Dauphin or Provence. Alsace and Avignon had Parisian refugees until the Revolution. Adrien Baillet, in his Enfants clbres, writes that in Paris there were Jews still using the Jewish alphabet and that Guillaume obtained an alphabet and learned it by heart, and he then bought himself a grammar book. Baillet adds that he learned Hebrew without anyones assistance.25

Jewish OrientalismSome of the earliest books in oriental languages published in Europe were in Hebrew. According to Andr Thvets account, Postel had access to a grammar without having to break the law. Several Hebrew grammars were published in Europe by that date. There were about fteen books about the Hebrew language printed before 1530. The rst, Rudimeta hebraica, was published in Germany in 1479. Francis Tissards Opuscula grammatica hebraica was published in France in 1508. Just as Postel

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 21was studying at Sainte Barbe, there appeared in 1526 another grammar published in Lyon: Paginuss Instituto hebraica. These books were rare and, it goes without saying, very expensive. Hebrew had become a rare language in Paris; so much so that some biographers considered that Postel had received it by an act of divine grace.26 The fuss made about Postels access to Hebrew by his biographers might have a simpler answer than divine grace. How could he have convinced a Parisian Jew in hiding, or a New Christian, to put himself in danger and give a perfect stranger an alphabet? How would a poor student, a domestic servant, have access to priceless books like a grammar? Printing was relatively new and books expensive. It seems safe to speculate that Guillaume Postel had become a protg of the governor of his collge. According to Thvet, Jacques de Gouvea (a New Christian) took note of Postels uncommon gifts, and even took him to Portugal on his next trip to show him off to the Portuguese king, John III. The Portuguese king immediately offered Postel a chair at the University of Coimbre. He was asked to teach there, a well-paid offer. Postel, a domestic servant at Sainte Barbe, refused, saying that he wanted to nish his degree and return to France.27 The ties between the student and the New Christian governor must have been strong for them not only to take a trip together, but to return together, despite such a prestigious offer. Jacques de Gouveas family had arrived in Paris in 1500less than a generation before Postels acquisition of Hebrew. Conversion to Christianity did not erase knowledge of Hebrew in such a short time. Yet, to expose de Gouveas mentorship, albeit for the historical record, was certainly not advisable under the reigning political climate. We know nothing about Guillaume Postels real identity beyond what is recorded in Thvet, which is essentially Postels own version. William Bouwsma, his biographer, nds a pattern, a slew of biographies so similar to Postels that he doubts the authenticity of what little we do have. As Marion Kuntz, who has spent over fteen years on Postel, has noticed, there are no names given for anyone in Postels past; not a single name for his parents, or for his tutors. He arrived in Paris as an orphan. Who Guillaume Postel truly was remains a mystery. Not one of his biographers, old or new, speculates on this, but he could have just as easily come from abroad. The closest ports to Paris were in Normandy. Postel arrived in Paris claiming an origin from Barenton in Normandy. Because he signed his books Barontonius, after the village, or Doleriensis after a district within the village of Barenton, it is believed he was born in Normandy. Later, he would sign his books as Guillaume Postel cosmopolite to mark his universal consciousness of the world.28 His excellent command of Spanish, Portuguese, and Hebrew could make perfect sense, and be less miraculous, were he instead a Portuguese Jew in hiding. His secret origins would then justify de Gouveas unique mentorship and unusual protection, as well as explain his dysentery in the Paris hospital if he had just come off a ship. This is speculation as there are absolutely no real traces of his true origins, and his biographers doubt the little there is. What is certain is that he undoubtedly was one of the best scholars of the sixteenth century. His ardent feelings for France and

22 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe role of the French nation would argue in favor of his birth in Normandy, as do some of his ideas about the Virgin Mary, as will be discussed further, but nothing is certain about his origins except what he himself wanted posterity to know. Postel constructed his own past, and presented himself as Norman and cosmopolitan.

New Knowledge and Court Sponsorship of Orientalism and Humanism in FrancePostel was born during a moment of extraordinary change in European culture. Between 1480 and 1520, a mutation in culture was marked by the advent of printing, the rise of capitalism, the new discoveries of maritime exploration, the transformation of religious aspirations among the elite, and the rise of a secular historical consciousness. This new historical consciousness manifested itself outside the scriptural tradition of the Church by constructing narratives about national origins. The construction of an imaginary origin for European culture in Greece and Rome, as argued by the humanists, eventually eroded the power of the Church, as did the new intimacy of faith brought by the Reformation that allowed man to directly worship God. Both humanism and the Reformation validated a central role for human observation and for the interpretations of the world by man.29 Much has been written about humanism and the ourishing of scholarship at this time; it need not be repeated here. What does need emphasis is the contribution of Orientalism to humanism. Once he completed his degree, Postel became part of a group of sponsored humanist scholars at the court of Francis I, and, after a certain amount of time, Postel became a private tutor in a grandees household. Throughout he was protected by the French king and his sister, Marguerite de Navarre. France followed Italys example in sponsoring scholars at court; Francis Is court would be a safe haven for humanists challenging the Churchs monopoly on the production of knowledge in France. Sixteenth-century France was marked by a diplomatic power struggle between the French monarchy and the pope. The monarchy fought for political prominence in the affairs of France. Once the French monarch won, Pope Julius III wrote bitterly to Franciss successor, Henri II (15471559): Now at last you are more than the pope in your kingdom. Henri proved his Catholic fervor and kept the popes good graces by persecuting the French Protestants, the Huguenots, massacring them, burning them alive publicly or cutting their tongues out for keeping their faith. He had not won the power struggle with the Vatican over supremacy within the French kingdom alone. A rst decisive breach had occurred as early as 1516, when the French king had obtained the prerogative of naming all the holders of ofces and benets within the kingdom, even the clergy. The French monarchy would reach a zenith in its new autonomy from the pope a century later, in 1614, when during the reign of Louis XIII the French king was declared sacred and he had no one but himself to answer to. Louis XIV would be remembered as a monarch who succeeded in imposing absolutism and

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 23imposing royal power on all spheres, but the roots of French absolutism started with Francis I. Appointing ofcers, both lay and ecclesiastic, was one battle; the other was the control of intellectual production. Postel and early Orientalism played a major role in establishing the preeminence of the king of France in a long struggle between the French court and the French Church; a power struggle that entailed having control over both the production of new knowledge and its censorship. In this struggle between Church-controlled knowledge and court-sponsored humanism, Orientalism played a fundamental, but hitherto unnoticed, role, in favor of tipping the balance toward the French court and secular knowledge. Orientalism and humanism were court-sponsored. Initially Orientalism was to serve a religious purpose, as Greek and Hebrew were at rst needed to study the Bible in its original languages. Early Orientalism was initially simply philology, the study of language. The study of Greek was most common, as it was often combined with mathematics and philosophy. The humanists sponsored at Franciss court were also the printers of Greek and Hebrew books and of their translations into French. Essentially considered a literary movement in previous studies, the importance of Orientalism to the development of early science should be recognized.30 The study of early science and humanism did not happen without friction between the Church and the Sorbonne, but in France it would have never happened without Francis Is court sponsorship. For centuries, intellectual production was the domain of the learned doctors of the Sorbonne. Censorship was formally supposed to function in the following way: initially the professors of the Sorbonne denounced a text, the Parliament of Paris passed judgment, and the king had the last call to censor or privilege. Consequently, if you were a humanist at court, you were protected from the Sorbonnes censorship. If the king commissioned your work you were automatically under royal privilege and therefore theoretically safe. In practice, however, as the competition between the pope and the French king advanced, censorship became much more complicated.31 The mechanisms put in place under Francis I would be the same under Louis XIV, but the power relationship between king and Church would be radically different, with the king having gained supremacy. Translation and Orientalism would play a major role in the struggle over censorship and in establishing the monarchys role as primordial in the mechanisms of censorship. Under the reign of Francis I, the Sorbonne had gone through several crises. First came chaining the books of William of Ockam and other nominalists, a procedure routinely followed at the time so the books could no longer be opened and taken from the shelf to be read. In the process of condemning Ockam, scholasticism and its use of Aristotle was imposed as a doctrine. The doctors of the Sorbonne (or at least a faction of them) struggled hard to impose Aristotle, but only to reverse this in 1481 when another faction supporting nominalism won the upper hand. The Sorbonne, therefore, was not the bastion of scholasticism it is often said to have been; rather, it was deeply divided. Scholasticism was not an established dogma.

24 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceThe quarrels within the Sorbonne were intense. The political purges it lived through over scholasticism, which was a very old debate, called for the Parliament of Paris to intervene within the university for the rst time. In many ways the interventions undermined the universitys authority. At the height of this quarrel, when the Parliament of Paris interfered, it did so by modifying the universitys inner bylaws, suddenly giving the Parliament of Paris and the city authority. The court, the Church, and the university were already tied in a struggle, and they now had the Parliament of Paris as a rival for control of intellectual production. At this juncture it also became evident that French foreign policy would play a role in this domestic battle. When the conditions of the peace signed by the French king at Bologna in 1518 were highly protested by both the Parliament of Paris and the Sorbonne, rising royal authority came under re. This led to strikes. At the end of the ensuing debate, both the Parliament of Paris and the Sorbonne lost the power struggle and had to give in to the kings authority. This episode marked the beginning of successful absolutist political aspirations for the French monarchy, and the power to exercise royal censorship over knowledge, a privilege that was previously the privileged domain of the doctors of the Sorbonne.32 Orientalism, the study of the languages and cultures of the Orient, was new to France, and this new knowledge was now protected under royal sponsorship. As will be demonstrated later, once censorship became a royal privilege under Francis I, nothing would impinge the progress of humanism and Orientalism. Because of Orientalism, Latin, the language of the theologians of the Sorbonne, ceased to be the only language taught in Paris. Orientalism became a branch of learning that would grow in importance as Greek and Hebrew (and later Arabic) were offered on the kings orders, but most importantly, the era that brought teaching of oriental languages to France also opened the door to the usage of French, a cause the monarchy championed by imposing it as a national language. French was declared a national language at precisely the same time as oriental languages started being taught in Paris. Both were royal initiatives.

The Translation of the Bible into French and the Birth of CensorshipAs the battle for controlling knowledge continued, the granting of permissions to go to print became the central issue. The privilege that a book had to obtain before it was allowed publication in France had appeared as a novel practice in 1480 by royal initiative. At the Vatican, a constitution dated June 1, 1501 called for the censorship of works that might corrupt the Catholic faith or create scandal. This papal initiative sought to supersede royal privilege. It was instituted by the infamous Alexander Borgia, a pope less remembered for his attempts to prevent seditious books from being circulated than for his own scandalous life.33 It was the translation of the Bible that started the mechanisms of censorship in France. The translations of the Bible into the

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 25French language caused much more unease than Luthers writings did, which were, at rst, even well-accepted by the Sorbonne before being banned. After the papal bull of June 15, 1520 that condemned Luther, it took months for the Sorbonne to ban his writings in April of 1521.34 The Latin Vulgate remained the only acceptable version of the Bible, and other translations were censored as interpretations contrary to those accepted by the Church. Fighting against translations in the vernacular and ghting the Reformation became the same cause. Postels work was caught in the battle against the theologians that stood against translations, and Postel himself came under re. After 1547, Postel reinterpreted what being a true Christian meant, and because of his problems with the Sorbonne he took his new work on Christianity, unity, and world peace elsewhere; his De Orbie terrae concordia was never published in Paris. His quest for a new religious truth went back to Christianitys origins, away from the corruption of the Catholic Church. This quest was to mark French Orientalism for centuries. The hope to reach the origins of Christianity is present in the writings of Huguenot orientalists as late as the eighteenth century. It became a Protestant agenda very early in the Reformation to seek true Christianity at its source, away from Rome and the pope, in the distant Orient of its origins. Postel took his work to be printed outside of Catholic France. De Orbie terrae concordia was published by Postels friend, the Protestant Johannes Oporinus (15071568) in Basel in 1544.35 He had many friends among the printers and geographers of his time, many of whom were of the reformed religion. The participation of French Protestants in the development of Orientalism as a discipline is extremely important as a consequence of this religious quest. Despite close ties to the Basel group, Postel was not an admirer of Protestantism; he was adamant that clear parallels existed between Protestantism and Islam and had published an attack against both religions in Paris entitled Alcorani seu legis Mahometi et Evangelistarum concordiae liber to point to the many common elements of Islam and the reformed religion of Calvin and Luther. Yet, later in life Postel would join the Family of Love, a group of Flemish Protestants that contributed later to the birth of Quakerism. They advocated views much like his own.36 Translation, therefore Orientalism and Protestantism, were the twin pillars of a new intellectual tradition against which the pope and theologians afliated to Rome enforced papal censorship in Catholic Europe. It was not only Luthers translation into German that had made all translation unacceptable. The new concept of prohibited books was only formally inaugurated by the papacy in the latter part of Guillaume Postels lifetime. Yet the pope had recommended the burning of seditious books as early as 1501, as well as excommunication and severe punishment for the publishers of unacceptable books. However, nothing was enforced until many decades later. The rise of Protestantism changed the Vaticans lax attitude toward books. The popularity of Luthers writing led to the creation of the rst catalog of banned books after 1522: the Index. A rst formal version of the Index appeared in 15571559, to be nally ofcially published after the Council of Trent on March 24,

26 Orientalism in Early Modern France1564.37 It would not cease to torment those striving for new knowledge and hoping for translations. Translations of the Bible into langues orientales were key in this search for new religious knowledge. Perhaps the harshest blow to the Sorbonne was not, as has traditionally been argued, the binary opposition of court-sponsored humanism to Church-sponsored scholasticism, but rather court-sponsored Orientalism, as it permitted translations of the Holy Scripture. The papacy did not accept this radical departure from the Latin Vulgate. When Francis I instituted chairs at the royal collge in Paris in 1530, he founded the Collge des trois langues, which was devoted to teaching oriental languages. Later, after the Revolution, the Collge des trois langues became the Collge de France. Its origins were modest; the royal professors, lisans du Roi, did not even have a building, and they barely had funding or salaries. Yet, the institution of royal professors to teach oriental languages, a move recommended to King Francis I by the famous humanist Guillaume Bud, was one of the most remarkable episodes of Frances intellectual history. This episode deserves more attention than it has received.38 It would be instrumental later for the introduction of the teaching of sciences and would bring an unprecedented innovation: instruction in the French language. This was not encouraged by Rome, quite the contrary. Not until the papacy created the Propaganda Fide in 1622, nearly a century later, would the Vatican directly allow the teaching of oriental languages, even for the propagation of the faith. In 1530, Francis chose two royal readers, lisans du roi, to devote their lives to the study and teaching of Hebrew and two others to the public teaching of Greek. The royal professors, who were to be paid by the king, offered public courses, which were held outdoors at no fee to the students. Both the teaching of Greek and Hebrew were feared by the theologians of the Sorbonne, who hoped to keep scholasticism a dogma. Their elitist view of knowledge and the exclusive use of Latin and the Vulgate was being challenged by the orientalists teaching in the street a stones throw away from the Sorbonne. In the same year that oriental languages were taught for the rst time in 1530, Francis I declared French the national language of his kingdom, further challenging the Churchs control and the universitys monopoly on the production of knowledge in France.

The Chairs for Oriental LanguageAs a result of his trip to the Ottoman empire, Guillaume Postel was the only scholar in France that Francis could rely on to teach Arabic in the sixteenth century. Franciss court had a tradition of attracting foreign scholars, and once again, he would call on foreigners to occupy the new chairs he created in 1530. Hebrew was taught by Paul Paradis, a converted Jew from Venice, and another chair was also given to a foreigner, Agathius Guidacerius from Calabria. Except for Postel, only a few of the lisants du roi were French, including Francis Vatable. Paul Danes held a chair in

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 27Greek and befriended Guillaume Postel. Postel held the title of Mathematicorum et peregrinorum linguarum regis interpres lisan du Roy en lUniversit de Paris. His chair was in Greek, Arabic, and mathematics.39 Since medieval times, Arabic and mathematics were tied together, because reading Arabic was indispensable to the new mathematics and astronomy that interested the humanists. Postel also brought some new knowledge in mathematics to France, but he rst worked on trying to nd the language of origin. After Postels rst trip to the Ottoman empire in 1536 and his subsequent acquisition of Arabic, Francis later named Postel holder of a chair in les langues orientales in 1539. Soon after his appointment, Postel classied languages in his work on the twelve alphabets, Linguaram duodecim characteribus differentium alphabetum.40 He distinguished three languages of scholarshipLatin, Greek, and Hebrewfrom nine foreign languages that he classied as les langues trangres. The most familiar of these foreign languages to us are Arabic, Armenian, and Georgian. Languages using the Arabic alphabet, such as Turkish and Persian, were not mentioned and fell under Arabic in his system, because his classication was based on alphabet alone.41 This started an orientalist tradition that was still practiced in the eighteenth century; Postels comparative methods continued beyond the alphabet and continue to this date. This work alone denes Postel as the father of the science of comparative philology.42 Philology became the backbone of departments in oriental languages in universities worldwide well into the twentieth century. What was later to become the Collge de France was an institution independent of the Sorbonne and its theologians. The royal lisans holding the chairs were also proponents of the use of the French language in intellectual exchanges and philosophy, a project dear to king Franciss aims, but in direct competition with the elitist use of Latin imposed by the Sorbonne. In reaction to this new scholarship, a new edict giving the theologians of the Sorbonne wide powers of censorship over all scholarship was enacted in 1542. The new Collge des trois langues grew until mid-century; between its inception and 1541, Francis made sixteen appointments. Even after the Sorbonne reacted with its censorship edict of 1542, between 1541 and 1551 the king made seven more appointments, but many of these nominations were eeting ones.43 Thanks to the edict of 1542 the royal readers, the lisans, were constantly harassed. They were often accused of heresy and of Lutheranism, while the lisans and their defenders, steeped in Greek thought, characterized the Sorbonne theologians and scholasticism as the realm of the barbarians.44 Despite some eeting appointments at the onset, the Collge des trois langues and its royal professors in oriental languages would not be a eeting institution. Two and a half centuries later at the onset of the French Revolution in 1789 the Collge royal, soon to be called the Collge de France, had one inspector and nineteen professors. In 1789 ten of the nineteen professors were devoted to the humanities. There was one professor in Hebrew and Syriac, one in Turkish and Persian, two in Greek, one in Latin eloquence, one in Latin poetry, one in common law, one in natural law, and

28 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceone in history and morality. Nine professors were teaching the sciences: geometry, astronomy, anatomy, chemistry, natural history, and experimental physics, and two taught courses in general physics. Chemistry was the newest science introduced to the curriculum, these new courses were not on the Sorbonnes curriculum. From its inception in 1530, the Collge des trois langues or Collge royal had all the professors teach in French, so even later, every subject, both in the sciences and humanities, was offered in French.45 The inception of the royal professors in oriental languages marked a turning point for French as an acceptable medium for scientic writing and teaching. Although earlier, Charles VIII (14701498) had ordered a French translation of the Bible by his confessor, Jean de Rly, bishop of Angers, and it had known several editions since, the French language was still not a language of learning before Franciss reign. Texts produced in the vernacular were sponsored by King Francis over Latin. Many famous literary texts in the French language were produced by humanists under Franciss reign, most famously by Franois Rabelais (1494?1553). Under the now famous pseudonym of Alcofribas Nasier, the rst of the Gargantua series, Rabelaiss Pantagruel was published in 1532 and had a devoted readership despite its ban. All three of Rabelaiss rst books were condemned by the Sorbonne. It is around this tense time, in 1530, that France had chairs in Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldean, the latter an additional language that the council of Vienna had settled upon much earlier. In 1539 Francis added the chair in Arabic that Postel occupied. These innovations were dear to Francis and his sister Marguerite de Navarre, both for the sake of the new knowledge and for establishing political control. Interest in oriental languages and translation, however, was not novel; France had a tradition of translation from the Arabic dating back to the rst crusade. Other initiatives to teach oriental languages had very different aims from the domestic politics pursued by Francis.

Oriental Languages in France from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth CenturyThere had been a tradition of studying oriental languages in Paris, but it had been forgotten. Since the early days of the Arab invasion in the eighth century, stopped in Poitiers by Charles Martel, the Catholic Church in France had taken a keen interest in condemning Islam as a heresy, and therefore in learning the languages necessary to combat its advance into Europe. The Orthodox Greeks were at the forefront of this movement, and they were to remain an inspiration for early Orientalism in France. The earliest text condemning Islam as a heresy was written by Saint John of Damascus (late seventh century to 749). He was a doctor of the Greek Orthodox Church, whose De heresibus liber condemned Islam as a major heresy, a position that was later adopted by the Council of Nicea in 787.

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 29His work had immense impact in conjunction with another text written by a Byzantine chronicler who also condemned the new religion: Theophanes the Confessor (758818). His chronicle entitled Chronographia was transmitted to Rome by a Greek librarian by the name of Anastasius. During this same period, Niketas Byzantios wrote Confutatio Alcorani, and as the title indicates, this was a refutation of the Quran. Saint Eulogius of Crdoba (810859) was also instrumental in condemning Islam by propagating the idea of martyrdom in combating it. To read Greek was essential. None of the texts condemning Islam as a heresy emanated from Rome in this early period.46 Greek became important, but the study of Persian, used in the Mongol empire, Turkish, and Arabic, were all considered important, although only since the end of the thirteenth century. The rst language to attract attention was Arabic. The rst initiative to teach oriental languages was a sporadic and short-lived order from the Vatican. The aim was to free Christian captives. The Dominicans took the rst initiative in the study of language and created a rst school for languages, the Studia Linguarum. It was inaugurated in North Africa in the city of Tunis by Raymond Penaforte, a monk who participated in paying ransoms for the Christian captives held on the North African coast. Like the Protestant participation in Orientalism, the fate of the French and Spanish captives played a direct role in shaping Orientalism, as the creation of this Dominican school for interpreters indicates. A papal order urged the Spanish Dominicans to open language schools, but only a few were opened in Murcia, Barcelona, Valencia, and Jativa. They all closed, but Raymond Lulle (1232?1316) soon published his famous Tractatus de modo converti indeles, where he advocated the creation of centers for the study of oriental languages in order to conquer the heresy of Islam and convert Muslims.47 Decades later, in 1311, the decision was made at the Council of Vienna to create centers for oriental languages in Paris, Bologna, Oxford, Salamanca, and Rome. The avowed aim of the language instruction was to educate monks to be able to refute the doctrines of the heresy of Islam in appropriate languages spoken by Muslims.48 A translated text was available as a main source for the doctrines of this heresy to most scholars by the twelfth century. This text was the rst European translation of the Quran. Often referred to as Corpus Toledo or corpus toletanum, early translations from the Arabic were from the corpus of Islamic texts held in Toledo, many of them scientic, but among them was a Quran. The materials for translation were assembled by the famous Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable (11091156), whose spiritual, intellectual, and nancial reforms restored Cluny to the highest status among the religious establishments of Europe. Peter the Venerable traveled to Spain from Cluny to look for scholars capable of translating the Quran, as he himself did not know any Arabic. A twelfth-century compendium made under his direction was established as an authority for Islamic doctrines and beliefs for centuries to come. The compendium, a loose translation of the Quran in over a hundred folios, became a reference text for anything having to do with Islam in France. It remained so even

30 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceas late as the eighteenth century. Mention of the ascendance of Cluny points to the Crusades. It is crucial to stress that Peter the Venerables translation and the call for crusades, even if they were contemporaneous and both located at Cluny, did not emanate from one voice. In fact, they were the product of two opposing views about Islam and about intellectual life in France. Peters claim to posthumous honor lies in a rst translation of the Quran into Latin and in his generous treatment of Abelard, and not in the Crusades. He received the humiliated Abelard kindly after his public defeat in a debate over the use of reason in religion by their common enemy, the zealous Bernard of Clairvaux (10901153). After the pope condemned Abelards inclinations for the use of rationalism and reason, Abelard was almost universally shunned for his ideas. Peter cared for him until the day he died, and delivered Abelards body to Heloise.49 Peter the Venerable himself had also been attacked by the fanatic Bernard of Clairvaux for allegedly allowing laxity in the Benedictine order. Peter shared Abelards love of learning and his aims for Cluny were scholarly, not belligerent, but that is not how the powerful center of Cluny would come to be remembered by history. The chief call for a second crusade was made at Cluny. The call for battle against Islam did not come from Peter, who had made Cluny the religious center of Europe, but from none other than his own enemy, Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard was famous for his sermons, yet this call to battle for the crusade would later be remembered for its false accusations against the indels rather than for its eloquence.50 The papal bull for the Second Crusade was issued December 1, 1095. The French king Louis VII was not committed to starting the ght; he only spoke in favor of a crusade without actually preaching for it. Because of the French kings lack of enthusiasm, the pope referred the matter to the fanatical Bernard of Clairvaux. In contrast to Bernards bellicose voice, Peter was interested in Islam as a humanist and for the sake of scientic knowledge. The translation of the Quran at Cluny occurred simultaneously under Peters directorship just as his enemy Bernard was calling for a crusade. That it was simultaneous does not mean it was politically related. The Corpus Toledo was not, as it has been argued, a case of know thine enemy. Rather, Peter and Bernard of Clairvaux were arch enemies and represented two sharply different approaches to Islam that coexisted in the same period of time. The kings lukewarm attitude was yet a third political view. There was a diversity of positions about Islam within France that was erased in the wake of the memory of the crusades. Peter wrote a Refutation of the Sect or Heresy of the Saracens in which he argued that Islam was a heresy of Christianity, a position later echoed by Postel.51 Peter the Venerable did not work alone on this translation of the Quran; he had several collaborators in the translations of the Corpus Toledo, among them a sarrasin, as the Arabs were called during the crusading period. Traces of the many native informants that shaped European Orientalism are rare, and facts about them even rarer; the sarrasin is only identied by his rst name, Muhammad.52 Two other collaborators are far

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 31better known. Herman the Dalmatian (c.11001160) was a member of a small elite circle of occidental scholars who explored Arab libraries and could read texts in Arabic and extract literary and scientic data. He translated over twenty Arabic works, mainly astronomical, into Latin, including A General Introduction to Astronomy by Abu Mashar, Euclids Elements, and Ptolemys The Planisphere. Herman himself authored several scientic works, including On Substances, On Precipitates, and On the Astrolabe. As Peters chief collaborator, Herman the Dalmatians interest in natural philosophy was stimulated by his close friendship with the Englishman Robert of Ketton (c. 1100c. 1160), the archdeacon of Pampelona, an expert in Arabic. Once it was nished, Robert of Kettons translation for Cluny became the most important text on Islam in Europe. It was called Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete [Law of Muhammad the pseudo-prophet] and it was the rst translation of the Quran into Latin that would have long-standing consequences on future writings about Islam in France and elsewhere in Europe. We know very little about Robert of Ketton except that he was an Englishman recruited in Spain by Peter the Venerable for the task of translating at Cluny. Robert of Ketton had acquired his Arabic by traveling, as did most, if not all, orientalists. An anonymous English chronicler described the goal of Herman the Dalmations and Robert of Kettons journey to the Orient as a quest for the sciences and knowledge via the acquisition of the Arabic language. By translating Abu Mashars General Introduction to Astronomy in 1140, Herman the Dalmatian served as a direct conduit for the introduction of Aristotle into Western Christian thought. Right up to the sixteenth century, the only version of Ptolemys Planisphere available in Europe was Herman the Dalmatians 1143 translation from the Arabic. The aim was to facilitate a better understanding and exchange between Christian and Muslim scholars to enhance the transmission of scientic knowledge. These aims were germane to Peters love of the humanities at Cluny. They stood in contrast to those of the Dominicans, who started language schools with the aim of taming a heresy, freeing captives from the Muslim captors, and converting Muslims to Christianity.53 Nevertheless, the Dominicans were both innovative and unique in the teaching of the liberal arts; some went as far as teaching logic and Aristotle.54 There was a close relationship between oriental languages and the transmission of new knowledge. The translations of the Corpus Toledo would have an impact not only in France, but beyond. It was the rst time that the Quran became accessible to Europe. This Latin translation was not a close translation; it transformed the original 114 surats into 124 azoara. Robert of Ketton had not done a literal translation; he broke down the long suras to make them more intelligible to the reader. Latin is ill-adapted to the style used in the Quran, but this was further aggravated by all kinds of literary allusions and metaphors that were diligently added on by the translators. Despite its aws, it was to be regarded as the denitive reference text, even after a better translation by Mark of Toledo (11931216) came out in the thirteenth century.55 This second, much superior translation did not nd an echo among scholars, perhaps because Clunys great

32 Orientalism in Early Modern Francepower as a religious institution helped promote their own translation. This rst Cluny version of the Quran remained better known by theologians, and it was the version adopted by scholars; when print became available centuries later it was Peter the Venerables Latin Quran that came into print and not Mark of Toledos. When it was printed it was further transformed. The Cluny translation was the one printed in Basel in 1543 by the reformed printer Theodore Bibliander after some severe modications that deformed it even further from the original Arabic. Its title speaks for itself. In translation it read: The Life of Mahomet, prince of the Sarrasins, and his complete doctrine, that is called the Ismaelite law and also Alcoran, translated from the Arabic into Latin 400 years ago and only now reedited and published under the authority of some of the most learned and pious doctors of our true religion, for the glory of Jesus-Christ our Lord and for the exaltation of the Christian faith 56 The famous Protestant scholar Melanchton (14971560) wrote the introduction to this edition celebrating the virtues of knowledge and afrming his hope to rationalize the false legends about Mohammad that were rampant throughout Europe. This new printed version of the Quran coincided with the early Protestant movement toward a better knowledge of Islam. Melanchton was a famous orientalist who held the chair in Greek and Hebrew in Wittenberg.57 His interest in the Quran was not surprising, as he also translated the Bible in 1522 in search of new religious knowledge. Melanchton was also collaborating with the main sponsor behind this new printing: Martin Luther had instigated and supported the publication of this new version of the Quran by Bibliander.58

Luther and a Protestant Translation of the QuranMartin Luther wrote the preface to the new printed Quran that appeared in Basel in 1543. He had several writings on the Turks before this last piece written in 1543. In Luthers view the Turks were for Europe what the Babylonians had been for Israel: the punishment of God. Even before the conquest of Hungary by Sultan Sleyman at the battle Mohacs in 1526, and the unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1529, Luther had become the target of many accusations in Europe. His opponents had accused him of having created a reluctance among Lutherans to ght the invading Turks. To counter this, Luther wrote On War Against the Turk (1529) to show that one could ght the Turks with a clear conscience as a Lutheran. In light of the siege of Vienna, he wrote a Sermon against the Turks (1529). A decade later he published Appeal for Prayer Against the Turks (1541) after the Sultans conquest of Hungary and the threat to Turkish Germany became clear. As the threat to Germany came closer, Luther even translated a medieval tract against Islam into German, Refutation of the Alcoran of brother Richars, Preaching order (1542), in order to spread awareness of the threat of the spread Islam in Europe. Luthers writings on the Turks are not well known and have only recently been translated into English.59

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 33The Turks were the rod of Gods punishment, to discipline and teach the fear of God. Consistent with such a view, Luther urged more knowledge about the customs of Muhammadanism. According to Sarah Heinrich and James Boyce, Luther expressed great delight when he nally got his hands on a Latin translation of the Quran, which he could read rst-hand. Luther exercised his considerable inuence in 1542 when the Council at Basel banned the rst printing of the Cluny version of the Quran in Latin, which was to be released by the print shop of Oporinus, a famous Protestant printer who had also published Postel. The ban was lifted by the council, provided that the printing be given to Theodore Bibliander and that it would include a preface by both Luther and Melanchton. It could also not be distributed locally.60 The preface by Luther begins:Grace and peace in Christ, I gladly accepted this little book on the religion and customs of the Turks when it was offered to me. Now I have decided to publish it, not without good reason it seems to me. Although I have desired for some time to learn about the religion and customs of the Muhammadans, nothing has been available to me except a certain Refutation of the Alcoran and the Critique of the Alcoran by Nicholas de Cusa; I have tried in vain to read the Quran itself. The authors of the Refutation and the Critique seem to have intended through pious examination to frighten sincere Christians away from Muhammadanism and hold them secure in their faith in Christ. Still while they eagerly take pains to excerpt from the Quran all the most base and absurd things to arouse hatred and can move people to ill will, at the same time they pass over without rebuttal or cover over the good things that it contains. The result is that they have achieved too little credibility or authority, as it were cheapening their work, either because of hatred of the Turks or because of their own lack of powers of refutation.61

Luthers support for this edition of the Quran is perhaps the earliest example of what was later to be termed Turco-Calvinism by Catholics. Luther on the other hand amalgamated papist Catholics and Turks: So now be off with you tyrants and pontiffs, and for the sake of faith in Christfor the sake of your ceremonieskill, burn, suffocate, proscribe, and rage in full force, since you see that the splendor of your ceremonies is no splendor at all along side the excellent splendor of the Turks Despite Luthers pretense to being just when examining Islam, his tone changes substantially as the preface progresses. Luthers vociferous attacks against the Jews are common knowledge and need no repeating, but it is worth noting that they occupy most of the beginning of the preface and that Jews, papists, and Muhammedans are seen as one:Therefore, as I have written against the idols of the Jews and the papists and will continue to do so to the extent that is granted to me, so also I have begun to refute the pernicious beliefs of Muhammad Accordingly I have wanted to get a look at a complete text of the Quran. I do not doubt that the more of the pious and learned persons read these writings, the more the errors and the name of Muhhamed will be refuted. For just as the folly, or rather the madness, of the Jews is more easily observed once their hidden secrets

34 Orientalism in Early Modern Francehave been brought to the open, so once the book of Muhammad has been made public and thoroughly examined in all its parts, all pious persons will more easily comprehend the insanity and wiles of the devil and will more easily refute them.62

John Calvins views were not very different from Luthers; Calvin regarded Mohammad as a false prophet and wrote several passages amalgamating Jews, pagans, papists, and the Turks, as he called Muslims, together as people who blaspheme with open mouth.63 In turn, Turco-Calvinism was a Catholic accusation, a false amalgamation of the interests of Protestants of Europe with the Muslim enemy that was current in Calvin and Luthers lifetime. The assertion that the Protestants were not ghting the Turks was a prime accusation. Some elements of Turco-Calvinism reached their height in France after the evocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by the Roy TresChrtien, Louis XIV. The revocation took freedom of religion from Protestants in France. In its wake and even before it, Louis sent members of both groups to the royal galleysMuslim Turks as captives of war and Protestant Frenchmen as religious prisoners. They were chained together until they converted to Catholicism or died. The early interest that Protestants had expressed in Islam and the Orient helped shape later accusations of their sympathy for it. Despite Luther equating Turks with the devil in his preface, what was remembered was Luthers sponsorship of the printing of the Quran. In the English struggle against Catholicism, many Protestants wrote favorably about Islams tolerance.64 Yet, as is clear from the passages quoted earlier, early Protestant views of Islam certainly did not all justify accusations of sympathy for Islams tolerance or superiority. For example, Melanchtons efforts to remain rational while studying Islam fell short. Even his Catholic audience of censors could not have expected more empathetic statements, as in his preface he wrote: If you want to know who Mahomet is, the greatest precursor of the anti-Christ, the favorite disciple of the devil, read this prologue carefully There had been a zeal to translate in order to refute Islam and the encouragement had come from Martin Luther himself.65 It was this Protestant edition of the Quran that became familiar to Guillaume Postel. It was printed merely four years after Postel received his chair in oriental languages. Postel does not stand alone in his mind; Islam was a form of Christian heresy and had to be brought back to unity with Christianity. As we will see in the next chapter, his travel account about the Ottoman empire opens with a call to be just and not cover the virtues of the Turks that eerily resembles Martin Luthers beginning of the preface to the Quran.

Before Babel: The Quest for the Original LanguageA special place belongs to Postel for his revival of Hebrew studies. The search for the original language or the perfect language, however, was not new. Pico

The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel 35Mirandolas (14631494) ideas on language and religion might well have inuenced Postels view of the world. The unity of Christianity and Islam echoed Mirandolas studies of the Hebrew language, which led to his belief in the unity of God as demonstrated by the sacred name of God in Hebrew; Yahweh turned into the name of Jesus with just the simple addition of the letter sin. Postel adopted Mirandolas ideas on syncretism, as well as his beliefs in the power of the Hebrew language, not only as the language of Adam and as the original language, but as a language endowed with magic. Mirandola believed that words in Hebrew appeared as forces of sounds, which as soon as they were unleashed, inuenced the course of world events.66 In his De originibus seu de Hebraicae linguae et gentis antiquitate (1538) he argued that from this rst language of Noah all the other languages descended; Arabic, Chaldean, Hindi, and indirectly, Greek. He argued for the return to Hebrew as the instrument of a peaceable fusion of all peoples. There was one God, one world, and there should be one language. He clearly states in his De orbis terrae Concordia (1544) that his language studies would help lay the foundation on which universal concord would be created.67 When Postel translated the Lords Prayer into many different languages, such as Arabic and Armenian, he had a specic quest in mind: he was looking for the original language before Babel. While he proclaimed his own addiction to Greek and Roman letters, he believed that Hebrew was the parent of all languages. His enthusiasm for Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, coupled with his following of a female mystic in Venice, made Postel the Inquisitions target with accusations of heresy. To his critics, he replied that language was Gods gift to Adam and that he was studying divine languages, an argument acceptable to the Catholic Church, as it had sided with Augustines conviction that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew in Paradise.68 Postel wrote on the origins of languages and peoples, equating them.69 This view equating languages with peoples remained a tradition for centuries. It was not until 1866 that Max Mller pointed out in his lecture, Lectures of the Science of Languages, that confusing the history of languages with the history of races falsied things. It was an erroneous misinterpretation of passages in the Bible.70 The quest for the worlds original language was to have other proponents in the next century. Postels vision of linguistic unity for a humanitarian causeworld peacewas to capture Leibnizs imagination, and he was much inuenced by Postels longing for order and syncretism. Leibniz was also set on a global religious organization; in his Dissertaton sur lorigine des langues (1710) he called for the principles of science to be applied to linguistics. He gathered information about the languages of the world though reading missionary reports and travel accounts. As early as 1670, he took a stance against Postels belief that Hebrew had been the rst established universal idiom and instead favored German or Teutonic, a language he himself wrote, but in which he refrained from publishing.71 This model would have many other proponents. Many thinkers chose their own language; Flemish and Chinese have also been proposed as the original language. Collecting books

36 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceand languages from the old world and pilgrimage were seen as the twin roads to wisdom and secret knowledge. Postel also took this path; he was not chosen to be among the royal professors for his knowledge of Hebrew acquired in Paris, but gained a chair in languages only after he returned from extensive travel in the Ottoman empire. He dedicated his new work to the kings sister, Marguerite de Navarre, a scholar and a poet herself.72 Postel was sent with the rst formal French embassy on her recommendation, and on the recommendation of the famous Hellenist scholar, Francis Bud. Yet, Postel was not sent to the Ottoman empire as a scholar. The formal reason for his trip was entirely a commercial one. He was sent to settle the estate of a French merchant. Just as Orientalism shifted from a Church-sponsored branch of knowledge to a court-sponsored one under Francis I, Orientalism in France became rmly tied to trade and the commercial ambitions of France in the Ottoman markets. Collecting and acquiring objects, books, and goods became a central preoccupation, and the rst embassies sent to the Ottoman sultans were sent to establish trading privileges. Postel became part of the suite of the rst French ambassador to Istanbul.

2The Ambassadors

Lhistoire est le mirroir de la vie humaine. [History is the mirror of human life.] Guillaume Postel in the preface of De la Republique des Turcs, Poitiers, 1559

The Secret Letter to the Ottoman SultanOnce the unusual talent of the orphan from Normandy attracted the attention of the king of France, Guillaume Postel was sponsored to travel with the rst French embassy of 1536 to the Ottomans. Frances rst diplomatic contact with a Muslim potentate after the Crusades was codied by a treaty between Francis I and Sleyman the Magnicent, the most renowned of all the sultans of the Ottoman empire. To the horror of all Catholic Europe, and despite papal bans on trade and contact with the indel, the Ottomans became the allies of the French king. Many ties existed before the treaty of 1535. At rst, the contacts were informal and secret. In 1526 Louise de Savoie, Francis Is mother, sent a letter to the Ottoman sultan asking for help. Her son was a prisoner of Charles V in Spain. The two monarchs were tied in a struggle for supremacy over Europe and title of emperor. The French king had attempted to become the Holy Roman Emperor but had lost the battle. To Franciss frustration, the Hapsburg Charles V became emperor of Europe. Now, as Francis sat imprisoned with his two young sons in a tower in Madrid, his mother made the sultan the arbiter of European affairs by asking for Ottoman support against Charles V. This secret attempt to topple Charles V as emperor of Europe marks the beginning of Frances long relationship with the Ottomans. Sultan Suleiman responded to the secret letter. His response remains in the archives of the Bibliothque Nationale, and it diplomatically states: It is not unusual for Emperors to be defeated and imprisoned, do not lose your courage.1 This form of long-distance recognition from the powerful Sultan notwithstanding, a decade later Francis was still not the Holy Roman Emperor of Europe. Yet indirectly, he had accomplished a smaller feat by being granted commercial capitulations by the Ottomans. France prepared her rst formal embassy to the most powerful empire in the world in order to mark this new privilege. France was granted a formal presence in the capital even before Venice. The previous French embassy, if it can


38 Orientalism in Early Modern Francebe called an embassy, had been a secret one. It bordered on the ridiculous. A Croat gentleman by the name of Jean Frangipani carried the French kings mothers letter for help, hidden in his boots, all the way to Istanbul.2 The secret letter inaugurated Turkish correspondence with a European monarch and opened the door to several centuries of trade.3 French trade in the Levant marks the birth of court-sponsored Orientalism in France, and the rst orientalist to be sponsored by the French court was Guillaume Postel.

The Contacts before the First French Embassy to the OttomansThe rst French embassy of 1535 was preceded by many contacts that consolidated the tie created by Franciss mothers letter to Sleyman, or she would never have thought of attempting it. Ottoman power was well known in France. In 1533, the small town of Puy-en-Velay witnessed the arrival of an Ottoman messenger. He was sent by the ruler of Algiers: Khair-ed-Din, called Barberousse by the French. Barberousse was seen as the leader of the corsairs, and was responsible for the captivity of many Christian captives. There were a good number of French captives, as the Catholics were a favorite target of piracy. Barberousse was a privateer of Greek origin who had taken the name Khair-ed-Din upon his conversion to Islam. He was a protg of the Ottomans and he was also the admiral of Sultan Sleymans navy. France was not important enough for the ruler of Algiers to come onto French soil. In 1533 Khair-ed-Dins messenger brought an African lion and a group of French captives in chains to Puy-en-Velay. After this spectacular display of power, he offered the liberation of the animal as well as of the prisoners from their chains. This was a gesture of goodwill from Khair-ed-Din to the king of France. In return for this gesture, the French king sent envoys led by Antoine Rincon to greet Khair-ed-Din in Algiers, and to meet another favorite of Sultan Sleymans, a certain Ibrahaim Pasha of Aleppo. A year later, after Khair-ed-Dins conquest of Tunis in 1534, the rst ofcial Ottoman envoy from the sultan arrived in Marseilles to join the French court in Chatelleraut. The envoy was received with great pomp and ceremony by the French, to the amazement and displeasure of the rest of Europe. These negotiations were aimed at a French allegiance with the Ottomans and their close allies, the corsairs of Barbary, who were at the service of the sultan. An allegiance was essential to commercial navigation in the Mediterranean, as the corsairs, under Ottoman protection, controlled the sea. Privateers of all nations were part of the lucrative trade of the corsairs, which consisted of theft on the seas. The merchandise was resold and European captives were sent to the slave markets of the Ottoman empire. Some Europeans joined the corsairs, converted to Islam, and became privateers. Among others, many Protestant natives of the Low Countries were attracted to this form of privateering. Converted corsairs of Catholic origins were exceptional, but some became extremely prominent. The familiarity of several Flemish converts

The Ambassadors 39to Islam with the Barbary Coast was perhaps what prompted of the Hafsid Bey of Tunis, Mulay Hasan, to visit Brussels in 1534, right after he was ousted out of Tunis by Khair-ed-Din. Just when Khair-ed-Din sent an envoy to France, the vanquished Bey of Tunis, Mulay Hasan ran to Frances enemy in the same year of 1534. He took refuge in Hapsburg territory in Brussels. He stayed with the Count of Taxis in order to have a safe haven and to seek Emperor Charles Vs help against Frances new unofcial ally Khair-ed-Din. While living in Brussels Mulay Hasan made quite an impression. Both he and his European host would go out hunting dressed in Arab garb. He used ambergris as a meat sauce for eating delicacies such as peacock and pheasant. Ambergris was a very rare expensive luxury. Used in perfume, it was an extravagance to spice dishes with it. He also had the habit of listening to music blindfolded, which was common in his world but very startling to his European hosts.4 One must not be misled by the effect he had. It was a matter of class and not origin or religion. The received opinion that visitors from the Ottoman empire or North Africa were rare is now clearly demonstrated to be erroneous.5 Nevertheless, Mulay Hasan was a grandee, not a mere traveler, and his taste for luxury was fascinating to his hosts and reinforced their fantasies of a wealthy land of luxury somewhere across the Mediterranean Sea. This extraordinary visit inspired many artists and gave rise to several paintings. Mulay Hasans son served as a model for the Ethiopian king in Peter Paul Rubenss Three Magi. Shortly after this, Mulay Hasan forged the allegiance he had come for and returned to Tunis to ght for his lost throne. As the Hapsburg protg started his way back, his enemies Khair-ed-Din and the French were forming a loose allegiance. Just as, in 1535, the French sent an embassy to the Ottomans to sign the rst capitulations with the sultan, Charles V offered to help the dethroned Bey ght against Khair-ed-Din (Barbarousse) and restore Mulay Hasan as the ruler of Tunis.6 France wanted a powerful ally against Charles V and hoped that through a treaty with the Ottomans, French trade with the Levant would benet Marseilles. The rst formal French embassy consisted of twelve men sent to Constantinople, among them Guillaume Postel.7 Guillaume Postel was thus sent away from Paris in 1536 in the suite of the rst ambassador, Jean de la Forest. He was not sent as a translator because he did not yet know any Turkish, but as someone who was to protect Frances new commercial interests acquired through the capitulations of 1535. Postels mission was to gather rare manuscripts for the royal library at Fontainebleau, which the king had opened to scholars. His trip, however, came as a direct consequence of nascent French trade in the Levant, as his formal mission was to recuperate the lost fortune of a rich gentleman jeweler from Tours, and to have the new French capitulations applied for the rst time to this specic case. The jeweler had dealings with Ibrahim Pasha of Aleppo, to whom he had sold gems after his return from India, and he had kept a diary of his transactions in India and in the Levant. The jewelers commercial diary was given to Postel. The attempts made by Postel to recuperate the material

40 Orientalism in Early Modern Francelegacy of the Frenchman for his heirs in Tours were aborted by Ibrahaim Pashas prompt execution at the Sultans orders.8 Nevertheless, Postel was elated to stay in the Ottoman empire and learn both Arabic and Turkish. In his own words, he wrote that he learned Arabic so quickly that the Turks who were teaching him called him a demon. He also writes that he had learned the language of the Moors, the Egyptians, the Syrians, the Persians, the Turks, and the Tartars, and went on quite brashly to state that he could converse anywhere in the world without an interpreter.9 The tradition of the mystic East was also strong in this period, and traveling East was associated with a spiritual quest. The search for unity and origin was a quest common to alchemy and humanism. Collecting was another aim: medicine, religion, and alchemy were important areas of book collecting. There was, however, another incentive for studying things oriental: the Ottomans were Europes most powerful enemy, and then, as now, it was important to know ones enemy. The capitulations had not eliminated the possibility of an Ottoman threat to French territory. Indeed, after the capitulations of 1535, the Levant trade established Marseilles as the principal international port for oriental goods, and by scally enriching France, it helped Francis I compete with the Italian cities and the Hapsburgs. Yet Marseilles and Toulon witnessed the power of the Ottomans rst-hand.

The Turkish Occupation of Toulon in 1543The Turkish occupation of Toulon in the south of France made the town a Turkish colony for eight months. It was a strong reminder that the Ottoman empire was the most powerful empire of the time. The transformation of a Christian town into a Muslim one, complete with mosque and slave market, caused amazement in the rest of Christendom.10 This resulted in the complete humiliation of the inhabitants of Toulon and made them hate the French kings new allegiance with the Turks. This allegiance was clear in the Turkish attack on Nice and the occupation of Toulon. During the Turkish occupation of Toulon, the population of the city was made to evacuate their houses except for the head of each household, who stayed hostage to provide food and lodgings for Khair-ed-Dins men. The overwhelming number of Turks in Toulon made it a Turkish town. They arrived in Marseilles in July of 1543 on 110 Ottoman galleys. The galleys had left the Dardanelles with the French ambassador on board. Upon arrival on French soil, Barberousse and his eet were warmly welcomed by Francis de Bourbon, Comte dEnghien, who was one of the four most important noblemen in France. Aboard the ship was a French captain, Capitaine Polin, who headed the Ottoman troops in the galleys. Also on board was a French priest, Jerme Maurand, who left a rst-hand account of this journey.11 The Turkish invasion of Toulon was in fact led by the French. It is interesting to note that it is precisely at this time that Postel chose to write in Latin his Alcorani seu legis Mahometi et evangelistarum concordiae liber (1543), a work in

The Ambassadors 41which he examined Islam as a Christian heresy and tried to reintegrate it into Christianity. It also coincided with Luthers sponsorship of the Basel Quran published by Bibliander. Postels views were much milder than Luthers; there was no condemnation, no talk of the devil in Postel. He examined points of dissent and concordance between the two religions, only to proclaim Christianity as the sole religion, but he argued that Islam was a branch of Christianity. This last point, though not a novel idea, fell at a politically convenient time for the king; Francis had opened the door to the Turks. Postels stance clearly mirrored the political events of the French court. To the dismay of the inhabitants of Toulon who were evacuated from their dwellings in order to lodge the Turks, Francis I had aided the Ottomans in conquering a major port under Frances protection. It was therefore politically convenient to view the Ottomans, who had been condemned as indels by the pope and had been called many harsh names by Calvin and Luther, as merely Christian heretics. This is how events had unfolded for Toulon to become a Turkish town for eight months. On August 6, 1543, the Turks had launched a surprise attack on Nice. On the 22nd of the month, Nice surrendered to Turkish occupation. Not content with the provisions in Nice and unable to ret his eet, Khair-ed-Din demanded more coastal territory in September. Rather then lose his ally against the Hapsburg king, Charles V, Francis I gave Khair-ed-Din the use of the port of Toulon. Barberousse, as he was called locally, entered Toulon on May 23, 1544. Nevertheless, perhaps because of his evident and blatant collaboration, Francis I had been greatly embarrassed by this Turkish presence, as the Duchy of Savoy was his protectorate. Therefore, Francis granted Barberousse that in exchange for a swift departure, all the Turkish captives and other captured corsairs serving on French galleys be released. Francis hoped to see the corsair captain leave Nice and Toulon immediately. This sudden embarrassment was political. Francis no longer felt that he wanted to help the Ottomans. In December, when the Turks had been in Toulon for six months, Charles V had signed a treaty with the English King Henry VIII to invade France. From the start of the English invasion that May, Francis I desperately sought peace. The allegiance with the Ottomans could have made a peace treaty with Charles V totally impossible. On September 18, 1544, the secret Peace of Crpy was signed between the French king and Emperor Charles Vthe Ottomans were not made aware of the treaty that saved Francis from the battering of Charles V one more time.12

Memories of the Ottoman Siege of Nice in 1543The Ottoman attack on Nice and the surrender of the port of Toulon were not easily forgotten, but instead of remembering the humiliation of Nice and Toulon, a heroic legend has been forged as compensation. The memory is vivid: the departure of the Turks from Provence is commemorated to this day through the local cult of a washerwoman, a lavandire, turned into a folk heroine. Every year in the city of Nice,

42 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceconcurrent with Saint Catherines Day on November 25, Catherine Segurane Day is celebrated with great ceremony. The Ottoman departure from Nice, and not the Ottoman invasion, is remembered by evoking how Catherine Segurane chased the Turks out of Nice, but her very existence remains to be established. By all contentions her cult was born with nationalism, as most of the evidence we have is in nineteenthcentury literature. Catherine Segurane (Catarina Sgurana in the Niois dialect) is now a beloved heroine of the city of Nice, with a bas-relief statue erected to her name in a stone the inhabitants of Nice have nicknamed the monolith. In 1923, a period of fervent nationalism, a monument to Catherines memory was carved in the Saint Augustin square across from the church of the same name. She also had a street named after her. On the corner of the street one can see a cannonball lodged into the wall. Next to it the plaque reads, Cannonball from the Turkish eet in 1543 during the siege of Nice, where Catherine Segurane herone nioise distinguished herself. At the time, Nice was part of the Duchy of Savoy, a duchy nominally independent from France but dependent on Frances armed protection, and as such Savoy had no standing military to defend Nice. The duchy had been a French protectorate for a century, but one of the dukes, Charles III, angered Francis I by marrying into the Hapsburg family of Charles V. As ruler of Savoy, Duke Charless marriage to Beatrice of Portugal took place in the city of Nice, and in retaliation Francis invaded the Duchy of Savoy in 1536. Francis had military control of the region when his allies, the Ottoman eet, arrived in the port of Nice in August of 1543. Catherine allegedly took the lead as the women of Nice defended the city against the Turkish invasion and successfully chased the invaders away. A distorted version of the story said that she did so by standing before the invading Ottoman forces and exposing her bare buttocks. Rather inexplicably, allegedly this mooning was said to have so completely repulsed the Turkish infantrys Muslim sense of decency that they turned and ed. In other equally unbelievable versions, Catherine Segurane used a beater or her wash board. The details matter little, as all are equally incredible, since she was unarmed against an invading army. Yet, what is of importance is the idea that a mere woman, alone and unarmed, defeated the mightiest army on earth.13 No one ever mentions that the French kings army failed to protect Nice. In reality the local populations were defeated by the Ottomans. Yet, the memory of the Turkish invasion of Nice and Toulon has been inverted into a tale of bravado and victory by a population who suffered a major humiliation and had to meekly surrender to the enemy save for small pockets of resistance in the highest elevation in Nice, the Chateau de Cimiez. In this commemoration the Ottomans are depicted as ridiculous, weak enough to be chased away by a mere woman, prudish enough to ee from the sight of the bare buttocks of a mooning washerwoman. The image depicts a lack of strength or virility. Unfortunately, in recent years, fascist youth and other groups allied to the extreme right have adopted Catherine Segurane to serve their specic cause against immigration. She is viewed as another southern reincarnation of Joan of Arc, as a symbol against foreign invasion. From a nationalist icon

The Ambassadors 43celebrated by poems and plays, Catherine Segurane has become a symbol of local identity threatened by the recent Muslim immigration from North Africa into Provence. It seems no one remembers that the king of France was the ally of the Ottoman invaders of Nice and Toulon, and that the French army not only did not save Nice, but gave Toulon away to the Turks. The actual resistance was military; Duke Charles III, the ruler of the Duchy of Savoy, was appalled at the French king and raised an army in Piedmont to liberate Nice. The real miracle in Nice was the resistance of the chteau in Cimiez after most of Nice had fallen to the Franco-Turkish coalition. After pillaging the city of Nice and taking many of its inhabitants into captivity as slaves, the Turks retreated to Toulon on September 8. This pocket of resistance soon became seen as a supernatural event. The main battles occurred on August 15 and September 8, both days traditionally dedicated to the Virgin Mary in the Catholic calendar. Initially it was the Virgin Mary who was seen as the savior of Nice. A statue of the Virgin was erected commemorating her intercession to save the city, but it was destroyed in 1784, after the French Revolution, in the construction of what is now called Garibaldi Square. Catherines myth arose in the seventeenth century, shortly after the battle. Half a century after the attack she was rst mentioned by a prominent local notable, Honor Pastorelli (15??1620), who wrote an early history of Nice at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The initial religious cult of the Virgin could have been replaced by the more secular folk hero Catherine in the nineteenth century. Meanwhile, while the Turks were living in Toulon, a secret peace was about to be signed. The secret peace of Crpy would mark the ambiguity of French attitudes to the Ottomans, an ambiguity that was to persist for long centuries. The damage done by Franciss betrayal of the Ottomans at Crpy had to be controlled by a gesture of good will. Another French embassy to the Ottomans was in order.

Postel and the Second French EmbassyThe second embassy to Istanbul of 1547, in which Postel once again participated, was brought after the Sultan threatened to cut diplomatic relations with France. But it was more than an embassy for appeasement. The second French ambassador left with the explicit mission to avoid what was a new dangerous possibility: a treaty between the Ottoman sultan and Frances old enemy, Charles V. Even if Charles V was now allied to France through marriage, France still prized its privileged position with the Ottomans. The impact and importance of the embassy of 1547 on France would not be matched until the Noitel embassy of 1670 that was sent to Istanbul under Louis XIV.14 Guillaume Postel was also part of this second French delegation for the Levant, albeit informally. This time he was not sponsored by the French court. Postel left Venice for the Ottoman empire a second time in 1549, bankrolled by orientalists and

44 Orientalism in Early Modern Francescholars.15 On his second trip to the Ottoman empire, Postel showed a great preoccupation with Arabic. He proclaimed in his writings that two-thirds of the world spoke Arabic. At this point Postel had held the Arabic chair for a decade, the rst in France. His vision was grandiose and ambitious: to reconstruct the unity of the world under Gods rule and preach reconciliation between Moslems and Christians. Postels travels to the Ottoman empire abetted his knowledge of oriental languages. The ideas he had discussed with the Jesuits at Sainte Barbe also formed his view of travel. It was a quest, and his personal quest was for the language that would restore humanitys lost unity. During his rst trip Postel had absorbed information with remarkable thoroughness and speed. His closest informants were a Turk and a Jewish doctor. The Turk, who remains anonymous like most native informants, was a man with whom Postel made a lasting friendship. He describes him as a convert to Christianity and a scholar who shared Postels passion for Arabic manuscripts on mathematics and medicine. At this time Postel showed no interest in religion except for Jewish texts. He had heard that there were Talmudic and Kabbalistic books written in the Chaldean alphabet, but he was only able to acquire a Kabbal given to him by the Jewish physician Moshe Almuli. Postel studied with both men.16 Universal brotherhood became a calling force and his guide for the second trip. Among his works during this period was a concordance of the Quran and the Gospels. This calling did not completely conform to the usual Jesuit attempt to convert the world to Christianity, although there were clear resonances of it. Ignatius de Loyola had spent two years trying to cure Postel of his eccentric ideas about a universal religion, but it had been to no avail. Postel wrote a Pater followed by the Islamic Fatiha, the rst surat of the Quran. He believed that he could make a universal concord happen through the concordance of religions and unity of language.17 He openly declared that he was the only one to be able to do so. He had been chosen.

Postels Views of Knowledge Condemned by the InquisitionAfter returning from Istanbul, Guillaume Postel was imprisoned by the Inquisition because he immodestly proclaimed himself a prophet in a climate where all religious tolerance had vanished due to the Reformation. In the 1550s such was Postels belief in the illumination brought to him by his Levantine peregrinations that he vocally proclaimed himself supreme comprehensor and congregator: his mission was nothing short of uniting the people of the world as one. Postel believed that the viator [the wayfarer] could, through travel, comprehend the world of God and of his own self. From medieval alchemy, Postel retained the importance of the four elements. To him, the most important element was water. Because Venice was on water and between East and West, it was to be the New Rome and the New Jerusalem from which the message of this world harmony would spread. Of the Inquisition he wrote: A Venise je reu sentence pour laquel je fus dclar fol [In Venice, I received a sentence in

The Ambassadors 45which I was declared to be crazy]. Fol in its Renaissance context might also mean a clairvoyant and an illuminated being and not simply its literal meaning denoting a madman. Since the verdict was insanity he was not persecuted.18 As one of the most respected scholars in Europe, his biographers speculate that Postel was left alone. Postel had an established reputation and held a chair, but he saw this second journey as a mystical one, a view that was a far cry from the rest of the group in the embassy. Their aims were intellectual and commercial, not mystical. Many texts left by the 1547 embassy showed some interest in observation, and most showed a novel interest in Greek antiquities that would later help in arguing for Frances Greco-Roman origins. The second embassy was one of the most fruitful ones for acquiring new knowledge for France, as well as for forging new myths about Frances imagined classical past. The knowledge it brought was not simply through the texts of the travelers, but it arrived in France through the manuscripts, books, and objects they collected. It was not simply knowledge about the Ottoman empire and the customs and religion of the Ottomans. It brought in new ideas about astronomy, medicine, mathematics, botany, and zoology.

The Meaning of Travel Accounts: The Ramus QuestionnaireThe accounts written about the 1547 embassy were written before humanists devised a model and a methodology for all travelers. This methodology, called Methodus Apodemica, or Ars apodemica, method of travel, or the art of travel, is an aspect of Renaissance humanism, which despite its immense impact on European society, has been neglected by scholars until Justin Stagls detailed book devoted to its development.19 What emerges from a closer study of this methodology is that the questionnaire format was both central to recording the art of traveling and to the emergence of scientic inquiries tied to it. The questionnaire, later the corner-stone of eld work for the ethnologist or anthropologist, was a tool elaborated centuries earlier by humanists in order to gather knowledge for the curious. The founders of this travel methodology were Renaissance empiricists. The collection of facts and gures was made in order to improve humanity in wisdom, virtue, and happiness as was commonly proclaimed in the humanist agenda. Two such collectors of knowledge for the advancement of humanity were Guillaume Postel and his contemporary, the better-known Ramus, Pierre de la Ram (15151572). To both men travel was seen as a spiritual and intellectual journey to increase knowledge, wisdom, and happiness. The Jesuit missionaries shared this view. The humanists, however, wished to generalize and systematize advice on travel in order to increase the intellectual impact of reporting knowledge, which was not to remain an individual endeavor, but had to be shared with others for the progress of humanity. Enough has been written about the republic of letters that no further explanations are necessary as to how collecting was shared. As travelers, they also wanted to improve the manner of presenting data

46 Orientalism in Early Modern Francein order to reach a higher degree of knowledge. This hope marked the beginning of modern historical methods. Typically, what was considered historical knowledge, historia in the sense that Herodotus had inaugurated, was a successive series of facts and observations strung together in a series of journeys that were chronologically organized. Chronology was often referred to as the natural order. Much later medieval travel reports derived their order from a diary and kept chronology at the center of the travel account through the use of a travel diary. The travel diary was closely tied in its origin to the daily expenses recorded by some pilgrims or the more elaborate accounts kept by some merchants on the road. This habit of bookkeeping was transferred to the psychological and scientic sphere by some humanists, and emphasis was put on memorabilia, insignia, curiosa, visu ac situ digna (memorable, striking, curious things worth seeing and knowing). Rare were the extraordinary cases such as the French embassy to the Ottomans in 1547, when several travel accounts were produced simultaneously during the same journey. This helped fact-checking and establishing authority. Yet, even within the same journey the accounts produced widely different results, and chronology was only one element of organization. The other factor was choice. The choice of what constituted things memorable to observe was left to the traveler alone. Authentication soon became a problem for travel accounts; the traveler was solely the sovereign of his data, as he no longer was to refer to earlier texts. The sudden rise in popularity of the travel account in the late sixteenth century led to new editions of Greek, Roman, and Arab geographies in order to search for reliable models of observation and description. In addition to this trend in the late sixteenth and throughout the seventeenth century, an enormous amount of literature appeared, most of it in the form of tracts, that methodized different activities. They spelled out correct forms and methods for activities in all the areas of life and of travel down to the correct way of dying on the road.20 The will to apply rational planning to travel appeared in two literary forms that are more familiar, the advisory and the compendium. The rst compendium, a collection of travel accounts, was printed very early, by the German printer Valentin Fernandez in Lisbon in 1502, to set scholars to work on the accounts of the new voyages of discovery.21 The compendia of travel accounts undertaken by Ramusio in Italy and by Hakluyt in England, both in the sixteenth century, and by Melchisdec Thvenot in France in the seventeenth century, were examples of an attempt to gather and organize information to advance knowledge. These compendia are better known than the questionnaire, which is at the heart of the evolution of ars apodemica, the art of travel. According to Stagl the questionnaire is a very old tool, with its roots in list science. It emerged in ancient societies for recording natural phenomenon, such as Babylonian astronomy.22 The questionnaire applied to travel had its beginnings in the sixteenth century as travel accounts in the vernacular started to appear. Ramus adopted a scientic model for his travel questionnaire; meant to help modern observation, it was based on a model used in medical classications.

The Ambassadors 47The Huguenot Ramus had much in common with Postel. Born noble but poor, he aimed to study at university despite the odds and was admitted to the Collge de Navarre, where, like Postel at Sainte Barbe, he worked as a servant by day, or as a valet to more afuent students, and studied at night. His intellectual impact on humanism far surpasses Postels. In his thesis in 1536 Ramus showed the aws of scholasticism, still a dogma at the Sorbonne. In 1543 Ramus had published a very inuential work, which made him many enemies, the Dialecticae Institutiones, printed in Paris, despite strong opposition from the Sorbonne, where Aristotelianism was dogma. Ramus claimed to have found a new universal method, which he called dialectics, applicable to the arts and sciences. It was an improved version of Aristotelian logic for the classication of new useful knowledge. His method required every topic to be investigated through a standard of ten questions. The questions were called loci, places (these places replaced Aristotles categories), which helped derive propositions to be tested by experience. The sum of the propositions arrived at for each topic was called a discourse. The discourse had then to be ordered starting from the most general proposition to the more particular in natural order. This way of organizing knowledge was represented in his book by a synoptic table, or a synopsis. Ramus had adopted the use of synoptic tables from the medical school in Padua, where they had been in use for quite some time to make classications.23 He encountered huge opposition. Nevertheless, he opened lectures within the University of Paris, but the conservative theologians accused him of undermining the foundations of theology and knowledge. It gave way to so much controversy that his case went the Parliament of Paris, to be nally judged by Francis I. Ramus left France. He returned to Paris, called by Henri II, to occupy a chair at the Collge du Roi in 1551, as had Postel before him. Innovation was possible at the collge. He was very successful and had audiences of 2,000 listeners, but because he espoused Protestantism he had to leave Paris. His book on dialectics, Dialectique, was translated into French in 1555, the language used for teaching by the lisans du roi. It was the earliest work on philosophy in the French language.24 Ramus left for a lecture tour of Protestant universities in Germany but based himself, as had Erasmus before him, in the intellectual capital of Basel in Switzerland. Many Basileans nished their education in Padua; in both these intellectual centers Ramus was applauded, while in his native France, Paris continued to show great hostility. Ramus made the mistake of returning to Paris on an invitation to debate. He arrived during the terrible massacres of Saint Barthelemy on August 24, 1572, and like many Protestants was assassinated that night. The invitation at that specic moment had been at the instigation of his enemies at the Sorbonne. As a lisan du roi for Henri II Ramus had written a French grammar, which appeared the year of his death.25 His humanist dialectic method has been called the most important book of the sixteenth century. It would take some time for his inuence to inltrate France beyond travel accounts and their vernacular medium. His thought had major impact on philosophy only two centuries later, on higher education and

48 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceon the eighteenth-century encyclopedists. His work was left unnished; some of his German and Dutch Protestant disciples were to apply Ramism to their own work and make it into a formal doctrine of travel.26 Among those disciples under his inuence were Theodor Zwinger (15331588) from Basel and the Dutch scholar Hugo Blotius (de Bloote, 15341608). Together with Ramus, all three aimed to organize the growing mass of empirical knowledge in the wake of the age of discoveries and printing, a preoccupation that had already alarmed the Spaniard Juan Luis Vives (14921540). Vives had been teaching in the Netherlands and was also a major inuence on all three. Five years after Ramuss death, in 1577 Theodor Zwinger, his close friend, published Methodus apodemic in eorum gratiam qui cum fructu in quocunque tandem vitae genere peregrinari cupiunt, in Basel, a hefty tome that was to be reprinted and would remain the main authority on theory of travel. Ramuss methodology was followed by Zwinger: the book is divided in three. Book I was an overview of the different forms of travel and denitions of travel, with examples arranged in tabular form. Book II was a book of advice, both moral and practical, for all travelers to improve themselves; this book was also arranged in synoptic table form. Book III described four cities, perceived as the most important centers of the world for humanists: Basel, Paris, Padua, and Athens. They are model cities to be followed by all travelers for the description of the cities they encounter in their journeys. The model dictates that the traveler should record facts such as the ancient and new names of the city, the territory, the history, the constitution of the city, and also the principal sights and the occupation of the inhabitants. The order of these facts was an important element of the model. Book IV contains plans for organizing the description of life abroad, locus, place, or geographical location and its subdivisions, locatum as in buildings and monuments, and actio, as in the arts and crafts practice, such as printing. The many texts of the Ottoman embassy of 1547 were composed in the 1550s and even as late as the 1560s, so they were not inuenced by the questionnaire itself, but the ideas of Ramus were well known to Postels milieu since the late 1530s. As such, Ramuss views of the scientic utility of travel and some of his methods apply to the texts produced by the second French embassy in the Ottoman empire.

The Texts of the Second French Embassy to the OttomansThe vast suite of the ambassador included the physician and botanist Pierre Belon (15171564), the naturalist Pierre Gilles dAlbi (14901555), and the future cosmographer Andr Thvet dAngoulme (15161590), as well as the now famous traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (15171583). Many of the accounts printed by the members in this expedition would have important consequences for new knowledge and early science in France.27 Soon after his return, Postel also made several important scientic contributions; he wrote the rst Arabic grammar and had his

The Ambassadors 49travel account about the Turks published. Postel is perhaps the third most famous of the sixteenth-century travelers to the Ottoman empire, the most renowned being Nicholas de Nicolay, and next would be Andr Thvet. Postel is followed at a great distance by Pierre Belon du Mans, Pierre Gilles, le Sieur de Villarmont, and Jean Palerne.28 Postels account is for the most part forgotten, but it is has recently been partially and incompletely published for the rst time since the sixteenth century.29 Postel wrote this account in French, although the majority of his work is in Latin, to honor the kings wish for the use of the national language in scholarship. Jacques Gassots was the rst description to be put in print in 1550 after the embassy returned. It made a total abstraction of the Ottomans in order to concentrate on Greece and its antiquities, a point of view shared, albeit more moderately, by Thvet.30 It was followed by Pierre Belons account printed in 1553, Andr Thvets cosmology in 1554, Guillaume Postels account, written in 1551 but printed in 1559, and Nicolas de Nicolays, printed in 1567. Pierre Gilless accounts of his trip were printed nine years after his death, by his nephew in 1565. Finally, Jean Chesnau, secretary to Ambassador dAramon, wrote his account later than all the others and took entire passages from each of them. Printed in 1566, Jean Chesaus work remains in manuscript form.31 Two members of the dAramon expedition died shortly after they returned to France. Pierre Belon ended up assassinated in the Bois de Boulogne. Pierre Gilles died an untimely death due to fever and was buried in Rome before he could publish anything on the observations he made. His nephew Antoine Gilles took care of his work written after the embassy trip.32 After this trip, Andr Thvet, who would include an account of Postels youth in his biography of great men, wrote a work entitled Cosmographie du Levant.33 Thvets work was published rst in Lyons in 1554, and then in Antwerp in 1556 by the printer Gilles Van Diest. This text was very important, because Andr Thvet established a major trend that would shape European views well into the twentieth century. Jacques Gassot had printed a work with essentially the same message about the neglected ruins of Greece and Rome. Although mostly derivative, very dry, and descriptive of antiquities sites and monuments, Thvets was a pioneering work for its imperialist tone: it denuded the landscape of the people inhabiting the land and focuses on monuments that are claimed to belong to Europes GrecoRoman origins.34 Thvet saw these markers of Greco-Roman glory in ruins during quick trips to Egypt and Jerusalem while in residence in Istanbul with the embassy. Thvet claimed that these monuments belonged to Frances past. He called for their protection by inviting the European princes to reclaim their patrimony and save these Greco-Roman monuments from what he claims to be the destructiveness of the Turks. Not surprisingly, large parts of the account are devoted to Greece under the rule of the Ottomans. This does not mean that Thvet held a uniformly negative view of the Turks. There are passages of praise, as is the case for most of the travelers in this group. Some, however, like Nicolas de Nicolay, spent some of their time and energy observing the terrain for other reasons.

50 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceNicolas de Nicolay, born in 1517 in the Dauphin, was an adventurer who had traveled extensively before. He was a secret agent.35 In 1546 he was in England, of which he has left a very precise map. Nicolay was at the service of the French crown and of the Scots, and became part of the 1547 French embassy to the Ottomans. When he returned to Europe, he still worked for the French, and after the French captured the city of Bologna, he went there in 1550 as a royal envoy in charge of translating a navigation treaty by Pedro Medina.36 Knowledge about navigation became crucial to France as its worldly ambitions for trade came to the forefront. The second edition of this work on navigation was augmented by his travel account of the Ottoman empire, if it can be called a travel account. He relied heavily on Greek sources such as Herodotus or Xenophon to describe the Persians, and there is scant evidence of any real observations in Persia during the Safavid-Ottoman war in Tabriz. Yet, he spends much time on fortications and landscape, and so his observations are to be seen as practical and in line with his purpose as an agent. There is no proof that anyone but Nicolay had this form of assignment in the embassy.37 Some of the travelers were naturalists and left many descriptions of animals, which were to capture the European imagination a century before the animals themselves were captured for the zoo of the Jardin du Roi. Francis I had a small menagerie with an ostrich and lions, but it was relatively limited compared to the animals described by two other travelers in this embassy: Pierre Belon and Pierre Gilles. The view of the sultans menagerie gave way to a discourse about lions and elephants and other exotic animals that would not only become a common element in the travel genre, but inspired the collection of exotic animals. The collection of animals was an important element in the creation of royal zoos.38 No description left by the texts of this embassy rivals the story of Pierre Gilless elephant. Pierre Gilles had set out on a mission to collect oriental books for the royal library. There was great friction between Gilles and Guillaume Postel, who had fullled this task during the rst embassy and believed it was still solely his role. The king had not even funded Postel on this second mission. Unfortunately the court had not funded Gilles either. Gilles failed miserably at his role of royal collector because he had insufcient royal funding despite a formal order to collect. Unlike Gilles, Guillaume Postel was well-funded: even if he had no royal mandate, he was sponsored by the famous printer of Hebrew books in Venice, Daniel Bomberg, who wanted him to work on translations of the Bible.39 Postel was therefore more successful at acquiring books and manuscripts, while Gilles had to resort to extremes. The scholars in the suite of the embassy were so poorly funded that they had to be resourceful to survive, let alone collect. When Henri II succeeded Francis I, he sent his own envoy and this created some tension. In the end the initial embassy prevailed, but Henri II ordered Gabriel dAramon to follow the Ottomans in their war path. The French followed Sultan Sleyman into Persia, where Sleyman was ghting a war with the Safavids. They arrived at the camp of the sultan in Erzerum, and joined it on June 28, 1548. They

The Ambassadors 51crossed the river Aras and traveled all the way to Tabriz where they arrived on July 25. When the embassy returned to France, the French were stupeed upon discovering that Pierre Gilles, whom they only knew as interested in antiquities and animals, had enrolled in the Ottoman army. Poverty had compelled him to become a soldier ghting on the side of the Ottomans.40 He had acquired an elephant in a battle against the Persians, and in one of the most striking scientic episodes of this embassy, Gilles dissected the elephant upon its death. Thanks to this prowess, Pierre Gilles is considered as the father of French zoology.41 Francis I died before the embassy returned, but the composition of dAramons suite bore Franciss mark. Petrus Gyllius, as Pierre Gilles is called in his Latin texts, remains a mysterious gure. Not much is known about his youth and education. Judging from his later work, he shared the education and enthusiasms of the new generation of French humanists sponsored by Francis I. This circle included his contemporaries Franois Rabelais, Jacques Lefvre DEtaples, and Guillaume Bud. Humanists in the Renaissance did not know political borders, and many in this embassy had contacts all through Europe. They were either disciples of Erasmus and the Italian humanists, or in close contact with them; typically humanists had contacts in Antwerp, Basel, Padua, Bologna, Leuven, Leiden, Montpellier, and many important centers of learning. Gilles was sent to amass the books he was given little money to buy. He managed to buy a Greek work that shaped his own travel account. In Gilless travel account, his own archaeological and topographical observations were entirely molded and structured in the footsteps of Denys of Byzantium.42 Many travelers, including the famous Antoine Galland, visited sites with book in hand and tried to observe whether the older text was a reection of what they saw. This was a typical form of observation. Pierre Gilles cannot be seen as an antiquarian who relied solely on text rather than observation; his last work as a naturalist was very much in the new tradition of scientic observation.43 Many travelers shared this mixed methodology. Like his travel account, most of Gilless earlier work on the natural world had Greek and Roman sources.44 Yet, Pierre Gilless dissection of his war elephant fell very much within the new scientic experimentation of the time. Gilles used observation, as was advocated by the new art of travel. Dissection and anatomy were becoming a challenge to Galenic orthodoxy in the medical eld, as observing from nature challenged some long-held beliefs. Francis I had appointed Johannes Winter (15051574) as royal physician. Like Winter, one of his disciples, the physician Andreas Vesalius (15141564), a precursor of the science of dissection and anatomy, would also turn to Paris, the best medical school north of the Alps. Even in Paris, despite Franciss protection, practical dissection was rare and novel. The dissection of a corpse either in secret or before a group of students had long been forbidden by the Church. Anatomy was primarily learned from books. It is in this new context of the natural sciences that Pierre Gilless dissected elephant must be understood. This second French embassy left many accounts, and the impact of the texts on humanism and new scientic learning cannot be overestimated. Yet,

52 Orientalism in Early Modern Francemost travel accounts were centered on Greece and its antiquities and saw Greece, as Gassot and Thvet did, as Frances past, its antiquities as their own patrimony. This established a long tradition of viewing France as a descendent of the Greeks and the Romans. Nevertheless, the impact of the novel ideas of the two naturalists made a great scientic contribution to the nascent eld of zoology and anatomy. Frdric Tringuley has argued that the second half of the sixteenth century produced about twice the amount of texts on the Orient as compared to those devoted to the Americas.45 Many of the accounts of this 1547 embassy were written in French, which was a novelty. Francis Is efforts to establish French as a national language and as a language of scholarship were vastly furthered by the new knowledge published in the vernacular by these travelers to the Orient. The study of these texts is very problematic and remains to be undertaken; not only do they have many borrowings from ancient Greek and Roman texts, but many passages resemble each other in the work of this contemporaneous group. This intertextuality is problematic; passages such as the description of Turkish baths are identical in texts left by Belon and Thvet and even Postel.46 Guillaume Postels travel account stands in stark contrast to Nicolays and Thvets, as it cites no Greek sources and is mostly based on observation. Postels biographers have not tackled his rather repetitious and convoluted travel account. Even without an in-depth study, as his work on the Ottomans remains to be studied, a reading shows there is immediately something quite unique about Postels views.

Postels Travel Account about the OttomansGuillaume Postels account stands alone among the entire writings of the embassy of 1547. Not only does the account not concentrate on Greece or Greek sources, which is unusual for a humanist of his milieu, it is the only account concerned with the Turkish language. Postel analyzed, albeit navely, the language of the Turks. Postels account De la Republique des Turcs: & l o loccasion soffrera, des meurs & loy de tous Muhamedites par Guillaume Postel Cosmopolite, was marked as printed in December of 1559, but in catalogues the date is given as 1560. It was written in French and not in Latin as were many of his previous works, and Postel was selfconscious, as he was more at ease writing in Latin. It was clearly a gesture to please the court. The embassy was part of the courts efforts to sponsor humanists and to foster knowledge away from the censorship of the Sorbonnes theologians, who wrote exclusively in Latin and frowned disdainfully at any use of the vernacular. Within the vast body of work produced by this embassy to the Ottomans, as always, Postels vision stands alone as the most unacceptable to the theologians. Postels travel account is in three parts; the last part is dedicated to the Duc de Lorraine, and the rst two parts are dedicated to the dauphin, son of Henri II (1519 1559), and to the future Charles IX (15501574). There is a strong passage remembering Marguerite de Navarre, Francis Is sister. Postel clearly states his purpose:

The Ambassadors 53I, as much as I be made a Cosmopolitan Gaulois, having cures and cares for all the world, do not think that I could do anything more agreeable to God and more useful to you, future Emperor of my country, than to help in every way I can in adding to your wisdom, the knowledge and the real use of which will be necessary in the government to which you are destined.47

Travel brought him wisdom, but this wisdom could be textually transmitted to the king as politically instrumental. He was also certain that knowledge of the world would help France rule itthe role of informant in the making of an empire was one that Postel relished. His signature of Cosmopolite denotes that he viewed himself both as worldly and as a citizen of the world. Yet, Postels identication as a Gaulois and his designation of France as mon pays (my country) can be read aloud in the same breath. There was no contradiction in this dual identity for the mystical traveler who saw his mission as uniting the Muslim world with Christendom for the glorication of France. In his mind he was undertaking nothing less than a history of the Turks for the benet of knowledge about the Muslim world in the service of Frances imperial destiny. Postel wrote that:In as much as does not take effect the concord of the world (for the universal peace of which I name myself Cosmopolitan, hoping to see it attained under the French crown) it is not possible to reason with his enemy without knowing his state as he does himself, and the greatest power, be it in religion, be it in arms, that ever was is Ismaelique and among the Ismaelites it is the Turquesque of which I bring you knowledge here.48

It is not a clear case of know thine enemy. He saw the origins of France in the nation he called Ismaelique, as was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, but he sees the successors of the nation Ismaelique as the nation Turquesque. This gives a common origin to France and the nation Turquesque, at the very least, and the even more radical notion that the French descended from the Turkish nation. There is no question about the hegemonic tone of this discourse. He admonished the future king to acquire both knowledge and wisdom, and especially recommends the knowledge of history and of the past in order to rule over the world. Postel believed that history was the mirror of human life. Postels De la Rpublique des Turcs, in a second Paris edition of 1575, acquired the new title of: Des histoires Orientales et principalement des Turkes ou Turchikes et Schitiques ou Tartaresques et aultres qui en font descendues.49 It is under this second title that it has partially been reprinted in Istanbul in 1999. The change of title in 1575, while he was still alive, is an interesting political shift as it takes away the subtitle about Muslims, but makes the whole thing into oriental stories. Gone was the positive reference to the Republic of the Turcs and its tie to ancient classical political traditions of Greece and Rome through the word republic. In French the terms story and history share the same word histoire; with the adjective orientales,

54 Orientalism in Early Modern Francehistoire can still be read as either one. Nevertheless, the adjective encourages the reader to understand the new edition as a collection of stories rather than a history. The content of both editions, although a critical edition remains to be made, appears to be identical. The beginning of Postels travel account is startling. Postel asks the reader to be objective (neutre), and he afrms to have accomplished this himself. He wrote that in the past authors have been very eager to cover up the virtues and point out the faults of the Turks. He holds that it is important to be informed and to be just in order for ones testimony to have real authority. This entire stance taken by Postel was remarkably similar, including in the wording, to the beginning of Luthers preface to the Quran printed in Basel in 1543. As discussed before, Luther had written that previous works eagerly take pains to excerpt from the Quran all the most base and absurd things to arouse hatred and can move people to ill will, at the same time they pass over without rebuttal or cover over the good things that it contains. The result is that they have achieved too little credibility or authority.50 Since no one has examined his text closely, this similarity has never been noticed. Could some of his trouble with the inquisition stem from this, as he had written the text as early as 15501551? Marion Kuntz and his other biographers are careful when discussing Postels closeness to the Reformation. Kuntzs cautious stance after fteen years of reading him is that Postel can be seen neither as a Catholic nor a Protestant. Despite all of Postels precautions to be an equitable and just observer, the book opens with marriage as the rst subject of scrutiny. This is again similar to Luthers preface. Luther saw three paths through which the Turks were a threat to Europe: war, religion, and the last one mentioned, marriage.51 Postel soon resorted to the European trope of concentrating on polygamy and the seraglio, an element that makes Postel one of the several precursors of the long-lived genre of histoire orientales and harem literature. The rst in a long line to argue that polygamy was a threat to the state, an argument so dear to Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Diderot centuries later. When he examined the status of women, Postel wrote that men can have a dozen wives, and because they hold that a dozen women are not worth one man and women are marvellously submissive in Turkey.52 Postels interest in travel accounts was extensive and went beyond his own work. A few years before his De la Republique des Turcs, Postel had written a little-noticed work, one of the many neglected pieces among the seventy works or more that he produced: Lhistoire memorable des expeditions depuys le dluge faictes par les Gauloys ou Froys depuis la Frce iusques en Asie, ou en Thrace & en loritale partie de lEurope ...; A la n est Lapologie de la Gaule contre les malevoles escripuains, qui dicelle ont mal ... escript ..., & en apres Les tresancis droictz du peuple Gallique, & de ses princes. The work was dated to 1552 and aimed to be a compendium of all Gaulois and French travelers and the roads to Asia, as well as a vindication of the superior rights of the Gallic nation.53 This ninety-seven page manuscript, like much of Postels work, remains to be studied and published, but it is

The Ambassadors 55worth mentioning. Its encyclopedic intent was to keep a repertory of travel accounts written by the French, from classical times to the sixteenth century. It was much in the spirit of Giovanni Battista Ramusio (14851557), cosmographer and secretary to the Council of Ten in Venice. The compendium of travel made by Ramusio, entitled Delle navigationi et viaggi (15501559) is well known because it contained the travels of Marco Polo, Leo the African, and many other gems of travel writing, such as Nicolas da Contis. Postel was living in Venice in the 1550s, just as Ramusio was making his famous travel compendium. Postel was familiar with orientalist milieus all across Europe. There was another member of the Ramusio family interested in the East. He was translating Avicennas canon of medicine, Kitb al-Qnn f al-tibb, already widely read by Europeans in the Latin translation of Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187). Girolamo Ramusio, an orientalist and expert in languages, was well-versed in Arabic. He set out to improve upon Gerard of Cremonas Latin translation of Avicenna by comparing it with an Arabic manuscript. In 1527 Ramusios new translation was published.54 With his own expertise in Arabic and his interest in medicine, Postel certainly knew Girolamo Ramusio. It would not be too much to risk speculating that Guillaume Postel, who lived in Venice around 1550 where the Holy Inquisition found him, knew of both of the Ramusios and their work on the Orient. His own compendium of travel accounts, Lhistoire memorable des expeditions depuys le dluge faictes par les Gauloys ou Froys depuis la Frce iusques en Asie, might well be very much in the vein of Giovanni Battista Ramusios, yet his accounts were far more modest. His short captivity in Venice affected Postels own travel account, which he nished in 1551 but did not publish until eight years later in 1559. In 15501551 Postel was struggling with the Inquisition. Most probably many of the views expressed in the work would have further aggravated his case, as the Inquisition had no love lost for the indels.

The Ottoman Empire As a Mirror of FranceHistorian Frank Lestringant has made an unparalleled analysis of some of the writings of this 1547 embassy in which he highlighted the views French travelers expressed about the Ottomans. The piece was justly called lObsession turque.55 Lestringant argues that there were paradoxes and contradictory views, even within the same authors body of writing. Lestringant points to the general quest for the origin of the Ottomans in all the accounts as a way of compensating for Frances relative insignicance in the world. France had no empire compared to the Ottomans glory and might. Using Paul Joves work of 1538, Turcicarum rerum commentarius, Lestringant shows that the Turks were assimilated by Jove and those who later read his work, into the descendants of the Scythians in French travel accounts.56 The reference to the Scythians was as described by Herodotus in his book IV of the Histories.57 Andr Thvet wrote: The

56 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceTurks are therefore Scythians, or Levantine Tartars, who lived in their natural country more off larceny than anything else.58 The assimilation was so strong that the Ottomans were interchangeably referred to as Scythians or Turks, scytique or turquesque, in Thvets passages describing their cruelty. Lestringant focuses on Andr Thvet, but he touches on Guillaume Postel, Pierre Belon, and Nicholas de Nicolay, who all obsessively, as was fashionable in their day, looked for the origin of the Ottomans. The absence of the Ottoman Turks from the classical Greek and Roman record, as opposed to the ubiquitous Persians in Greek and Roman writing, was compensated for. The argument was that Scythian bows and arrows and that dwellings near the Caspian Sea were reminiscent of Ottoman ones. This image persisted in texts as well as in actual staged events. Lestringent cited the Carnaval des Romans (1580) in which the Turks were interchangeably referred to as Scythian and represented in the carnival as the devils of hell.59 Beyond mere representation, this assimilation to the Scythians helped to dene the Turks in contrast to the Europeans. The contrast was as it had been in Herodotus view: the Scythians were a people without a history.60 Herodotus gave four hypotheses on the obscure origins of the Scythians, because they were not historically traceable. This Greek view of the Scythians, once adopted, also dened the Turks as a roaming people, as nomads without a set territory, without a settled roof, without cities and therefore without civility. Scythians had habits such as drinking blood and raiding for a living, which was an image superimposed on the Turks in the texts of the French embassy to the Ottoman empire. Despite the perceived differences in European and Turkish heritage, this theory of Scythian origin was often advanced along with parallels between the Roman empire and the Ottoman empire. This was a startling contrast, and stemmed from having to accept the reality of the power of the Ottomans. As Frank Lestringant put it, the twin comparisons that coexist within the texts equating the Ottomans to the Scythians, a nomadic people subsisting by raiding, and simultaneously to the powerful Romans and their imperial civilization, was a total paradox. Indeed, in some texts the comparisons made to Rome were very strong. Pierre Belon du Mans and Guillaume Postel both had many positive views of the Ottomans and made the parallel with the Roman empire. They made this parallel differently. Pierre Belon, as argued previously, was so focused on the antiquities in the lands he visited that the new inhabitants simply became the subconscious depositaries of an antique tradition; in many ways this was another way of making an abstraction of who the Ottomans actually were. Frank Lestringant has argued that the Roman model found in the writings of this generation was not a coincidence and corresponds to the rising admiration in Europe for Ottoman military organization and success. There were other elements in the admiration that some travelers expressed for the Ottomans. Pierre Belon devoted most of Book III in his travel account Observations de plusiers singularitez et choses memorables ... to the manners, habits, and crafts

The Ambassadors 57of the Turks and to the Ottoman Jews, Armenians, and Greeks. He marveled at the cleanliness of the Ottomans, at how well their goods were crafted, how perfectly their clothing was sewn together, and at the impressive forces the Sultan could summon, which demonstrated Ottoman cohesion at time when Europe was desperately divided both religiously and politically.61 He even looked at the present manners of the Turks for vestiges of times past, the golden classical age, such as wrestling, about which he wrote: La manire de lutter des Anciens est encore en usage chez les Turcs. [The way the Ancients wrestled is still used today by the Turcs.]62 Here was the paradox found in many observations: The authority of the ancients was revered in the Renaissance, so this was a positive view in one sense, as the Ottomans were like the ancients, and an Orientalist view in the other as it depicted a retrograde culture where customs did not change through time. A further paradox lies in the fact that if Europe was to look for its classical roots in Asia, it had to adopt this view that time had stood still. Some travelers criticized their own society and viewed the Ottomans as having superior habits. Pierre Belon marveled at how healthy the Turks were, which, in several repetitious passages, he attributed to their frugal habits, especially their habit of eating garlic and onions. Belon pointed out that the Turks ate raw onions at every meal and cited this as the reason for their exceptional health.63 Nothing was too trivial for Belon to observe; he is the only traveler who devoted an entire section to how babies were diapered in a special way so as to not soil the carpets, and to give details of what infants were fed.64 This admiration for cleanliness and Ottoman might and discipline is also certainly true of Guillaume Postel, who wrote long and attering passages on the military. Postels work, however, is very different in spirit. Unlike Pierre Belon, Postel, despite many descriptions of the manners and customs of the Turks, did not really have the same interest in the daily habits of the peasantry or in observing the extraordinary love the Turks had for owers. While Postel focused on religion, Belon focused on the present. While Postel was interested in the history and the origins of the Turks, Belon was interested in their lifestyle. In the beginning of his De la Republique des Turcs, Postel promised to look into the laws and customs of Muslim people. He started his discourse on Muslims by writing that he failed to understand the insistence that previous writers had to describe the vices of their enemy. Why is it, he asked, that learned writers write only of faults and hide all the virtues. He stressed that universally, no matter how barbarous a people may be, they had virtues as well as vices. He aimed to give a balanced record of both vices and virtues. Guillaume Postel wrote that he used this just method so that our adversaries could not have doubted his equity.65 The different nuances, complications, and paradoxes that are present in the writings of the French embassy of 1547, and the contradictions that are often found within the same text, do not match the arguments that Lucette Valensi has made for Venetian writings of the same period. She argued for a positive view of the

58 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceOttomans in the sixteenth century, with a clear transition to negativity and to the birth of a discourse on despotism in the next century. In French travel accounts and political writing there was certainly admiration for the military, cleanliness, medical hygiene, organization of the crafts, and religious tolerance, but as argued previously, many negative views coexisted with this praise. The discussion Valensi has taken up is about the birth of the idea of despotism at a later date in Venetian writings and does not have an exact parallel In France.66 Perhaps this is due to some constant ambiguity in the relations that the French forged with the Ottomans. Clearly, there was also a very fundamental difference: France was a monarchy while Venice was a republic, and this may explain why the sultan and his reign were to play a central role in French political thought as early as the sixteenth century. For France, not only were the ideas of Postel on the sultan key, but the writings of Jean Bodin dominated the debate on monarchy, absolutism, and sovereignty quite early. The famous debate about oriental despotism went on well into the eighteenth century, when, as we will discuss in the last chapter of this book, the debate on oriental despotism was central to the philosophes and to French politics before the French Revolution. If anyone held a mirror up to look at the Persian king and the Ottoman sultan to judge monarchy in France, it was Jean Bodin.

Jean Bodin and Oriental DespotismJean Bodin (15291596) is remembered for several major contributions to the history of philosophy, political science, and religion. He is also credited with laying the fundamental philosophy in the study of history, as well as being the founding father of universalism. In his Les six livres de la Rpublique, published in 1576, he expanded on many ideas he had set down in his Method for the Easy Comprehension of History (Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem), in 1566. Excellent work has been done on Jean Bodins seminal contributions to Renaissance science.67 In Les six livres de la Rpublique, Jean Bodin expanded on his historical writings to examine different forms of monarchy in the world, with his belief in the effect of climate on society and the forms of government it implied.68 Les six livres de la Rpublique is a study of sovereignty.69 One aspect of Jean Bodins work examined here is the interest he took in the Ottomans and the Persians through the reading of both classical texts and modern travel accounts. One can argue that one of Frances most eminent philosophers looked at the Ottoman empire and at other ancient and modern monarchies as a mirror of France to analyze the ideal government. Although Montesquieu is best remembered for his work on comparative government, Jean Bodins writings on the subject preceded Montesquieus by a century and a half. In his sixth and last book, Bodin argued that the best republic was a monarchy. He looked at all kinds of precedents to argue for the wisdom of a law, in fact, the French Salic law, which gave precedence to the oldest male heir.

The Ambassadors 59If his book seemed to prudently justify the political status quo, it contained many criticisms of the French government, by means of comparison to other societies. Bodins sources were mainly classical and brought views on the Persians, the powerful enemies of the Greeks and Romans. His quest for a secular history had given him a very close acquaintance with both Greek and Roman historians and philosophers, and his Les six livres de la Rpublique was riddled with references to Xenophon, Suetonius, and Plutarque, as well as to Aristotle and Herodotus. Bodins views, which were in large part inherited from his classical learning, were broadened by his own observation of modern governments such as the Ottomans, a group, as discussed previously, absent from the classical record. Jean Bodin wrote that the rst monarchies in the world, for which he gives the Persian monarchy as an example, were seigniorial (a term translated into English as despotic) and that it was a form of absolute monarchy that was legitimate:Seigniorial [despotic]70 monarchy must not be confused with tyranny. There is nothing untting in a prince who has defeated his enemies in a good and just war, assuming an absolute right to their possessions and their persons under the laws of war, and thereafter governing them as his slaves; just as the head of a household is the master of his slaves and their goods, and disposes of them as he thinks t, under the law of nations. But the prince who by an unjust war, or any other means, enslaves a free people and seizes their property is not a despot but a tyrant.71

Bodin noted that Xenophon wrote in the Cyropedie that it was considered a beautiful and laudable thing among the Medes that the king demanded to be the sole master of all things. He cites Artaban, who contended that as people keep their own customs, it was well that the Greeks worshiped liberty and equality but that for the Persians the best thing of all was to worship and revere their monarch as the image of God on earth. Bodin stressed that indeed, in the Bible and many ancient Greek texts, it is clear that the Greeks were free and the Barbarians were slaves. Yet even if Artaban was qualied as a barbarian by Bodin, he was very careful to make the difference between seigniorial monarchy, which was laudable and legitimate, and tyranny, which Bodin condemned. He stated with some emphasis that there were no longer seigniorial monarchs in his time, while there were many tyrannies, whether in Europe or in Asia. Tyrants ruled without the peoples consent. Jean Bodin stated this in order to launch into a very intriguing parallel between the Grand Segnieur, as he called the Ottoman Sultan, and the Roi trs Catholique, as he called the French king. Quite indirectly, but rmly, the French king, like the sultan and the king of Moscovie, were subtly set in a passage discussing tyrants and tyranny. Never, however, does he directly qualify any of these monarchs as tyrants. According to Bodin there were no longer despotic monarchs, because through time, as princes and peoples were mollied by good laws and by humanity, they only kept the shadow of the image of seigniorial monarchy. They no longer did what

60 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe Persian king Artaxerxes did to his enemies, despoiling them until they were left naked, and slapping them into slavery be they princes or magistrates. Jean Bodin contended that there was one and only one despotic ruler left on earth: the negus of Ethiopia, the last Asiatic despot. The negus was a despotic monarch of a kind that Europe did not know. Bodin believed that Europes population was more warlike than Asias or Africas and could never suffer such a monarch. He also posited that Europe was never exposed to such monarchy before the invasion of the Hungarians. He wrote that the people would have to agree to a despotic monarchy for it not to be a tyranny, but that nowhere in Roman law or other authentic texts in Europe could you nd that dominum directum et dominum utile [direct rule is useful rule]. The invasion of the Hungarians was key to Bodins climate theory, because it was at that point, argued Bodin, that Europe was exposed to a foreign form of sovereignty, despotism, a form of monarchy that did not belong to Europes climate or character. Bodin explained that the Hungarians were a Tartare nation (he also called them an Asiatic nation) that had imported the concept of seigniorial monarchy to Europe with them. On their path inside Europe they had exposed the Germans, Lombards, Saxons, Francs, Goths, Ostrogoths, and English to their Asiatic Hungarian seigniorial concept of rule. He then concluded by saying that the greatest traces of despotic monarchy were to be found in Germany. He also gave an example: after William the Conquerors invasion of England the king took the property for himself and farming it was left to his subjects, a method of rule that was despotic.72 There is of course a political bias as the minute one reads the name of Charles V about the Germans inheriting Asiatic despotism, the rivalry for the title of the emperor of Europe between Francis I and Charles V springs to mind. Suddenly Bodins resentment of Charles V is immediately apparent. In a chapter heading, Bodin highlights the fact that Charles V sest fait monarch seignieurial du Peru [Charles V has made himself the despotic monarch of Peru]. After a sentence about Charles V having declared the inhabitants of Peru as conquered into slavery, Jean Bodin invokes Islamic law. Rather than surprise the reader, Jean Bodins aims should be getting more transparent at this point. He launched into the comparison; he wrote that it was forbidden in the loy de Mehemet that anyone but the caliph should have the right to despotic monarchy, but the kings of Asia and Africa have slowly usurped the law and have seized power. Again, he did not name Charles V in this seemingly neutral parallel and comparison made with Asiatic despotism. Of the conquest of Peru, Bodin wrote, as would be expected, that someone should argue that this was tyrannical and against the law of nature. Natural law was to preserve everyones goods and liberty, but he afrmed that despotic monarchy was acceptable as long as the conquered people consented to it. Jean Bodins views of Asiatic despotism are rather positive, since he sees the slavery attached to despotism as a consensual one. In his view, the climate of Asia dictated that its people be obedient and servile. If a people refused servility and did not consent, despotism meant

The Ambassadors 61tyranny. Bodin concludes that despotic and tyrannical monarchy were only suited to Asia and Africa, as the peoples of Asia and Africa were servile enough to consent to it.73 The parallel made between Charles V and kingship in Africa and Asia was telling of Bodins political position about Charless title as emperor of Europe and Peru. Was he a tyrant? Bodin implied as much more than once. Before making arguments, Bodins method was to examine many concrete subjects, such as nances or the use that could be made of colonies, or trade and its impact on the French economy. His grouping together of the Ottoman sultan and the king of France in a passage on absolute monarchy indirectly denotes a positive view of the Ottoman sultan, but much else in his work also indicates that he admired the power and administration of the Ottoman empire and the order within it. As the title of his work indicates, his writing was on republics. Bodin believed that good republics needed the military discipline, such as that of the Romans, as a political underpinning for success. He found such discipline among the Turks. The many descriptions brought back by the travelers described above, members of the second French embassy of 1547 to the Ottomans, had an impact on Bodin. Among a vast group of travelers, Guillaume Postel and Pierre Belon were two of the most precise observers of Ottoman society. Each devoted much attention to the Janissaries and to the discipline and organization of the Turkish army. Pierre Belon examined Ottoman nances and exploitation of the silver and gold mines, the minting of moneys, and the treasury. He wrote about the defensive system of the cities, not in a bellicose way but as an acute observer of differences. Pierre Belon even studied how infants were reared in the Ottoman empire in order to understand how discipline was instilled early among the Turks. Belon went as far as to criticize the mollifying tastes of his own French society. He especially admired the system of rewards used in the Ottoman army.74 Some of the details were echoed by Bodin. Turkish frugality, the system of punishment for pillage and of rewards that allowed advancement on merit among the Janissaries, as described by so many travelers, was duly noted by Jean Bodin as a model of efciency.75 Along with Belon, Postel, and other travelers to the Ottoman empire, Bodin read Paul Jove to use the information about another society to criticize the faults of his own society. Unlike Nicolas de Nicolay, who insisted on calling the Turks barbarians, many sixteenth-century writings on the Persians and Ottomans were positive. Several, such as Postels, Belons, and Bodins, are precursors to the methods used to criticize French society in eighteenth-century books such as Lespion Turc or the Lettres Persanes.76 This too was a time of political crisis for the monarchy, as Bodin wrote during a succession crisis. Jean Bodins comparisons were concrete. In a section on nances in Book six of the Les six livres de la Rpublique, Bodin compared several rulers and their incomes. There are many sections on the sultan. In one, Estat des nances de Turquie [The State of Finances in Turkey], he revealed his sources to be Paul Jove and the

62 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceVenetian Doge and banker, Andrea Gritty. Bodin read them in order to cite numbers for Sultan Suleymans income:Now he [Sleyman] extracts more than twelve million ducats a year, which is hiking charges by more than two thirds in fty years, thanks to the abundance of money that has been carried from the Occident to the Levant. One reads in Plutarque that the dictator Sulla [Sylla] charged Asia Minor, previously the domains of Lucullus and Pompey at twelve million crowns, even though they were not even one sixth the size of the land of the Turk. But, still, I do not want to excuse Princes who commit exactions, as it well known enough that Charles the V exacted more out of the duchy of Milan than Francis I.77

Here again, one can read under Bodins pen the devious parallels that cast a negative light on Charles Vs legitimacy. Charles V and Sylla, Sleyman and Francis I, are all compared quite rapidly in the same paragraph to point to Charless exactions in the Duchy of Milan. There was nothing vague about his disapproval of Charles V, despite the subtlety of his pen, nor in the admiration he expressed for the Ottoman sultan and his handling of nances and war. Jean Bodin continued his praise of the Ottomans throughout Les six livres. He used forests in the Ottoman empire as an example of good nancial management by the Sultan. In a section entitled LEspargne du grand Seigneur [The savings of the grand Seigneur], Bodin wrote that above and beyond the usual treasury kept in the seraglio there was a castle in Constantinople with a seventh tower reserved for lodging some savings that were never touched, unless they were needed for the exceptional expenditure created by war. In addition, he contended that in Turkey forests were used only in these crises and were not customarily cut as they were in France. He wrote that this Ottoman custom of cutting wood in extraordinary circumstances yielded at least fty times more wood than the way things were done in France, where, in his view, the over-exploitation of the forests had left only kindling rewood. French forest management was such a failure, Bodin stressed, that wood had to be imported from Prussia, England, and Sweden, despite the vastness of French forests.78 France was rich but mismanaged. Jean Bodin launched into a numeration of the treasures contained in the coffers of various kings. His list included relatively contemporaneous French rulers, Henri II, Francis I, with the Grand Seigneur, and famous rulers, long dead, revived from the classics. A mixture of citing classical texts and the modern methods of direct observation culled from the travelers of his own generation allowed him to craft his comparisons. Bodin closed the section with what he held to be the two largest treasures ever known to history: that of the last Persian king Darius from whom Alexander won eighty million gold pieces, and that of King David. Jean Bodin qualied King Davids as the largest treasure ever amassed and cited the Old Testament to count it as six vingt millions (120 million).79 The Old Testament, classical texts, and the travelers of his generation are all put to good use in Les six livres de la Republique.

The Ambassadors 63Without travel accounts, both classical and new, Jean Bodins political theories based on comparative methods would not have been possible. Montesquieus interest in travel accounts, in the Chinese emperor, the Persian king, and the Ottoman sultan have been widely noticed, but he had a famous precursor for his methods. It remains to be said that Bodin did not have the same admiration of the Persians, as his Greek sources dictate a rather negative attitude. Jean Bodin began a long tradition in French philosophy of equating the Persians with luxury and oriental despotism. Like many classical writers before him, and the eighteenth-century philosophes after, the wealth of oriental monarchs was an object of fascination for Jean Bodin. Yet in his work, his view was modernized, if not amended, by the direct observation of facts brought back by the travelers of the 1547 embassy. Bodin himself claimed that he was a concrete observer, as he was looking into the details of Francis Is accounts. After Francis Is death, Bodin claimed to have read the accounts of the chamber de comptes made that year (1547). He records that King Francis received tribute from many peoples, but at most the king gathered 130,000 livres a year. On the other hand, Francis handed out 427,692 livres as pensions to his dependants, knights, captains, counselors, and magistrates. Jean Bodin also discussed the huge debts incurred by the next king, Henri II, and pointed out the fact that the even Charles V, despite his successful wars, owed less, a sum barely over 50 million livres. To nish the chapter on nance in LOrdre des receptes de Turquie [The Order of Receipts in Turkey], Bodin gave an astonishingly accurate description of how dues were collected in the Ottoman empire, then compared, and looked with great disfavor at the system used by the kings of France.80 Clearly in Jean Bodins views, order and prosperity belonged to the Ottomans, as did military discipline. The Ottomans did not sell charges, and their armies did not pillage. Bodin described a long list of virtues in the military. Bodin judged both the governments organization and discipline as superior to Frances. Most startlingly, in this last section on raising money for war, he did not seem to react negatively to the enslavement of their Christian subjects by the Ottomans in order to raise war funds. Neutral and intent on the practical aspects of this administrative method, Jean Bodin, despite his Catholic upbringing, remained an admiring observer of the Ottoman custom of enslaving Christians. One subject alone seems to have aroused Jean Bodins ire: Charles V. The expeditions of the Ottoman forces along the Mediterranean coast posed a threat to Charless Hapsburg empire. The camps were clear in Bodins mind; as Charles was ghting the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman, his sympathies were with the Ottomans. The Ottoman advance was halted at Vienna in 1529. In 1535 Charles won at Tunis, but in 1536 Francis I allied himself with Suleiman against Charles and facilitated the Ottoman invasion of Nice and Toulon in 1543. When Jean Bodin was writing, the Ottomans had been allied to France for decades. The French were the only Catholic force in Southern Europe that did not participate with the Holy League in the most famous battle against the Ottomans; Les six livres was written shortly after the naval battle of Lepanto was fought in the Ionian Sea in 1571. Unlike Bodin, most of Europe was

64 Orientalism in Early Modern Francewriting to celebrate and glorify Christendoms victory through a coalition of the papacy, Hapsburg Spain, Venice, Genoa, the Duchy of Savoy, and the Knights of Malta. The Holy Leagues galleys defeated a force of well-trained Ottoman galleys in about ve hours. Unlike them, Jean Bodin wrote about the might of the Ottoman sultan, the discipline of his troops, and the soundness of Ottoman nances in the wake of this battle. Bodins enmity went to Charles V, even if Charles had died in 1558. Charles V was the despotic monarch of Peru, who ruled without consent of his subjects in the New World. Where was Frances empire? Had Postel not predicted that Francis was to be at the helm of a universal empire?

Postel and the New WorldThe concept of the New World equated with biblical paradise played a role in Postels discourse. Postels views were very different from many accounts, for he did not give Christ centrality in his vision of empire, but the Virgin Mary. In doing so Postel was pointing to his own Norman origins, as they traditionally focused on the cult of the Virgin. In the sixteenth century, the centers of French exploration were Normandy and the city of Dieppe. Its sailors were the rst to go to the New World for France. Both Normandy, and especially Venice on the waters, which Postel saw as the New Jerusalem, were central to his understanding of the New World, yet much of his vision was conrmed by travel to the Ottoman empire. Postel may have been very original in some ways, yet he had much in common with many thinkers of his time. Michel de Certeau has shown that in the sixteenth century men were obsessed by two biblical images: paradise lost, often projected onto the New World, and the eschatological image of the New Jerusalem.81 Before Postel spoke to Francis about empire, when Postel was a mere adolescent hoping to enroll at Sainte Barbe in 1524, Francis I was being bankrolled by the new bank of Lyon and a rich Dieppois ship owner and nancier, Jehan Ango (14801551). Among the many expeditions he armed, Jehan Ango nanced Giovanni da Verrazzano to explore North America for France. The reality of Frances paucity in imperial lands did not interfere with Postels utopian views. Among the thousands and thousands of pages Guillaume Postel left, one contribution was The Marvelous Victories of Women in the New World, published on rue Saint Jacques in Paris in 1553, written in French. Much of his work had been in Latin, but his travel account and this work on the New World were both in the French. The Marvelous Victories of Women was so extraordinarily novel that its contents left the censors of the Parliament of Paris totally aghast.82 In this text, Postel postulated his own unshakable faith in a woman he called the Venetian Virgin, as well as his own vision for the worlds salvation.83 It is interesting to note that just as the Reformation was masculinizing Christianity by obliterating the Virgin Mary, Postel was positing the redemption of women, the cult of a woman named Joanna as the redemptor of all women, and the cult of Mary as central.

The Ambassadors 65As Marion Kuntz has shown, in Venice Postel met a woman who took care of the sick in a hospital for the poor. She was known by the name of Jeanne, Zuana or Giovanna. She was well-versed in theology, and they discussed many subjects and texts, but chiey the subject of how Christ had given men redemption but not women. Soon, both Postel and Jeanne professed that she was to bring redemption to womankind. Postel had very clear opinions about European exploration and discovery. He believed that Columbus was divinely guided and believed him to be a descendant of Janus, but not surprisingly he strongly disapproved of the attitudes and wars of the Spanish and the Portuguese in the New World.84 He did not condone colonization and believed that it destroyed the divine plan of discovery: universal peace. The New World was a world of peace and unity to be conquered by the Virgin. Postel saw Columbuss voyage as a divine gift passed down from Janus. He held the esoteric belief that divine wisdom rst spread from East to West, but the Age of Discovery meant that divine providence was guiding the West to propagate the wisdom of the East and to unite the temporal kingdom of the West with the spiritual kingdom of the East.85 He also believed that he himself, Guillaume Postel, was the instrument of the power of Christ, living in the spirit of the Venetian Virgin. The Inquisition questioned him at length, and he was made to recant his heretical ideas, yet he was so extreme in his views that they did not judge him heretical, but insane. This verdict set him free. Once liberated from prison, Postel returned to Paris and took over his chair at the Collge de trois langues, albeit not for long. A miracle changed his life, and it is worth lingering on some of his most cherished beliefs before this radical transformation makes his ideas even more obscure to the modern reader. It should be self-evident that Postel strongly objected to the Spanish and Portuguese and their colonizing behavior, as he saw the rightful monarch of the whole world to be his own king, Francis I or, later, his grandson Charles IX (15501574). If one reads the political map of Postels environment, perhaps these ideas seems less mystical than have been portrayed by some of his biographers. Much of what Postel had to say was highly political and had to do with Frances place in the world, Frances aspirations to obtain a part of the New World. Postels vision of a world unied and at peace under one monarch, and his fascination with Columbuss voyage, stemmed from the same ideas he expressed as he described the Ottomans to his prince: Postel believed that the French nation should hold the leadership of the world. Postel concluded that the French monarch was the rightful sovereign of the city of God and the New World.

An Absence of Empire?The king of France was only too painfully aware that beyond Europe, Charles V of Spain and the Portuguese had divided the world among themselves with the benediction of the pope. Frances absence of empire was to play a great role in Postels

66 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceutopian writing about the New World. His reverence for Joanna is better understood if one is familiar with Postels religious environment in Normandy and its Atlantic seafaring culture. Michael Wintroub has made an extensive cultural study on a local Norman poetry society called the Puy de Palinod. He demonstrates the power of the rhetoric emanating from this society by showing its religious origins. The Puy de Palinod started as a religious society devoted to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. The cult can be traced to the eleventh century to a certain Helsinus, a prelate who was William the Conquerors ambassador to the Danish king. Caught in a storm, Helsinius had a vision. He was promised by a man clothed in light that he would survive through the intervention of the Virgin Mary, if he celebrated the Immaculate Conception. As it was, the Virgin Mary already had an established cult in the region. She was considered the patroness of Norman sailors. Michael Wintroub points to the parallels between the sea, la mer, and la mere, holy mother of God. The Virgin was not simply compared to the sea but was the vessel, the ship itself. Wintroub cites the explorer Jean Parmentier comparing the Virgin Mary to a sturdy ship completely lled with grace. She was also the North Star that guided Norman sailors. Wintroub cites Pierre Crignons poem equating the Virgin with the astrolabe; it was through her that the journey was made possible.86 In making possible the extension of the kings reign to the recently discovered New World, it initiated the course of an event that would lead all humanity back to the paradise lost.87 The redemptive role Postel attributed to Joanna was very similar to the focus on the Virgin in some poetry in his native Normandy. Postels text is better understood through Norman traditions. Michael Wintroub discusses the poetry produced by the members of the Puy de Palinod centered on the Virgin as the new Eve. She triumphed over Satan and redeemed the world to its prelapsian purity, like the woman of the Apocalypse described in Revelations. Although Yvonne Petry has rightly tied Postels mystical writing to the Kabbalah as an inspiration for The Marvelous Victories of Women in the New World, Postels focus on his native Normandy might well be the link to some of the cultural underpinnings of his vision of Joanna. Moreover, in local Norman literature, Normandy itself appears as the second Zion. His biographer William Bouwsma makes it clear that Postel also located the New Jerusalem on the shores of Normandy, situated under the stars he called Magistrale Triplicit (Aries, Leo, and Sagistarius).88 It was the Norman sailors and explorers, along with the likes of Parmentier and Crignon, who offered their King Francis I access to the New World. Guillaume Postels mystical writing mirrored Francis Is imperial ambitions carried out by the seafarers of Normandy through their faith in the Virgin Mary. Francis I let his frustrated global ambitions be diplomatically manifest. He demanded rights through his ambassador in the Vatican by negotiating changes to the established division of the world. The papacy, Francis complained, had left no room for Catholic France. As is well known, after Columbus returned from his voyage, the world was ofcially cut into two halves by a papal bull in 1493. It had been followed

The Ambassadors 67in 1494 by a negotiation between the Spanish and Portuguese crowns at Tordesillas. With Spanish and the Portuguese sea power, and thanks to the new Atlantic maritime route via the Cape of Good Hope, the trade from India to India began as a strictly Iberian prerogative. The French had no right to take part this long-distance trade. The main commodity of this early maritime trade was Spanish silver from the West Indies or the Americas, slaves from Africa, and spices and textiles, among them silk, from Asia.89 France, like England, had no trade possibilities except piracy. Piracy was carried out by the intrepid Normans with the blessing of the king of France, but Francis wanted authority to own the New World. He calculated that his new ties with the Ottomans would help his global ambitions, as indeed they would. The Ottomans were the chief negotiators of all the trade of goods that came from the East. Goods from Persia and as far away as India and China came to the Ottoman markets to be exported to Europe. French trade in what was later called the Levant was going to be of immense importance to France in the future. Yet, Franciss treaty with the Ottomans was secretly balanced with assiduous wooing of the pope, Clement VII. Through his French ambassador in Rome, the pope had a formal ban on trade with the indels. To Franciss satisfaction, the pope declared in 1533 that the bull of 1493 should be interpreted as referring to known continents and not territories subsequently discovered by others. This hypothetically allowed the French to eventually claim territories in the New World with the popes blessing. Several scholars have analyzed the famous painting by Hans Holbein, The Ambassadors, which was commissioned by the French ambassador to London, Jean de Dinteville, as an expression of Franciss hope for empire. The globe depicted in the painting is now kept at the Bieneke Library at Yale, which is known as the Ambassadors Globe because of the painting. In the painting, two men, the French ambassador to London and a French envoy on a secret mission, are depicted standing an arms width apart, separated by a table covered with a Turkish carpet, books, instruments such as a surveyors square and compass, and a broken lute. There are two terrestrial globes, one on the table and the other lying on the bottom shelf. The references to knowledge about the world, exploration, and mapping the heavens and the world could not be clearer.90 Lisa Jardine and Jerry Brotton have argued that the empty space between the two men symbolizes not French territorial ambition, but the absence of empire, that the French commission by Holbein depicted European discord, symbolized both by the broken string on the lute and by what could be read on the globe. They noticed that in the painting the globe has no traces of the line of 1494 beyond Brazil. In reality the globe, presently held at Yale, certainly did and does. The painted version of the globe also totally omits the line depicting Magellans circumnavigation of the world, which, in fact, the globe was made to commemorate.91 The absence was political. Magellans rst circumnavigation of the world in 1522 was backed primarily by Charles V, nanced by the Fuggers. As Jerry Brotton and Lisa Jardine have argued, Holbeins omission of the line on the globe in the painting demonstrated

68 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe painters political loyalty to his French commissioner. The French ambassador was loath to celebrate Charles Vs worldly feats.92 That France was not granted the right to participate in empire was a perceived injustice toward a Catholic power. Guillaume Postel had long made a mystical argument for Franciss universal rule over the rest of the world. To Postel the spiritual world and the material world were interchangeable, but only the king of France could take worldly initiatives.

3France in the World

Just as you sign the eur de lys contains the truth of the Holy Trinity, so too your body carries the shining armor of justice and the restoration of the immaculate authority. You are the idea and mirror of virtue an insuperable ruler that other kings call dictator. You are the conserver of peace, the propagator and ardent champion of the catholic faith, to whom in a brief space of time barbarous people and men of all nations, will obediently submit. Jean Thenaud, his tutor, to Francis I1

Who would imagine that Jacques de Gouvea, mentor to Postel, director of the Collge Sainte Barbe, had played a role in Francis Is need for Ottoman alliance against Charles the V? The story is a fascinating one. In 1522 Portuguese agents picked up rumors that King Francis was supporting an exploration nanced by a wealthy ship owner from Dieppe, Jehan Ango. Greatly irritated, the king of Portugal, John III, protested, as Portugal considered Brazil and the New World its own. Francis calmed the rumors: Giovanni Verrazano was not planning to sail to Brazil. Francis declared an embargo on the Brazil trade, hoping for Portuguese support against Charles V. A Portuguese galleon captured by French privateers was even returned to prove good will. Nevertheless, agents in Normandy began to have doubts. Jacques de Gouvea, whose college later received funding from Portugals King John III, was a trusted informant and was sent to Normandy to spy into the affairs of the Normans. Soon de Gouvea discovered that the Verrazano trip was still on, and that furthermore Francis had exempted Verrazano from the embargo. De Gouvea informed the king of Portugal. Michael Wintroub describes this episode by saying the economic interests of the merchants of Normandy were closely intertwined with a proto-nationalist eschatology, in which the French king, as Last World Emperor, would do battle with indels and heretics, unite all the people of the world, and prepare the way for Christs millennial kingdom on Earth.2 For this to come true Francis needed the New World. What had been a maritime race between merchants turned into a quarrel among kings. The king of Portugal immediately authorized his subjects to attack all French ships. The merchants of Normandy had been dealing in Brazilian wood since the 1520s, as le bois de braise yielded brilliant red dyes for their linen trade. Norman sailors enticed the native Tupinambah to do the hard labor of cutting down the trees


70 Orientalism in Early Modern Francefor them. The merchants of Dieppe and Rouen had been important in this trade since 1503. In return Francis I gave a letter of marque to the Norman pirate Jean Terrien. The Normans put together a eet of eight ships with the nancing of Jehan Ango, and they set sail in 1524 under the command of Jean de Fleury. Franciss letter of marque was considered a declaration of war by the king of Portugal. John III was the self-styled Lord of Guinea and of the Conquest, Navigation and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and India.3 Only the East is mentioned in this title; the pope had given the New World to Spain, but the line cutting the world in half made Brazil part of the East. All other nations trading on the seas were considered pirates or corsairs by Spain and Portugal; at this point the term corsair was not conned to the pirates of the Mediterranean. The ship owner Jehan Ango, who had nanced the French expedition, was the biggest corsair, responsible for taking 300 Portuguese ships. But it was Jean de Fleury who became the most famed of all French corsairs. He captured one of the three Spanish galleons carrying the gold of the Aztecs back to Spain. He gave King Francis a bounty of gold, emeralds, pearls, Aztec objects in gold, and exotic plants and wild life sent by Hernando Cortez to his king Charles V. The king of Spain was enraged at the loss.4 This French victory was short-lived. Soon Francis suffered defeats in Italy and, as discussed here earlier, ended up a prisoner in Spain together with his sons, hostages of Charles V, during which time his mother wrote her aforementioned letter to Sultan Sleyman, making him the arbiter of European affairs. The secret peace signed nearly two decades later between Francis and Charles V (just as Henri VIII was getting ready to invade France) not only sent off the dAramon embassy to patch things up with the Ottomans, but opened the door to Norman trade in Brazil, which exploded after 1540. Frances imperial ambitions, born with Francis I, were shaped late, only in the second half of the seventeenth century. Despite some successful exploration in the New World, religious wars and civil unrest were so widespread domestically that they hindered Frances imperial hopes. New Francethe American territories explored and settled between 1524 and 1763was the most important part of Frances imperial policy until the end of the seventeenth century. French presence in India was an eighteenth-century commercial presence that did not lead to empire. In North America, French territories were vast; the lands settled by the French were in Canada (15241763), Acadia (16041713), Terre Neuve (16271713), Louisiana (1682 1763) and Ile Royale (17171758). The French Antilles were acquired with constant competition from the English and the Dutch, rst a small part of Sainte-Christophe (St. Kitts) in 1624, Guadeloupe and Martinique in 1635, Sainte Lucie in 1637, Saint Martin and Saint Bathlemy in 1648, and Grenada in 1650. Early but failed attempts were made to settle Brazil and Florida. The height of French imperial success in the Americas was under Louis XIV, when Louisiana was named for the king and the Antilles were successfully exploited for sugar. The Louisiana territory was a vast central corridor at the interior of North America that included the river Colbert, now

France in the World 71called the Mississippi. The rst imperial phase was the mandate given by Francis I to Jacques Cartier to explore the land where one found gold. Just as Giovanni Verrazano had done before him, Cartier was looking for the legendary western route to the Indies.

Florida: Terre des BretonsA French colony in the Americas was settled, albeit very briey, from 1564 to 1565, by Huguenots in Florida. The massacre of these French Huguenots by the Spanish led to formal complaints to Philip II by Catherine of Medici and her son, Charles IX. These complaints were couched in imperial terms; Florida was called the Terre des Bretons, countering Spanish claims that Florida was Spanish territory. The French claim rested on the afrmation that sailors from Dieppe had discovered the New World before Columbus in 1488, and that Basque and Breton sailors knew the way to the New World before the Spanish did.5 The Huguenots in France protested against their own monarch, as they suspected that because of their religion the French court was taking no action against Spain for what happened in Florida. The complaint was of little avail against the powerful Spanish. This was the weakest point in Frances maritime history. The king had no navy in the Atlantic, which was the domain of the Normans and the Bretons. France had had no galleys in the Mediterranean, not even to escort its future queen, Catherine of Medici, from Florence to her wedding in Marseilles to Franciss son Henri II in 1533. France had to count on the Knights of Malta and the Genoese galleys to bring Catherine to France. What was this French claim of familiarity with the New World before Columbus based on? The French colony in the Americas was settled by Huguenots in Florida, near present-day Saint Augustine, from 1564 to 1565. It had been nanced by Gaspard de Coligny to counter Spanish hegemony in America. Coligny said of them: [T]here were no tillers of the soil, only adventurous gentlemen, reckless soldiers, discontented tradesmen, all keen for novelty and heated by dreams of wealth.6 This was the last straw for the Spanish. For decades the Spanish had been attacked successfully by Franois le Clerk, a pirate known as Jambe de bois (Pegleg), at their launching pad for New World expeditions in the Canary Islands. The following year in 1553, French raids by Huguenot pirates on the coast of Hispaniola were followed by raids into Cuba. In 1555, the pirate Jacques de Sores, Peglegs deputy, captured Havana for the second time and held it hostage for ransom. The Huguenot pirates were raiding the Caribbean with impunity, which led the Spanish to reinforce their ports against French presence. It was in the wake of these conicts that Fort Caroline was settled. To de Colignys delight the Huguenots had established their rst foothold in North America. The Huguenots saw this as an extension of a war against the spread of Catholicism in the New World. The Spanish crown sent Pedro de Menendez to destroy the French. They were all massacred.7

72 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceThe rst ofcially recorded contact of the Normans with Brazil for which we still have documents took place in 15031504. That year Jehan Ango and Pierre Carpentier decided to send the ship LEspoir to Brazil, with a cargo of hatchets, knives, cloth, beads, and mirrors, under captain Binot Paulmier de Gonneville from Honeur. De Gonnevilles account tells of the return voyage. In Brazil, a person he called the king of the Indians had asked him to take his son, Essomericq, back to Europe with him. The crew of LEspoir took ill, including Essomericq, who, on the brink of death, was baptized by the ships chaplain. He recovered, and it was at this point that de Gonneville contends that in 1504 they went to recover in a village that had known of Norman and Breton traders for a long time, a place where merchants from Saint Malo, Dieppe, and other ports had come to fetch brazil wood, monkeys, parakeets, cotton, and other goods for several years. The return trip back to Dieppe was hard, and the exotic animals were devoured on the way back.8 Wintroub tells this episode by describing how Essomericq became Binot after his baptism, and once in France was given de Gonnevilles last name of de Paulmier. Well-adapted, Binot de Paulmier was a highly regarded citizen.9 The archives of the city of Dieppe, the center of French exploration, were burned during wars. There could have been, according to French claims, even earlier contact than can be deduced from the accounts of Captain de Gonneville.10 De Gonnevilles story, which was rst told orally to the admiralty of Dieppe, was the only possible corroboration left for the claim made by the French. The local historian of Dieppe, Desmarquet, claimed that it was not Columbus but Jehan Cousin who had discovered the New World by landing in Brazil in 1488, where the Amazon emptied.11 This claim would have a long history in French perceptions of the world. As late as 1663, it was brought up in a petition to Louis XIV. In a 1660 book on sea navigation by a lawyer in Bordeaux, Use et coutumes de la mer by Etienne Clairac, the discovery of the New World in 1488 by French shermen was emphasized. The petition to Louis XIV urged the king of France to form an East India Company to go to India, because: A French sherman had discovered the new world and shown the way to Columbus. Louis XIV was sending ships to India. The pamphleteer was conating the New World of Jehan Cousin with the old, as was most every body.12

The Orient: On How the New World Became the Old WorldAfter the victory of Henri II (r. 15471559) over the English in 1550, the governor of Normandy had notied Rouens city council of the kings wish to make a triumphal entry into the city. Henri II made twenty-eight royal entries into different cities to unify his patrie and glorify his reign. Rouen was important as it had the best textile industry in linens and the wealthiest merchants. In the middle of the sixteenth century Brazil was reconstructed in the city of Rouen for the king of France. In A Savage Mirror Michael Wintroub has reconstructed and interpreted this

France in the World 73hallucination of empire: royal entry into the city of Rouen was an entry into Brazil. Among the spectacles greeting him, such as a naval battle, the French king found an entire Brazilian village. It stood complete with its savage inhabitants in Rouens Faubourg Saint Sever, a neighborhood inhabited by wealthy merchants. In the elaborate celebrations planned for the king the Brazilian village created for Henri IIs entry has a very specic purpose: to lobby the king to support the interests of Normandys merchant community in their ongoing and long standing war with Portugal over the right to trade in the New World.13 Most of the imagery available for the Brazilian village came from the familiarity of the merchants of Normandy with Brazil, not from the work of Andr Thvet. The traveler Andr Thvet (15021590), cosmographer to four kings, left the rst French description of Brazil. Under Henri IIs reign, he made several important journeys.14 He initially traveled to the Ottoman empire and returned to France in 1554, around the time Postel returned from his second trip to Istanbul. Thvet published an account of this voyage under the title of Cosmographie du Levant.15 His trip to Constantinople was not court-sponsored but was funded by the cardinal of Lorraine. The same year, in 1554, he was appointed to be the ship chaplain of the eet of the vice-admiral of Brittany, Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon (15101571). Villegaignon was put in charge, by the same Admiral de Coligny who later initiated the Florida settlement, of creating a settlement that was to be a new world of religious concord and peace. The Breton vice-admiral started the utopian French settlement in Rio de Janeiro in 1555. The settlement consisted mainly, but not solely, of male French Huguenots. Dreams of peace and paradise were short-lived. The inghting among the few settlers reproduced the religious tensions in France. The battles continued until the French settlers were defeated by the Portuguese in 1560. The Huguenots and their central role in the exploration of the New World have been well studied by Frank Lestringant, according to whom Andr Thvet, the chaplain of the trip, returned from Brazil as quickly as possible.16 He was sick upon arrival, spent ten weeks in bed in Rio, and took the ship that had brought them to Brazil back to France. Despite this, he has left a famous account of Brazil, whose images would mark the works of many of his contemporaries, from Rabelais to Montaigne to Lateau.17 Cannibalism would be its largest impact on the French imagination, but not the only one. The idea of the savage was born. Many of the plants of the New World, such as peanuts, pineapple, tobacco, manioc, and potato are described for the rst time in 1557 in Thvets Singularits de la France Antarctique. The writing is much in the spirit Ramus would advocate, and the emphasis in the account is on the rare, the extraordinary, and the exotic; novelties and rarities that Thvet, Belon, and other travelers called the Singularits. The object was to pinpoint what was unique, singular, and a distinguishing feature of the land observed. Once home, Thvet, still quite ill, transmitted his abundant notes to a medical student, Mathurin Hret, the real author of the Singularits. Beyond Thvets notes, Hret received observations made during a 15511552 trip by Captain Le Testu, and

74 Orientalism in Early Modern Francealso Villegaignons own notes. Soon Thvet was accused by Huguenots of being a straw man, writing propaganda for Villegaignon to encourage the Huguenots to leave for the New World.18 The utopian settlement failed despite the dream of concord. Lestringant describes how strange it must have been: With real cannibalism around them, the French started quarreling about the meaning of the host and wine during communion. In the religious quarrels of the time, Catholics were accused of cannibalism, of eating the body of Christ. Many of the settlers left and took up with native women, and others disobeyed and refused to do the hard work of tilling and building. The settlement was falling apart when Villegaignon sent a message to his old classmate John Calvin in Geneva. Calvin hoped to save this new vision of paradise for Protestants. He sent fourteen men to Rio, and women were also sent to marry the men, to keep them from living with local women. It was to no avail. Among those sent by Calvin was Jean de Lry, whose work on Brazil responded to Thvets views of why the French settlement failed. De Lrys work on Brazil became famous, and Thvets slowly but surely disappeared as he lost his reputation because of having too many ghost writers for his book, especially after Montaigne criticized him for it. His work also was seen as an old-fashioned bazaar, a cabinet of curiosities, a compendium of messy exotic singularities, that included everything observed from Africa to the New World.19 Mary Campbell looks at the Singularits as a compilation of picture books for a relatively wide audience, old-fashioned compared to what was being produced in the sixteenth century. Yet, best-sellers were always old-fashioned and were signicant for such popular sensations as wonder and pleasure even in their relation to the scientic revolution. Campbell asks: What then were Thvets books doing in 1557, 1575 and 1588? A thousand things, but for the purposes of this discussion mainly one: taking possession.20 She refers to Greenblatts book, Marvelous Possessions, on the encounter of the European with the New World but means possession differently, more intimately and physically, a comestible posession.21 She argues that Thvets work is a preparation of America as edible or at least collectible. Campbell contrasts the need for the preparation of the novelty of this nugget, the strange New World, to the familiar comestibles in the Levants sugar and spices, well-assimilated by Europeans into their diet. Indeed the strange produce of the New World, save for exceptions like chocolate, would not be immediately judged as comestible, but would be often viewed as strange and poisonous.22 Was it for sugar, spices, and gold that Columbus set out to Asia, to land in Hispaniola? As Felipe Fernndez-Armesto tells it: yes and no. In 1470 Columbus worked as a sugar buyer for a Genoese family of merchants, and this acquainted Columbus with the waters of the eastern Mediterranean and the African Atlantic. He was the son of a Genoese weaver with a large, clamorous family. For upstart travelers like Columbus there were only three ways up: war, the church, and the sea. His plan was never as clear as it has been made to sound: he argued several plans as a good salesman would, according to his interlocutors. He offered a short route to China and the riches

France in the World 75of the Orient, or nding new islands, or a lost continent in the Atlantic.23 Once he was commissioned to nd the short route to the China, after his arrival in Hispaniola, he insisted he had found it: Columbus had to insist that he had reached or approached Asia, his rewards from the monarchs depended on this.24 From Columbuss stubborn insistence dates the inclusion of the Americas in what Europe considered the Orient. This would persist in the Early Modern period, through other imaginary constructions crafted by Europes most prominent intellectuals. The encounter of the Europeans with the New World and its European reading as the Old has been examined by Anthony Grafton.25 The following quotation used by Grafton sums up the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns that was to ensue, the beginning of scientic observation as opposed to textual antiquarianism: We told them [the Iroquois] that we know all things through written documents. These savages asked Before you came to the lands where we live, did you rightly know that we were here? We were obliged to say no. Then you do not know all things through books, and they didnt tell you everything. This is from Louis Hennepin (1626 1701), a French missionary, admitting to the limitations of his own learning, which was from the Bible.26 This temporarily humbled attitude notwithstanding, antiquarianism would prevail. Despite European descriptions of the New World as paradise, there were doubts created by these encounters. Strangeness and shock were quickly assuaged by using old familiar tools to interpret the new. Reading of the New World through classical texts would lead the Americas to be seen as part of the Orient. Grafton describes how Gomara, Cortezs associate, described the Spanish conquest by using Herodotus. In Gomaras mind the analogy was clear between the Aztec pictorial codices and the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Bartholom de Las Casas (14841566) used parts of Gomaras work, as most Renaissance historians contented themselves with integrating some primary facts within a smoother literary text that followed the rules of rhetorical structure and artistic style, much of it borrowed from Greek and Roman texts.27 This technique too read the New World as the old and assimilated European views of the Americas with Greek views of Egypt. This made the elusive border of what the Orient meant in early modern times even fuzzier. Mathurin Hret wrote for Thvet using Pliny, Herodotus, and a host of Greco-Roman writers. When Hret unsuccessfully sued Thvet in court for authorship of the Singularits, the host of medical writings he had pitted the account with became apparent.28 Modern observation was wedded to humanism. Jean Bodin considered that the birth of modern history was discovery: Only the brute facts of the discoveries inspired Bodin and his contemporaries with their condence in modern achievement and their condescension towards ancient ignorance.29 In this new historical thinking, the images of Virginia Indians were used by Bodin to depict images of ancient Picts and Bretons.30 In Bodins modern historical consciousness, with its chronology and its evolutionary idea of progress, the American Indians were read as the French past. The American native was civilized mans past. In seeking the past and looking systematically at history, Bodin was

76 Orientalism in Early Modern Francehoping for more than an intellectual exercise. Grafton claries the urgency of the quest as a political one: nowhere did the intellectuals argue more heatedly or change their fashions of thought more rapidly than in France, where religious strife made the devising of new theories a matter of more than theoretical importance. From the early 1550s Huguenots and Catholics confronted one and other throughout the kingdom, more and more belligerently. The death of Henri II in 1559 left the throne in the hands of his immature and not very competent sons.31

Bodin looked at comparative history and law to solve some legal issues in France at a time of crisis, a moment when chaos seemed to spell the dissolution of the French state. Grafton shows that the Jesuit Baudouin and Bodin were in agreement that all humankind was one and that any people might provide examples applicable to France at a time of acute crisis.32 Montesquieu would be one of many inheritors of this comparative and universal tradition that would mark the Enlightenment, another century of political crisis. Jean Bodin was well in advance of his peers in the Renaissance, most of whom compared the New World to Rome. Their comparison came from an attitude of respect for Mesoamerican history and its pictorial scripts. Pictorial techniques of writing were considered inferior in the eighteenth century, but not before. As Jorge Caizares-Esguerra has shown, only when evolutionary ideas were applied to history in the eighteenth century were the natives of the Americas seen as having no history. A step further, and they were seen as mans illiterate primitive past. In seeing the American Indians as the French past, Jean Bodin was a precursor of the Enlightenments reading of the New World as the land of the noble savage.33 Caizares-Esguerra argues that initially Spanish historians like Hernndez and Durn believed that nonalphabetical scripts could hold historical records that were entirely trustworthy. In the Renaissance nonalphabetical scripts were not seen as primitive. The Franciscan missionaries formed as humanists, learned and used Mesoamerican languages to write local histories based on them.34 This Renaissance view changed in the eighteenth century, according to Caizares-Esguerra. Rousseau was not alone in looking at the American natives as mans primitive past before society. The noble savage was innocent of knowledge, or what Rousseau called curiosit. The Americans were used as a beginning, a way to study the historical evolution of the human mind. Since Rousseau viewed civilization and society as the corruptive factor in mans history, for Rousseau illiterate savages were innocent. Man could not go back to innocence, but such was his beginning in Rousseaus idea of history. Many of his contemporaries also equated the Americans to savages, to study the evolution of history and of man, but they did not share his positive view of the savages nobility of mind. In their views innocence and illiteracy were no longer positive. It meant being low in the ladder of the evolution of civilization.

France in the World 77This evolutionary thinking with a quest for origins and beginnings was a marker of Orientalism, which itself grew out of biblical studies. The New World was paradise, and the savage was Adam before the Fall. The Orient included the Americas, not only as the biblical site of paradise, but as the site of the origin of mans historical evolution. In the eighteenth century, ideas about civilization and history were still imbued with Christian views of progress. Orientalists no longer directly looked for paradise, but for the origins of civilization. They established a new hierarchy of progress based on alphabets. The renowned orientalist Jean Jacques Barthlemy (17161795) deciphered Palmyran and Phoenician letters through comparative methods. He assumed that Phoenician derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs.35 Barthlemy argued that, had Spanish conquest not disturbed the natural historical evolution of Mesoamerican scripts, they would have evolved to become either Egyptian hieroglyphs or Chinese ideograms. These last two scripts were very high on the evolutionary scale in the hierarchy of civilization, a ranking based on alphabets. Nevertheless, being pictorial, hieroglyphs and ideograms were still not ranked as high as the Hebrew, Latin, or Greek. These arguments put Mesoamerican forms of expression lowest in the hierarchy. Another French orientalist, Joseph de Guignes (17211800), argued for adding one more step in the hierarchy of scripts. He posited that China had begun as an Egyptian colony, and well before then, that Mesoamericans had their beginnings as colonial outposts of China. In this hierarchy, Egypt brought script, therefore civilization to China, and China to Mesoamerica. This enraged those who viewed China as a superior civilization. Many, like Cornelius de Pauw (17391799), later devoted their research against de Guigness ideas of civilizations to prove the supremacy of China. Cornelius de Pauw wrote about the history of Egypt and China in order to prove that they had entirely separate histories.36 Two centuries later, these orientalist exercises in classifying script echoed Postel and his Lords Prayer in twelve alphabets.37 Postels quest was for the original alphabet, the original language of man. Similarly, Joseph de Guigness quest was for the beginning of history and civilization. The change was that this was now scientic research to trace social progress, to trace the historic evolution of the civilization of man. This quest for origins in the eighteenth century placed the Americas in the eld of study of French orientalists. As absurd as it may seem, prominent French intellectuals, nearly three centuries after Columbuss convenient error, were still speaking of China in order to read the Americas.

Indian Ocean Exploration under Francis IThe French will to gain a foothold in Asia was undertaken independently of the French court by merchants and sailors. These adventurers were rarely funded by the court; they belonged to the important merchant communities of the port cities of FranceMarseilles, Dieppe, Rouen, and Saint Malowhich dominated French

78 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceinternational trade. This regional aspect of French imperialism has often hidden their stories from sight.38 Because their stories are not as well known as Champlains or Cartiers they are worth dwelling on. Even the latter, although verbally sponsored by the king, were not really funded. The problem of which nation the Moluccas belonged to was not completely settled until in 1529, except of course for the Portuguese, who were certain it belonged to them. The French had hopes of establishing a foothold in the Moluccas to buy spices. It was once again the sailors of Dieppe, nanced by the same ship owner Jehan Ango, who left for the Indian Ocean in 1529. It was not a rst journey; this was partly a search expedition. In 1526, a certain Pierre Caunay left the port of Honeur, passed the Cape of Good Hope, and landed in Sumatra, hoping to go to the Moluccas. In Sumatra the crew was killed, including the indispensable Portuguese pilot. Giving up on the idea of reaching the Moluccas, Pierre Caunay hoped to return safely to France. This too was not to be, as the ship got stuck in sands, right between Madagascar and mainland Africa. Desperate, the crew went out to sea in a small boat and landed in Mozambique, where the Portuguese threw the ragged and famished Frenchmen in jail. As they were never heard from again, a certain captain Jean de Breuilly went out to seek them. Jean de Breuilly stopped at Zanzibar in March 1528, crossing the Indian Ocean to anchor his ship in Diu in Gujarat, where the Portuguese promptly seized his ship. Next, two brothers, Jean and Raoul Parmentier, set out to sea. They convinced Jehan Ango to nance their expedition to the Moluccas in 1529, in order to search for survivors and buy pepper spices to take to Normandy. After a difcult voyage, with many sailors sick, they reach Sumatra to be welcomed warmly by a port master, who refused to sell them the pepper. Dispirited, the brothers moved on. Jean died at sea on December 3, 1529 at age forty-nine. His brother Raoul died on the 22nd and both their bodies were thrown overboard for burial at sea. When the expedition returned, the 600-verse poem composed by Jean Parmentier describing the voyage was published by the professional writer, Pierre Crignon: Description nouvelle des merveilles de ce monde et de la dignit de lhomme. Parmentiers 600 verses celebrated the beauty of the marvelous world to discover, and the courage of the heroes that went out to sea to nd it by abandoning the sweet comforts of home.39 It was not until several decades later that a merchant and adventurer of absolutely no renown made a rst journey to India. The intrepid Vincent Le Blanc and his story have largely been forgotten by historians. He boasted of his own fame, evidence of which is still to be recovered. Although he started his travels in 1567 from his home town of Marseilles, his account appeared rst only in 1648 under the title Les voyages fameux du Sieur Vincent Le Blanc, quil a faits depuis lge de douze ans jusqu soixante dans les quatres parties du monde. His story was composed based on notes, by a professional, as most accounts were. The professional scholar and geographer Pierre Bergeron was the sole author of his account and of many others about the Indes orientales. It was printed in 1648 and its title emphasized Vincents claim to fame:

France in the World 79the fact that he traveled from age twelve to age sixty. A later edition of 1658 sported a less boastful and more classical title.40 The 1648 work was translated into Dutch in 1554 and the 1658 edition into English in 1660 giving credence to the boast that his travels were well known at the time.41 He returned and enrolled in Henri IIIs army. Restless and bored, Le Blanc soon left for a trip to Brazil in 1581. When he returned he married and settled as a merchant in Marseilles, but he wrote that he had chosen the most terrible of women as a wife and had to travel once again. He traveled across Europe as a gem merchant and later left from Seville for Senegal in 1597. Should the veracity of his story be established, he would be the precursor of several French travelers to India and Africa.

French Exploration under Henri IVSave for sending Jesuits to Canada, Frances hold on the Americas in the last quarter of the sixteenth century was sporadic; Frances imperial hopes were stunted by domestic chaos. Bodins philosophical endeavors failed to resolve the crisis caused by Henri IIs succession in 1559. Thirty years of brutal religious wars ensued under Catherine de Medicis (r. 15591589) informal but real regency over her three sons. Henri IV (r. 15891610) temporarily subdued the wars between French Huguenots and Catholics by promulgating the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which established freedom of religion for Calvinists. The Huguenots were no longer to be persecuted. Henri IV, king of France (15891610) and of Navarre (15721610), was the rst king of the Bourbon dynasty in France and was initially the chief of the Huguenots. It is believed that Catherine of Medici and her son Charles IX ordered the worst massacre of the Huguenots on Henri IVs wedding night in Paris, on August 24, 1572, the infamous massacre of St. Bartholomews Day, which killed many Huguenot intellectuals, such as Ramus. Henri IV later abjured his Calvinist faith in order to ascend to the French throne in 1594. He gave vast privileges to the Protestants in twenty cities by the Edict of Nantes, but by abjuring his faith he strengthened Catholic monarchy in France. During Henri IVs reign in 1608, the explorer Samuel de Champlain founded the rst permanent French colony at Quebec. Despite this success, Champlain sorely lacked royal funding and the expedition fell short. Yet, the American expeditions, well known today, were great successes compared to the paltry attempts made in Asia.

Reaching for the Treasures of the Indes Orientales under Henri IVMost voyages under Henri IV were not subsidized by the court. The rst Frenchman to reach China and Persia seems to be the only exception to the rule. In 1606 Henri de Feynes, who called himself the Comte de Monfart, quietly left France for China. He claimed that he was sent to China as an ambassador. No other records corroborate

80 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethis. Was his trip a secret mission from King Henri IV as Xavier Beguin de Billecocq implies? To avoid the ubiquitous Portuguese, Henri de Feynes walked for three years on the land routes of Asia, arriving in China in 1609. He was a trained man as he was part of Henri IVs army. He avoided ships as much as possible but did take a ship from Venice to Alexandretta and then joined a caravan in Aleppo to go to Baghdad. He traveled walking with a caravan to the Safavid capital of Isfahan and down to Bandar Abbas, a route many Frenchmen would follow after him. He embarked on an Indian ship to Goa. From Goa, which he claims he was the rst Frenchman to describe, Henri de Feynes went on to Ceylan, then to the coast of Coromandel. His next stops were Malacca, the Moluccas, Macao, and Canton. Very proud to be in China, Henri de Feynes wrote in 1609 that no one but the Portuguese Jesuits had ever gone so far. After Henri de Feyness returned to France, his travel account Voyage fait par terre depuis Paris jusqu la Chine was published.42 His account, which was also translated into English, presents itself as the rst French description of China, India, and Persia. There are editions in 1630 and 1636; an earlier French edition must not have not been traced yet, as there is a translation into English dated 1615. The title of the English translation boasts not only a description of China, rare for the time, but claims to take precedence over Thomas Roe in India: An exact and curious suruey of all the East Indies, euen to Canton, the chiefe cittie of China: all duly performed by land, by Monsieur de Monfart, the like whereof was neuer hetherto, brought to an end. VVherein also are described the huge dominions of the great Mogor, to whom that honorable knight, Sir Thomas Roe, was lately sent ambassador from the King.43 Little is known about him and his text still remains to be studied.44 French commercial aims were conned to competing in the Ottoman markets, mostly through the merchants of Marseilles, with little royal oversight. French maritime endeavors were undertaken by Norman sailors, often quite independently of the court. Yet, Henri IV, hoping to facilitate maritime trade, made the rst eeting effort to centralize Eurasian trade. The creation of a rst French East India Company is hardly remembered. On June 1, 1604, through the creation of a formal company the king conceded a fteen-year privilege for the commerce of the Indes orientales to Antoine Godfroy, the treasurer of France, and to a merchant Grard Deroy. No trips were undertaken in its name until the next reign.45 This was Henri IVs effort to follow in the footsteps of the English and the Dutch at a time when Eurasian commerce was being geopolitically restructured. As Portugal merged with Spain under Philip II, Asia became more open to other Europeans, partly through the administrative confusion created in the Estado da India. The English and the Dutch created commercial companies to break Portugals monopoly in the Asian markets. The English East India Company was born out of Protestant Queen Elizabeths victory over the Spanish in the 1588 Spanish Armada. Established in 1600, the East India Company was soon imitated by the Dutch, who after a rst 1596 expedition, created the Dutch East India Company, the VOC, in 1602. Indeed, the splendid Dutch gift of Chinese porcelains

France in the World 81to the French king Henri IV gave the French a sense of great unease at this Dutch success. In the wake of the gifts, the rst 1604 French India Company was created. It remained an empty gesture. The much envied Dutch success was based on an act of piracy justied by war. Less than a year after its inception, in February 1603, the VOC had captured a Portuguese carrack full of treasures. The arrival of the Santa Catharina at the port of Amsterdam escorted by the Dutch eet gave rise to an unprecedented auction that had repercussions throughout Europe. Visions of her rich cargo of porcelain, silk, and gold tantalized European monarchs and merchants. As a consequence of this Dutch booty, Grotius put his pen to the service of Dutch commerce and wrote a legal treatise on the freedom of the seas. His work De jurae praedae commentaries afrmed that navigation was open to everyone on the sea and legally absolved the captain, Jacob van Heemskerck, who had captured the Portuguese carrack. To justify this Dutch bounty of stolen silk and gold, Grotius argued that the Dutch considered the Portuguese to be poison-wielding blasphemers, assassins, and traitors.46 The Portuguese defended their monopoly rights, granted to them by the papacy through another treatise. In 1625 Fei Seram dei Freistas had accumulated a long series of biblical citations in Latin that justied the complete rule of the Portuguese in the Indies in his De Justo imprio Lusitnorum.47 The French could not hope to compete. Once again it was individual merchants, this time from Saint Malo, who would take to sea. The most important early travel writers were Franois Martin de Vitr, who wrote Description du premier voyage fait Sumatra par les Franais en 1603, rst published in 1604, and Franois Pyrard de Laval, who navigated in the Indian ocean, lived as a slave in the household of an Indian prince, and left an account called Voyage de Franois Pyrard de Laval aux Indes Orientales (16011611).48 In 1600 they formed the Compagnie de Saint Malo, and Franois Pyrard de Laval set sail on the ship Corbin. Martin de Vitr sailed on the Croissant, and their journeys, if they began simultaneously, came to know unequal fortunes. They claimed that:The fault of the French nation, which is more than any other purveyed of a naturally vivacious spirit and strong values, is that it has for a long time languished in idle sleep, disdaining the treasures of the Indes orientales that have enriched the Portuguese and the Spanish In the end a Company of Merchants from Saint Malo, Vitr and Laval, have woken up rst to erase this shame and enrich the public with the singularities of the Orient to chance a thousand deaths that ll the sea, to put sails to the wind to make the journey. 49

They justify French idleness in trade by giving an explanation that will recur again and again in French economic and philosophical writing. This patriotic and nostalgic sentiment would even be found in the writings of Richelieu, who bemoaned the weakness of French commerce. The argument went something like this: The French

82 Orientalism in Early Modern Francewere blessed, as they had the best produce, the best land, the best climate. What was French was too good to seek anything foreign. The abundance of French produce, the richness of the land, and the joys of the French climate did not push the French to leave like those unfortunate Dutch whose land was sterile. In his writings Pyrard de Laval contrasts the loyalty of land to the treachery of the sea. As Dirk Van der Cruysse puts it, he was right to do so. The Corbin sank in the Maldives. The sole survivor of the shipwreck, Pyrard started his ve years of life as a slave in the household of a prince. He fell ill in captivity but escaped death. The cannon of his sunken ship was considered a great treasure, and it was coveted in Bengal. With the invasion of the Bengali army to retrieve the French cannon, in the chaos that ensued Pyrard de Laval escaped. After some dreadful adventures, mistreated by the Portuguese, he arrived in Goa, where he was hospitalized then jailed. He then worked as a poorly rewarded mercenary for the Portuguese. He was helped by other Frenchmen and Jesuits to escape from Goa and return to France.50 Van der Cruysse wrote that he was back gueux comme un rat dglise, worse than poor as church mouse.51 Le Blancs story was also written by the geographer Pierre Bergeron. It would be reserved to his companion, Franois Martin de Vitr, to open the route to Sumatra for his Norman compatriots, who went to Sumatra under Louis XIII. His instructions given in Description du premier voyage fait Sumatra par les Franais en 1603 were immediately published in 1604, the year Henri IV created the rst East India Company. De Vitr also left a dictionary to serve for trade in what he calls the Malique or Malaisin language, the rst Malay dictionary.52

Voyages under Louis XIII and RichelieuOn the traces of Franois Martin de Vitr, several successful Norman expeditions left for Sumatra. Augustin de Beaulieu came from the prosperous city of Rouen. He successfully traveled to Java in 16171618 and to Sumatra and Malaysia (Kedah) in 16191622. His rst trip was nanced by the Compagnie Orientale de Dieppe, which armed the ships Marguerite and Monmorency. His second expedition would be commercially protable. His long-forgotten account was revived and published for the rst time by Melchisdec Thvenot in 1664, when he was encouraging the next king, Louis XIV, to centralize Eurasian commerce and form a royal company for the commerce of the Indes orientales. Indeed, under Louis XIII the Normans had established a rst profitable route to the Indes orientales. Another Norman merchant who risked his life for the spice trafc was made famous by his son under Louis XIV. Abrahm Duquenes I, father of the great Duquesnes who organized Louis XIVs navy, left Dieppe on a regular basis for the Moluccas. Since 1581 the Duquenes paid taxes in imported pepper.53 Without a navy, France stood no chance of an overseas empire. In 1617, Louis XIII seized control of the state, exiled his powerful Italian mother to Blois, and recalled many of Henry IVs advisers. Louis now took the initiative against the French

France in the World 83Huguenots. Between 1620 and 1622, he personally led several battles against them and conscated their goods; by 1625 all Protestant strongholds, except La Rochelle, had collapsed. The fact that Richelieu had to beg for the hire of Dutch ships to subdue the Protestant bastion of La Rochelle wounded his pride. This episode resulted in initiatives to create a stronger French navy. Richelieu encouraged overseas trade and supported the idea of forming merchant companies to compete with the Dutch East India Company; two merchants from Rouen, Muisson and Canis, asked for the privilege. Louis XIII associated them in a company called Compagnie des Moluques. Two ships left in 1616, one commanded by a captain de Nets, the other by Augustin de Beaulieu. When de Beaulieu arrived in Bantam in 1617 his ship was seized by the Dutch. The report from Bantam was not to the company created by Louis XIII, but to the local Compagnie Orientale de Dieppe. De Beaulieu left a 1632 manuscript, Dessein touchant les Indes orientales. This manuscript, revived much later by Thvenot for Louis XIV in 1664, laid out plans for a real royal centralization of commerce and a monopoly of the trade with the Indes orientales for the king of France, the foundation of the creation of the royal company in 1664 by Louis XIV. Despite its intrepid Norman sailors, France had nothing in Asia. A few minor successes by the Normans in the Antilles hardly compensated. The fashion for tobacco had come to France at the end of the reign of Henri IV. The Dutch and the English were proting from growing American tobacco and Richelieu wanted to participate. Richelieu put a Norman ship owner, M. Pierre Belain dEsnabuc, in charge of winning some territory in the Antilles, where the English had settled in Barbados in 1624 and were just settling in Saint Kitts in 1627. Part of a group of successful pirates known as the libustiers, who were based in the American islands, and dEsnabuc knew the Caribbean very well. On February 24, 1627, dEsnabuc left the Norman port of Le Havre with 530 men to settle Saint-Christophe, as the French referred to Saint Kitts. A rst French settlement in the Antilles grabbed a corner from the English, who still kept the larger part of Saint Kitts. Before Richelieus death in 1642, the French acquired Guadeloupe and Martinique in 1635, and Sainte Lucie in 1637. In this period settlement was slow and the exploitation and colonial period of the Antilles would only dawn at the end of the reign of Louis XIV.54 The idea of colonizing Madagascar, a dream since the Parmentiers had described it, quite erroneously, as paradise, took shape in this period. France needed a launching place in Asia and Africa once the Dutch had brutally established their hold in the Moluccas.55 Richelieu managed to rebuild the dilapidated French navy only to some degree. Francis I had ascended the throne with six galleys and he ended his reign with twenty-ve, which his successor Henri II built up to forty-two galleys. Richelieu found twenty-four old dilapidated galleys in the port of Marseilles. In order to mark the inception of French overseas ambitions, he dictated and partly wrote a formal code of maritime law in 1625, Le rglement pour la mer, in which he planned forty war galleys for France. With this code he undertook a reform of the French navy and reafrmed Henri IVs decree that criminals would be consigned to

84 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe galleys, a custom that culminated under Louis XIV when Turkish prisoners and Protestants suffered side by side with French convicts in the galres du roi.56 Perhaps most importantly for French commerce, in 1626 Richelieu changed the rules that kept members of the nobility from working; if the nobles engaged in maritime trade they received a special derogation from court and would not lose their rank and titles of nobility. He also promised to grant titles of nobility to the bourgeoisie if they worked to further Frances overseas interests. It was thanks to this derogation that many marginal and impoverished noblemen saw their opportunity to gain riches in overseas trades. One of the most famous among them was the diplomat and linguist Laurent dArvieux (16351702), who was an important gure for the study of French Orientalism. After many years spent as a merchant and diplomat in the Levant, the Chevalier dArvieux is a perfect example of a nobleman who was now free to engage in trade. Michle Longino shows that he is best remembered because he worked with Molire on the most famous play ever written in France about the Ottoman empire, Le bourgeois gentilhomme (1670), a royal commission by Louis XIV.57 As for the bourgeoisie, a major example is Jean-Baptiste Tavernier (16051689), who was made a nobleman for his overseas trade. Tavernier was a member of the bourgeoisie who gained access to titles of nobility. The son of an Antwerp map merchant, he later became the baron DAubonne. Tavernier could have well been a model for the satire Le bourgeois gentilhomme, as it was about a bourgeois enriched by Eurasian trade.58 In 1642 Richelieu created a Royal French East India Company, as Beaulieu had advocated. It lasted only a few months, and one failed expedition was all the company had accomplished at this point. Nevertheless, a few French travelers reached Asia with some success under Louis XIII. The most famous is Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, who left for Persia and India in 1636 for the rst of his six tripshe will be examined in the next chapter as he was important to Louis XIV. La Boullaye Le-Gouz also departed for the same destination in 1644 and never returned. Louis XIII died a year after Richelieu, in 1643. A ve-year-old was now king of France. Louis XIV reigned under his mother, Anne of Austria. Under her regency, in lieu of a commercial foreign policy toward the Ottomans, the court was interested in discussing a crusade as advocated by the dvots, the extremist Catholics the queen protected. The war with Spain prevented any real endeavors and ended with a peace treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the king of France and their respective allies in 1648, only to give way to civil war in France. The treaty of Westphalia of 1648 ended the Thirty Years War and opened the seas, taking away commercial monopolies from Portugal and Spain, but had no impact on French commerce. Once the army, and its chief commander the Prince de Cond, were free from ghting the Spanish, they had turned against the enemy within. Cardinal Mazarin had succeeded Richelieu; he was a foreigner, a Roman cardinal. He was often perceived as the other within. In the Mazarinades, as the pamphlets against him were called, Mazarin was referred to as the Grand Turc.59 His power over the affairs of

France in the World 85France was acquired through Anne of Austria and led to a civil war in two phases: the two Frondes, as they were called, lasted seven years (16481653). The queen and the dvots supported Mazarin. Their ancestors of the dvots had joined the Catholic Ligue against the Huguenots when it was founded in 1576. The group was still inuential in the seventeenth century, and les dvots came to real power after Henris death in 1610. Initially supported by Marie de Medici, and later even more so by the Spanish Infanta, Anne of Austria. The dvots voiced strong disapproval of Islam and of the French policy of friendship with the Ottomans. It was at this point that attention turned toward Persia as a possible ally in a hypothetical crusade against the Ottomans spearheaded by Spain and France. The dvots turned their veneration to the founder of the Lazaristes, St. Vincent de Paul, who had suffered as a slave in Tunis.60 The missionaries were the dvots best allies in foreign policy. Their negative views of Islam were based on stories like Vincent de Pauls. Few stories are as interesting as that of Vincent de Pauls own captivity on the coast of Barbary. In 1605 Vincent de Paul was a professor at the University of Toulouse; he was returning from selling some property inherited in Marseilles, when some Turkish corsairs wounded and captured him in the Mediterranean.61 Vincent de Paul wrote they hewed our pilot in a thousand pieces to avenge the loss of one of theirs. In Tunisia, where he was held, the captives paraded through the streets where we were brought for sale and having gone round the town ve or six times with chains on our necks, we were brought back to the ship that we might eat and in this way show the merchants that we had received no mortal injury. When this was over, they brought us back to the market place, where the merchants came to see us making us open our mouths to see our teeth, feeling our sides, examining our wounds, making us walk, trot and run, making us carry weights and ght so as to gauge the strength of each of us, as well as a thousand other forms of brutality.62 Bought by a sherman on the slave market, the former professor was sold again to an aged Muslim. This was a better match. His owner was an intellectual who gave long lectures on alchemy and Mohammedanism to an attentive pupil. When his master died he became the property of his masters nephew, who sold him on the Tunis slave market to a new owner. This man was a renegade Christian, a native of Nice who had lived many years in Tunis. The Niois repented his conversion and escaped back to France from Africa with his newly acquired slave and landed near Marseilles in June of 1607. There the apostate confessed and abjured Islam before the papal vice-legate, as was customary.63 St. Vincent de Pauls story became a cause for the dvots and for several groups of monks. The Barbary corsairs were now at the height of their power and constantly interrupted French trade with the Ottomans in the Mediterranean. Henri IV had attempted to create a foothold on the shores of North Africa with diplomacy. France sent consuls and priests to attempt to free the captives through ransom, and by building a bastion in Algiers to keep a foothold. Henris reign was so marked by the corsairs that it ended with a political crisis between Algiers and France. After his death in 1661, the French helped Venice in the war with the Ottomans

86 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceover control of Crete. This destroyed the capitulations in 1669, threatening the commerce of Marseilles. The port of Marseilles received oriental goods. Frances overseas trade with Asia was only prosperous in the Mediterranean. The impact of the Barbary corsairs in the Mediterranean and on French trade should not be underestimated.

The Barbary Coast, Corsairs, and European Contact with IslamThe coastline of North Africa became known as the Barbary coast, a term initially derived from the word Berber, its original inhabitants. The Arabs had long controlled the coast and had a long-standing and prosperous slave trade in the region. The Spanish had great interest in the coasts strategic importance. Khair-ed-Din and Aruj were the founding fathers of the corsairs. The two brothers had conquered the coast with the towns of Oran, Algiers, and Tunis. When Aruj was killed by the Spanish in 1518, Khair-ed-Din appealed to Sultan Selim, who sent him troops to chase the Spanish from the coast. It took a decade for a rst victory. Khair-ed-Din nally chased the Spaniards from the rocky island in front of Algiers in 1529. Local administrators under Ottoman rule, the beylerbeys used this base to rule over areas of North Africa including modern-day Tripoli, Tunisia, and Algeria until 1587. From 1587 to 1659 they were ruled by Turkish pashas, who were sent from Constantinople to govern for three years. A military revolt in Algiers in 1659 reduced the pashas to puppets of the local rulers, who became all-important and made the corsairs into privateers who worked for them on commission. The pirate ships of the corsairs were protected by the Ottomans, and they captured both merchandise and people while sailing in the Mediterranean. The corsairs and their Christian captives should be included in any study on Orientalism, as they brought Islam in closer contact with France than any of the Ottoman armies invading Europe had ever done, even after reaching Vienna in 1683. The French captives of the corsairs were not literati; they only left a few accounts. The French missionaries in charge of their ransoms were the ones responsible for creating a discourse about the corsairs and tying them to Islam. Through their propaganda the corsairs made Islam a daily reality for the French. This was a new kind of religious pressure for conversion, one that France came rst to encounter in the sixteenth century, exactly at the same moment as it was facing the consequences of the Reformation. Between 1500 and 1800, several thousand Europeans converted to Islam, some of them quite willingly. Despite piracy from Christian groups on Turks, the converse was never true. Few Muslims ever converted to Christianity. This constant fear of conversion to Islam was reected in some of the accounts printed under Louis XIII. The French were negotiating with the Ottomans on both the religious and the commercial front, mostly in the form of protests about the corsairs. The conviction that conversion was always under duress, or was due to greed, has to be

France in the World 87seriously questioned, as a defense of Catholicism was a sine qua non for anything to be published under the devout atmosphere prevailing in France. In the popular discourse about the Barbary corsairs, a generalized discourse arose about Muslims, and the terms Moors and Turks became interchangeable.64 This preoccupation to defend Catholicism against both Protestantism and Islam may explain why the travel accounts of the rst half of the seventeenth century are mostly of a religious kind. Many were pilgrimagesthere were seventeen of these for the rst half of the seventeenth century, ten after 1610 of which were journeys to the Holy Landbut some, especially those written around 1670, concentrated on the liberation of Christian captives.65 Jerusalem was under Ottoman rule, and the captives were held in Algiers, Tunisia, or Tripoli, which were also under Ottoman control; thus this religious travel literature was mostly about the Ottoman empire and Islam. Only Morocco, where Christian captives were also held, had resisted Ottoman rule. The Catholics were a main target for the corsairs. The corsairs considered Spain their greatest enemy, because in 1492 the king of Spain drove the Moors into exile. They fought Spain for decades over supremacy of the Barbary coast. They avenged themselves with attacks on the Spanish coast and on Spanish ships. The collaboration of individual corsairs, who were Protestant, Dutch, or English, with the Turks (as the Barbary corsairs were often called) corroborated French suspicions about Protestant sympathies for Islam and led to formal French protests. Given their history, the corsairs favored attacks on the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the French who, because of Catholicism, they saw as one nation. At the beginning of the seventeenth century France complained about a new phenomenon: Anglo-Turkish piracy. This trade in human beings in which the slaves were subject to exchange and especially to ransoming became a central part of one specic form of French discourse on Islam. Most importantly, it created ambiguous attitudes toward a group that was an important ally, not an enemy. The court, despite protest, rarely ever tried to rescue captives; they left this to missionaries and to the families of those kidnapped at sea. The protests were not about freeing captives; freedom was not part of the discourse in this period. Religion was part of missionary discourse, and diplomacy was part of the courts discourse. The French court complained to the Ottoman Sultan in 1607 that the Dutch and English were using North African sea towns to capture French ships. It accused the Ottomans of aiding Frances enemies. So numerous were the English among the pirates that they were known as the new pirates of Barbary. Many became famous: Sir Henry Mainwaring in his Discourse on Pirates, addressed to king James I in 1617, described his cooperation with the governor of Tunis and the favor in which he was held by the Dey of Tunis. More notorious was Francis Walsingham (15301590), who worked in Algiers and negotiated between Elizabeth I and the Sultan. These men were not independent privateers but worked for the rulers of the Barbary coast, hence the French discourse on Turko-Calvinist collusion. The Flemish and the Dutch were omnipresent privateer captains. This collaboration gave the Catholic French a

88 Orientalism in Early Modern Francevision of Turkish and Protestant conspiracy against French trade in the Mediterranean.66 Yet, France had its own converts, such as Simon Dansker, who hailed from the port of Marseilles, despite his Flemish origins.

Cannons As Casus BelliSimon Danseker left his mark on French history as he single-handedly created a case of casus belli between France and Algiers in 1610, in the same year France lost Henri IV to an assassin. Like all captivity narratives, Danskers story is known only because he returned to Europe and abjured his Muslim faith. Many more captains like Ward and Dansker and Wallsingham existed, but unless they returned to Europe and wrote about their past and their forced conversion to Islam, obtained pardon, and abjured their Muslim faith, little is remembered about them. This gives the sources written by converts a homogeneity of purpose because many were written to obtain pardons. Unfortunately we do not have Dansekers story in his own voice. The main source for Dansekers story is a history written by the monk Father Pierre Dan (15801649). Dans history of the Barbary coast is the most famous and most frequently cited of any works written about the corsairs or the Barbary coast. It was a history written by a Trinitarian monk.67 According to Father Dan, Simon Danser, as he is called by Dan, left Marseilles for Algiers in 1606 to engage in the ship-building trade. He is credited for making the corsairs abandon the use of the traditional light galliot, a light small galley armed with a mixture of various cannons seized from the Europeans.68 He is thought to have introduced the use of European round ships with sails to the corsairs. This tale of technical innovation must be treated with some skepticism. The switch to round vessels, Dan argued, saved Christian slaves from a life worse than death in the galleys. Best of all, the tale has a happy ending: Danser had returned to France, repented, had not remained a Muslim, and had not been tempted to continue to accumulate the riches of a successful privateer. Father Dan could not have fabricated a better hero had he tried. Pierre Dan must have relished telling this story to his audience in France, as it proved that the successful Danser secretly hoped in his heart of hearts to remain a Christian despite his riches and authority as a renegade res (captain).69 Within three years after arriving in Algiers, Simon Danser had converted to Islam. He became the taiffes (local community) leading res (captain), with nicknames such as Captain Devil or Deli-Res. He is known for having captured forty prize ships in three years and for having led corsair expeditions from France as far north as the coast of Iceland. Strikingly, unlike many highly successful European renegades, he seemed to have regretted his conversion and wanted a return to France. According to Father Dan, Simon Danser captured a Spanish ship off the coast of Valencia with ten Jesuits aboard and used them as hostages and intermediaries to inform King Henri IV of France of his will to return to Marseilles.

France in the World 89He bought the freedom of the Jesuits and of several other captives for 27,000 livres and brought them back to Marseilles. In 1609, Danser was reunited with his family in Marseilles and given full citizenship by the city council. A year later, in 1610, Danser offered his services to Marseilles and to Henri IV for a full-edged French expedition against Algiers. With his inside knowledge the offer was tempting but was not taken up. It is not clear whether Danser committed a gesture to create conict on purpose to obtain the expedition. He gave the Duc de Guise, who ruled the province, the gift of two brass cannons belonging to Algiers. The rulers of Algiers demanded the cannons back and expressed shock at Dansers treason. The Duc de Guise refused. The canons were turning into a casus belli between Algiers and France. France was on the brink of war when the Catholic extremist Ravaillac assassinated Henri IV and put the Algerian crisis on hold. Because of the unsolved issue of the cannons, French ships became prime targets in the Mediterranean. The number of French captives uctuated with the diplomatic climate. After many demands for redress, the French returned the cannons and considered it a deeply humiliating episode. The affair of the cannons was only solved nearly two decades later by the peace treaty of September 29, 1628 between France and Algiers signed by Sanson de Napolleon, an emissary of Louis XIII.70 This followed a series of blows to France after the English attack on Algiers in 1621, and the devastating plague of 1623 that killed 60,000 people, including the French consul who was not replaced until 1630. Prior to Dansers departure to Algiers, there had been a conict between Henri IV and Algiers that was resolved by a treaty in 1604 stipulating that no French captives were ever to be held in Algiers. That treaty had not been respected, and the same terms were reiterated, once again in vain, in 1628. The number of European slaves taken by the corsairs between 1530 and 1780 has recently been estimated by historian Robert Davis to be one million.71 This is much lower than the estimate in the most important eye-witness account of European slavery. Pierre Dan wrote that just between 1530 and 1640, a much shorter period, it would not be stretching the truth that they put a million [Christians] in chains. Certainly the period mentioned by Pierre Dan was when the corsair eet manned by European galley slaves was at its largest.72 In these galleys, the slaves, who were chained to a bench, lived in the same horrendous conditions as their Turkish counterparts working on French galleys. Those on the ships of the Barbary coast had a better fate than captives sent to the galleys of the sultan; they only went out to sea twice a year. The Ottoman eet was at sea nearly year-round, and rowing for battle was the hardest rowing of all. Despite the collaboration of famous individuals of English origin, invoked abovesuch as Walsingham, who freed Turkish captives from European galleys and sold European Christians to Turks in North AfricaEngland made a tremendous effort to recuperate its Christian captives from North Africa and launched an attack on Algiers in 1621. During this time France was unsuccessfully negotiating the cannon crisis with Algiers via emissaries. Just as Algiers took scores of French and English

90 Orientalism in Early Modern Francecaptives, scores of Turks and other Muslims were captured around 1620 by the English and languished in jails or were sold as slaves to Spanish galleys. Correspondence during this period shows that after this aggression on Algiers in 1621, capturing Christians was seen as retaliation and that the Arabic word for European Christian, nasara, was often followed by: damarhum Allah (may God destroy them).73 The only way to free captives was to pay ransom. The British failed again in Tangiers, when in 1684 they had to hastily evacuate their foothold on the coast that they had built up at great cost. English humiliation at Tangiers made the payment of ransoms routine until well into the eighteenth century. Louis XIVs wars began with a failure in 1664. The superiority of the Ottomans and of the Muslim corsair captors was never in question in this period. France shared the same fate during the same time span, and despite efforts to negotiate with money and diplomacy and war in the 1670s and 1680s, only in a few cases were captives freed other than through ransom.

Captivity NarrativesThe impact of captivity narratives in England has been well-studied by Nabil Mattar and Linda Colley. Colley has studied about a hundred captivity narratives written in English.74 English captivity accounts have attracted most of the scholarly attention, yet the hardest hit nations were Spain, France, and Italy, not England. This was due both to geographical proximity, to Catholicism, and to the retaliation against the 1492 expulsion from Spain, the Morisco jihad on Spain and on Catholicism.75 As Colley has elegantly argued, English captivity tales are the underbelly of the British empire. The tale of Robinson Crusoe as trope of an empire built on an island is mitigated by Crusoes previous captivity and enslavement by the corsairs.76 France did not have its own tale of Robinson Crusoe, who through toil and craft built his own world. There was a French version of a tale of imperial success to compensate for the humiliating French captivity. Revived in the seventeenth century by mendicant orders, Saint Louis, the crusading French king, and his captivity, were powerful symbols used to construct an imperial myth. The legends disseminated by the Franciscans all over Europe around 1500 told of Louis having a vision of the Christian defeat at Chorasmini, and as he saw the Christians thrown into the sea by Saracens a voice came to him: King of France take revenge for this irreparable loss. His defeat and his captivity, commemorated in France by a coin on which the king is depicted in chains, had powerful popular and religious impact.77 More importantly, his defeat at Damietta was completely reversed into a miraculous victory that told of Louiss power to convert the Saracens and conquer the world:Under the reign of Saint Louis the glory of the French reached Africa and the East he conquered Palestine, Arabia and Carthage, whose empire stretched to the Ocean. He destroyed the city of Hannibal who had conquered Rome. He fought the Numidians and

France in the World 91the Moors, and the Gtules, exacting a tribute from them and imposing the freedom to preach Christianity. The African kings became the allies and tributaries of the Franks.78

Such was the tale that reversed Louiss defeat and captivity at Damietta (Carthage), as told by Christophe de Longueil, 14881522, a Renaissance humanist. In the cult of Saint Louis, captivity discourse was mingled with hopes of conquest. As some of the legends built around Saint Louis attest, the conquest of North Africa gured in French discourse long before it happened. France conquered Algiers in 1830. North Africa was a conrmed source of gold and slaves, while the New World where the English and Dutch had built empires, and especially Virginia, as James I realized, despite false expectations, was not. The Ottoman markets were still at the heart of French trade in Asian goods, and sailing the Mediterranean remained crucial to Frances economy, so the Ottomans had to be wooed. Unlike in England, precisely because of French allegiance to the Ottomans, the impact of captivity accounts was not as important in France. They were part of a larger body of discourse. It has been argued that the Muslim world came to Englands attention through captivity narratives. In sixteenth-century England the captives were the rst to describe the customs and usages of the Moors.79 They shaped English views about Islam in a much more signicant way than captivity narratives did in France, where they had serious competition from other genres. Travel accounts about the Muslim world, especially the Ottoman empire, were already prolic in sixteenth-century France. Translations of histories were also crucial in propagating French views on Islam and the Muslim world.

Father Pierre Dans NarrativeThe account written by Pierre Dan, the source for Simon Dansers adventures, is the best example of a history that is a travel account and a captivity narrative all in one. Stories of the Muslim corsairs began circulating in France in the form of pamphlets and travel accounts. Most were not written by captives but by missionaries in order to free certain captives. Although we have already quoted from it, it is worth examining Dans account. It has been suggested that because England felt helpless toward the superior Ottomans, it demonized the Turks and Muslims in literature and plays, often transposing imagery of the savagery of American Indians from its successes in North America to Muslims.80 Although attitudes in the early seventeenth century are far from homogenous in France, there are many nuances to French views about Islam. Such an outright demonizing was much rarer in French travel accounts, yet Father Dans account is a striking example of this extreme form. Father Pierre Dan (15801649) studied at the Faculty of Paris and entered the order of the Holy Trinity, the Trinitarians, an order founded exclusively for the liberation

92 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceof Christians captives. Father Dan was sent on a journey to North Africa in 1634 to buy back Christian slaves living in Algiers. Other accounts testify to some of the horrors perpetrated on these captives and corroborate some of his accounts, especially the martyrdom of the missionaries who refused to convert, although those accounts are usually missionary accounts. In 1637 his voluminous 600-page account appeared with the title: LHistoire de la Barbarie et de ses corsairs, des Royaumes et des villes dAlger, Tunis, Sal et Tripoli, aimed at collecting donations to free Christian captives.81 Long mournful processions replicating the suffering of the captives were organized to obtain the money. Father Dan portrayed Islam as an evil satanic cult and an immediate danger to the French. The tone and spirit of this travel account is very far from the earlier accounts of Islam by Postel. Any elements of admiration were gone. In LHistoire de la Barbarie the prophet of Islam is portrayed as the antichrist, and the entire text is about Islam in action as a false satanic religion. There were both illustrations and textual descriptions of the tortures perpetrated by the Muslim captors on their Christian slaves; the impaling, the crucixion, and the burning alive of Christian captives who refused to convert were some of the many torments depicted in order to raise money. The empathetic reader was made to identify with this graphic suffering dear to Catholicism and its ideals of martyrdom. Much more than in any previous text written in French, or after it, Islam was squarely presented as a de facto enemy of the Christians.82 In chapter two Father Dan gave a brief description of Islam that was skewed with all the legendary aspects that Peter the Venerable had managed to combat in his translation of the Quran centuries earlier, during the height of the Crusades. Five hundred years later one nds a dark mixed-up description of the prophets Jewish origins, of his ruthless ambition, and of his brutality.83 This Trinitarians views are far from unique; they had roots in the medieval legends about the Nestorian Sergius and the demonic aspects of Islam. The exact same demonizing aspects of Islam are also found in English captive William Oakleys account of his deliverance.84 Father Dans travel account was not an isolated text in France; rather, it was part of a long tradition that culminated in the 1680s and stretched into the eighteenth century. Jean-Baptiste de la Fayes eighteenth-century travel account, Etat des royaumes de Barbarie, Tripoly, Tunis, et Alger 85 was followed by the publication of Voyage pour la rdemption des captifs aux royaumes dalger et de tunis, fait en 1720,86 and attests to the continuation of these medieval demonizing presentations of Muslims in French captivity accounts well into the eighteenth century. These views were closely tied to the continued efforts of the Lazarists, Trinitarians, and Mercedarian monks to free French captives. Even within France alone, there was a great diversity among these accounts. In the eighteenth century, the monk Philemon de la Motte wrote: [A]s for the slaves of Algiers they are not so unhappy.87 Some time later Laugiers de Tassy claimed that the Christian slaves did not suffer as much as the monks wanted people to believe.88 It has been said that this new attitude was equally skewed, and that it was due to

France in the World 93the Enlightenments enthusiasm for all things oriental.89 This may well be, but it is certain that there is no monolithic voice even within this type of literature. Nevertheless, some accounts are harrowing. The Frenchman Jean Marteille de Bergerac described what it was like to oar a galley.Think of six men chained to a bench, naked as when they were born, one foot on the stretcher, the other on the bench in front, holding an immensely heavy oar, bending forwards to the stern with arms at full reach to clear the backs of the rowers in front, who bend likewise; and then having got forward, shoving up the oars end to let the blade catch the water, then throwing their bodies back on the groaning bench. A galley oar sometimes pulls thus for ten, twelve, or even twenty hours without a moments rest. The boatswain puts a piece of bread steeped in wine in the wretched rowers mouth to stop fainting, and then the captain shouts the order to redouble the lash. If a slave falls exhausted upon his oar (which often chances) he is ogged till he is taken for dead, and then pitched unceremoniously into the sea.90

There are several French captivity narratives that deserve a study of their own; some are read as a history of the Barbary coast.91 Some accounts have received recent scholarly attention both in France and North Africa, such as the account by Jean-Baptiste Gramaye (15791635).92 There is nothing comparable to Colleys work for France. A recent study on the captives, Les Chrtiens dAllah, suggests that Father Dan, despite his propaganda, remains a good source and had the best estimates for the numbers of captives living in the city. Of the general population of Algiers, which he estimated at 100,000, one quarter was captive Christian slaves.93 As the following Portuguese captivity account proves, not all descriptions of the Barbary coast propagated these extreme views. Even within the single genre of captivity narratives, the views of Islam and Muslims were quite different. Without a doubt, missionaries tended to have the most extreme views of the Muslim captors with whom they negotiated. As will become apparent, under Louis XIII and Louis XIV, missionaries, merchants, and scholars did not always share the same views about the Orient. Even within the same group there was a diversity of views. This is true of Catholic captives as well.

Mascarenhas, a Portuguese CaptiveIn a captivity account by a Portuguese captive who escaped after being held in Algiers for ve years, between 1621 and 1626, Joao Mascarenhas tells us about the daily lives of Christian captives. They were locked up in prisons, banhos, every night, as they were eager to run away. Some, like himself, succeeded in escaping. There were four of these prisons and each had a church. He described both instances of forced and willing conversion and of successful resistance to conversion.94 He described the religious tolerance of the captors, which was surprising to a European

94 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceobserver: the Catholic cult was freely celebrated. Paintings, silk garments, and decorations necessary for the Mass were lent by the Turks to the captives on important feast days. He also wrote about willing conversions to Islam by captives eager to advance in the ranks of the local government, or by the corsairs. He knew of happy captives, enriched by commerce or piracy, who were quite unwilling to return. Yet, he also wrote of the majority of captives who suffered and awaited the ransom that would buy their freedom. Mascarenhas, a Portuguese observer, once a captive himself, wrote of the diverse population of the city where Moors and Moriscos (a term he reserved for Spaniards converted to Islam), Jews, Turks, Janissaries, and Christians were slave owners. In a more nuanced analysis, Mascarenhas tells us that the most fanatical Turks, meaning Muslims, were the converted Spaniards, the Moriscos, who hated the Christians. According to him, there were 8,000 Catholic captives in Algiers in the 1620s. He names slaves who belonged to other nations such as Flemish, English, Danish, Scottish, German, Polish, Muscovite, Bohemian, Hungarian, Norwegian, Burgondian, Venetian, Piedmontese, Slavs, Egyptian Syrians (Assyrians), Chinese, Japanese, and Brazilian.95 His grouping of all Catholics into one nation is striking, as it reects the Ottoman system. Mascarenhas only cited one group that had a fanatical hatred of the captives: the Moriscos. These Spanish refugees established a kind of republic of their own on the North African coast in the seventeenth century from 1626 to 1686. They came from Hornachos, Spain and emigrated to the port of Sal. While force may explain why thousands converted to Islam, it cannot be denied that Islam held some attraction for many. Beyond the social mobility offered by the political system of the Barbary coast, multicultural and social diversity was accepted, and origins mattered little once you were a convert to Islam. Another attraction was a fair share in the spoils for ones toil in piracy. It must be remembered that life for the sailors of a European ship offered no advancement, no real pay, and plenty of corporal punishment; men were often shanghaied to serve in the navy. As Robert Davis contends, these European commercial ships were proto-factories with terrible labor conditions and no reward for sailors. Life with the corsairs was far more egalitarian if one was lucky enough to participate. These positive aspects of conversion were silenced in captivity tales, yet who would not want to escape the galleys and be part of the ofcers corps? The corsair res were not independent but protected by Pashas, Deys, top Janissaries, or by the sultan of Morocco. They were privateers. These rulers or ofcers sometimes had the right of rst refusal and certainly always a percentage in commission. Beyond the economic and political advantages and the social mobility offered by the form of government practiced on the Barbary coast, it is not difcult to imagine that during a period of severe religious persecution and narrowing ideas in France and England, the religious tolerance within a Muslim community where many Christian converts could even continue to drink as Muslims, made Islam itself attractive. Coupled with a more pleasant climate than any on a European shore,

France in the World 95life in North Africa offered real advantages to those who became renegades. The north shore of Africa knew relative religious peace, save for the Jews, who were persecuted. The Portuguese captive wrote that the Turks objected to the Jews bathing in the same premises and that they never looked at a Jewess as worthy of their attentions no matter how beautiful she was. He wrote that if a Turk consorted with a Jewish woman, he would be considered as vile and could no longer be called a Turk.96 These are strong prejudices, and the Jews were not only considered abject, but they were persecuted physically and nancially, and Mascarenhas saw their fate, as many were descendants of refugees from Spain who had already been exiled once, as far worse than that of the European captives.97 The Arab sources on the privateers living on the coast described the corsairs, quite unsurprisingly, as true defenders of the faith. The term used to describe the corsairs was al-ghuzat, the same term used for the warriors ghting with the prophet or for Ottoman warfare. They fought for faith and ghaneema, booty divided as Mohammad had done among his warriors. The warrior was spiritually rewarded for his ghazu (raid) and the barbary ghuzat, and therefore they were religious warriors in a certain sense. Seventeenth-century Arab writers called for the raids as a defense against the indels raids.98 While these protable raids on European ships and even full-edged attacks akin to war existed, one nds no mention of this side of the story in European captivity accounts written by returning captives. Many of these writers were eager to prove they were forced to become Muslim in order to obtain grace. Yet Colley has shown through analyzing the 100 accounts she used to write Captives that there is no monolithic voice or view in these accounts.99 It should come as no surprise that piracy and Islam had special attractions for French Huguenots. Catholic France in particular had deprived them of many of their freedoms despite the Edict of Nantes, and many professions were closed to them well before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685. Other groups were also attracted to other forms of unfamiliar tolerance found in Islamic societies. It has even been argued that the tolerant views Islam held on sexuality, especially on homosexuality, might have been attractive to many. Although stories of debauchery and homosexuality found in several captivity accounts were written to prove that Muslims were perverted sodomites, they also, according to this argument, presented a more liberal society. Christianitys harsh strictures contrasted with the exibility and tolerance of Islamic customs.100 Nevertheless, one should not discount that the harshness of exile, of adapting to local customs, to different food and clothing and a different worldview all threatened to make profound changes to the identity of the prisoners, while slavery brought about a major change in social identity in a brutal fashion. The mixed population of the coast gave rise to a common language referred to as lingua franca, sometimes called Franco or Sabir. This was a mixture of Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and other languages that served as the

96 Orientalism in Early Modern Francelanguage of communication.101 Several tales of captivity were written in this common language and described everyday life and the daily occupation of the captives, many of whom were engaged in crafts.102 Many tell of the various aspects of daily living on the coast. Yet, Father Dans tale of the Barbary coast left no room for such subtleties; to the Trinitarian monk, Islam was a monolith that fell from hell.103 The graphic illustrations of circumcision and of burning captives were Dans best fund-raising tools. Today the contemporary tendency has been to represent the captives as victims of a holy war, but Alain Blondy and many other French specialists have long argued against this view. Even those studying captivity on the Barbary coast have to concede to its marginality, and until Louis XIV bombarded the coast and demanded the freedom of his subjects the issue was not central. In both policy and discourse, Louis XIII hardly ever did anything to rescue captives. In 1629, taking a break from massacring Protestants, he agreed to attack Sal and freed 420 French captives.104 As a royal appointee by Louis XIII, Vincent de Paul was also instrumental in sending missionaries to many places overseas, with a focus on ransoming the captives of the corsairs on the Barbary coast. In 1645 he sent a rst priest with ransom money; that priest was followed by many others. Through his contacts at court, Vincent had one of the priests invested with the dignity of consul. French priests and consuls also employed slaves. French consuls and missionaries acted as agents with the families of captives in France for the gathering of ransoms and were able to free some of them. Up to the time of St. Vincents death in 1660 these missionaries had ransomed 1,200 slaves held hostage, and they had expended 1,200,000 livres on behalf of the slaves of Barbary.

Michel Baudier, Historiographer of the King under Louis XIIIFrench admiration for the Ottomans and their military superiority did not disappear, and in fact manifested itself in Michel Baudiers history writing. The same admiration cannot be found in his work on Islam, although he is far from being as extreme as Father Dan. In 1625 Michel Baudier published his Histoire Gnerale de la Religion des Turcs.105 This work knew many editions and become the major reference work on Islam in the seventeenth century. The target audience was not popular readership, and as such it differed greatly from Father Dans dark populist propaganda. It did present Islam negatively, much more so than anything written before it by a scholar. It was in French, and therefore despite its erudite ambition it could not be considered a scientic work in this early period, because it would have to have been published in Latin.106 It had a target audience: the dvots around Louis XIII, extreme Catholics who hoped that French missionaries would convert everyone in France and in the world to their views. Michel Baudier (15891645) was born in the Languedoc. During the reign of Louis XIII, he was appointed as historiographer to the court of France, but it is

France in the World 97unclear whether he ever received any royal subsidies; he seems to have had his own vast fortune used for traveling and collecting manuscripts in the Ottoman empire. He initially wrote administrative and military history, as he had a military career himself. His rst work was Histoire de la guerre de Flandre 15591609.107 He took a special interest in the Turks, as he also wrote a military history of the Ottomans titled: Inventaire de lhistoire gnrale des Turcs ou sont descriptes les guerres des Turcs, leurs conquestes depuis lan 1300 jusques en lanne 1640. Avec la mort, et belles actions de plusieurs chevaliers de Malte & d autres gentilshommes & seigneurs franois.108 In this military history his admiration for the Ottomans seems sincere. In his work on religion, given the climate at court, he might have had no choice. This dichotomy, contrary opinions even under the pen of one author, was not rare. In examining the life and works of his contemporary Andr du Ryer his biographers seem to conclude that he was in a similar situation of political constraint. Baudiers historical writing about Asia, the rst in France, went well beyond places he could have observed. After he heard the narrative of a Jesuit who had returned from China, Baudier wrote a rst history of China in French: Histoire de la cour du roi de Chine.109 The variety of his production clearly reects the interest that the court of Louis XIII and especially Richelieu took in the world beyond France. Yet, perhaps the most important orientalist living under Louis XIII was the man who translated the Quran into French.

Andr du Ryers Translation of the Quran into FrenchApart from being the rst to translate the Quran into a vernacular language, Andr du Ryers translation into French was then translated into many languages. Andr du Ryer can be credited with introducing Persian literature to Europe with his translation of the Gulistan, the rst translation into a European language of a major piece of Persian literature. The life and work of Andr du Ryer has recently been well explored.110 He is the perfect example of how French Orientalism was closely tied to Frances trading preoccupation and the race for supremacy on the Ottoman markets. In their introduction to du Ryers life and work, Alastair Hamilton and Francis Richard situate his diplomatic career within the web of French consulates that were created in the application of the rst capitulations in Tripoli, Beirut, Alexandria, and Chios. Later consulates were added in Aleppo, Sidon, Izmir, Nauplion, Zante, and even Jerusalem. Until the British had a consulate of their own in 1581, the French only had the Venetians and Genoese as rivals in the Ottoman markets. We have examined the rst embassies in Istanbul and their importance to new knowledge in France; Louis XIIIs ambassador to Constantinople, Henri Gournay de Marcheville, was accompanied by Andr du Ryer. The inuence of the dvots, protected by Marie de Medici, and missionaries eager to unite the Eastern churches under Ottoman protection with Rome was still present, and plans for a crusade

98 Orientalism in Early Modern Francewere discussed even by Franois Savary de Brves (15601628), an accomplished orientalist and former ambassador to Istanbul under Henri IV from 1591 to 1606. According to Hamilton and Richard, Franois Savary de Brves had no sympathy for extreme Catholicism but had to give in to the climate of the day, and they assert that this was equally the case for his pupil du Ryer, as his works, a Turkish grammar and his famous translation of the Quran were, despite his own sympathies, presented as an undertaking for the use of the proselytizing and crusade-promoting missionaries in the Levant. Savary de Brves would extend his protection to Andr du Ryer, who according to his biographers did not have a university education but learned oriental languages for practical use, as would future dragomans in the next reign. Savary de Brves had been rewarded for his services with the important consulate of Alexandria, which his sons could inherit, and in 1623, Savary de Brves appointed his protg Andr du Ryer as vice-consul of France in Alexandria. This was a very important commercial and diplomatic post, as French trade reigned supreme in Egypt, to the irritation of the Venetians. Trading with Marseilles consisted of many goods: linens, carpets, dyes, hides, leather, ostrich feathers, mother of pearl, wax, dates, and rice.111 Du Ryers ran into enormous difculty; he had trouble establishing authority over the cantankerous French merchants because of his youth. Their Venetian rivals were only too happy to help; additional pressure came from the arrival of the missionaries in the Ottoman empire at around the same time. The arrival of the Capuchins and their establishment of a convent in Istanbul in 1624 under an ambassador with dvot sympathies is a marking event, as this facilitated what the missionaries and their friends the dvots had always wanted: contact with Persia against the Ottomans. The Capuchins managed to sneak the rst French ambassador to Persia; despite Ottoman surveillance Pre Pacique de Povins crossed the border.112 The Capuchin reform started within the Franciscans in 1522 to oppose any form of secularization, as they wished to go back to the primitive simplicity of Saint Franciss life. The Capuchins were an order by 1525, but by 1529 Pope Clement VII had made them into a separate order, ceasing the supervision of the Franciscans over them.113 This order would be very important to French contacts with Persia, especially through the sojourn and reports of the Capuchin Raphal du Mans, taken to Persia by Tavernier. Du Mans lived in the capital of Isfahan from 1647 until his death in 1696.114 Andr du Ryer was vice-consul when the arrival of the Capuchins in the Ottoman empire caused a great stir and rivalry among the missionaries. The Franciscans, already established in Istanbul, resented the Capuchins, and the Capuchins hated the Jesuits, who were also vying for establishing a mission. In the embassy, Harley de Csy, a dvot, was on the best of terms with the Capuchins: their new convent would be on the grounds of the French embassy itself.115 His biographers explain that du Ryer was too young to deal with all the problems he encountered, as he had no experience in the Levant trade. According to the archives of the Chambre de Commerce

France in the World 99de Marseilles, the vice-consul found that the French owed the Ottoman authorities a rather large debt, which meant he had to collect dues from the merchants to cover it. Many other nations traded under the French ag, and the consulate was responsible for them. Complicating the fate of the young vice-consul, the Ottomans suddenly struck foreigners trading in Egypt with an avania of 200,000 piastres. The new vice-consul raised 18,000 from the French merchants and their Venetian rivals to pay off the Janissaries so the levy would not be imposed, but this sum meant he had to raise the usual duty the consulate demanded. This was the beginning of the end for Andr du Ryer in Egypt. He aggravated his case by accusing the French factors in Egypt of idleness and threatening to beat them. Because of complaints about his behavior, Savary de Brves informed the Compagnie du Levant that the vice-consul had been recalled.116 This was a major humiliation. The issue was grave enough to have Louis XIII issue an order:Du Rierthe merchants of my city of Marseilles, having complained to me of your conduct and administration in the consulate of Egipte [sic], I have found it propos to send the Sr Gabriel de Fernoulx to exercise again functions he had held in the past and judging that you might be more suitable to be of service to me in another occasion due to the testimony of Sr de Breves has given me that you have acquitted knowledge of the langues Arabesque et Turquesques.117

Becoming an interpreter was a demotion, below the function of vice-consul. Once he returned du Ryer did everything to prove his integrity and had several people sign letters to prove he had been of service. His case was not unique, and later a vice-consul who was a Marseillais, chosen by the merchants of Marseilles, could only keep the six-year post for two. As Hamilton has written, even Louis XIIIs ambassadors after Savary de Brves were very unsuccessful in Istanbul. Back in France by April 1630 du Ryer had written his Turkish grammar and Louis XIII appointed him gentleman of the royal chamber in a melliuous letter that contrasts with the tone of his orders in 1626.118 This form of royal sponsorship encouraged du Ryer in his orientalist scholarship. Two of his contributions, the Quran in French and the translation of a major Persian literary work the Gulistan, certainly established him as the most important orientalist of his time. His biographers rightly point out that his translation of Saadis Gulistan makes him a precursor of the famous Antoine Galland, as it inaugurated the translation of literature, a genre made famous by the Thousand and One Nights. Savary de Brvess hopes of acquainting Europe with oriental literature, a feat accomplished by his pupil, have been seen by his biographers as a precursor of the grander policies followed by William Jones in India in the eighteenth century. Yet Hamilton and Richard have concluded that he was not recognized as such, as they do not see his name mentioned by anyone. Their conclusion begins by a statement that

100 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceis only too true: European Arabists, like most scholars, have seldom distinguished themselves by their charitable treatment of their colleagues and du Ryer was a victim of their malice. They qualify this further by showing that his dabbling in literature and his use of the vernacular, on top of his ignorance of Hebrew and his lack of university training made him an easy target. He was the rst of many modern orientalists with a similar formation under Louis XIV. If Louis XIIIs reign was marked with a multiplicity of voices with different views about the Orient, that of Louis XIV would be even richer in its production of translations and histories and travel accounts. If the dvots tried to impose extreme Catholicism unsuccessfully, Louis XIV made their wishes come true by making Catholicism a state religion. If Louis XIII dabbled with the idea of crusade, Louis XIV actually was offered a plan for the invasion of Istanbul, yet, all the discord there was with the Ottomans was repaired in the late 1670s, proving that the dichotomy between discourse and policy present in France since Francis I was a constant marker of Frances ties with the Ottomans.

4Orientalism As ScienceThe Production of Knowledge under Louis XIV

I found myself in the company of a self-contented man. Within a quarter of an hour he decided three moral questions, four historical problems and ve points of physics. I have never seen such a universal decision maker; his mind was never suspended by the least doubt. We left sciences to speak of the news of the times: he decided the news of the times. I wanted to be strong and told myself let me take the upper hand and take refuge in my country. I spoke of Persia. I had hardly uttered four words that he corrected me twice on the authority of MM. Tavernier and Chardin. My God, what man is this? I said to myself who will soon tell me he knows the streets of Isfahan better than I do? I gave up and fell silent, I let him speak, and he is continuing to decide. Rica Lettre LXXII, Montesquieu, Lettres persanes

Published shortly after Louis XIVs death in his Lettres persanes, Montesquieu mocks the universal quest for knowledge that marked his Sun Kings reign. The birth of the Academy of Sciences in France was one of the greatest revolutions of Louiss long reign, and Montesquieu was well aware that MM. Tavernier and Chardin, and their travel accounts, were the sources of this new certainty about knowing the world. Orientalism and travel accounts and their role in the production of knowledge in France are the object of this chapter. Louis XIV marked his reign with extraordinary projects to make France the rst power in Europe. Extravagant engineering projects, such as the canal between the two seas linking the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, were not to be useful, but much of what Louis envisioned did materialize. He made Jean-Baptiste Colbert (16191683) contrleur gnral des nances since Colbert had created twenty manufacturies in very short time.1 Colbert would be the kings best ally in enriching France and contributing to its glory. This domestic policy of producing luxury goods through French manufacturies was part of Colberts bullionism: he aimed to keep gold and silver in France by imitating imports in the new manufacturies. France produced crystals and mirrors instead of buying them from Venice, and textiles and tapestries instead of buying them from Flanders. The silk and cotton imported from the Levant was imitated. It was believed that France could be rich if it did not buy foreign luxuries abroad. Even exotic plants collected abroad were propagated in France to naturalize them. Under


102 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceColbert the exotic was naturalized to keep gold in France (see Chapter 8). The most enduring of Colberts legacies would be the mirror manufacturies of Saint Gobain.2 Although he wanted to produce luxury goods within France, Colbert had nothing against foreign trade, as long as it was in French hands. This policy was implemented through the auspices of French merchants. Under Louis XIV French hopes extended farther east, beyond the Levant markets to Persia, India, Siam, and China. For the very rst time a new infrastructure supported these ambitions: a stronger navy, royal commercial companies, schools for oriental languages, court-subsidized chairs, and academies for the study of France and the world beyond France. In the seventeenth century French imperial hopes were not backed by armed invasion, but by zealous missionaries, travelers, and collectors. Commercial capitulations, trade agreements, scientic observation, and collection were the tools of this early imperialism. There was a vast network of informants traveling, mapping, describing, and collecting to make sense of the world. In Louiss mind, conversion was closely tied to this scientic endeavor, and many of the missionaries were scientists. No contradiction existed between Catholic, scientic, and commercial missions; missionaries were not indifferent to French commercial interests or French diplomacy. Indeed, they were its best tools. There was no line between the humanities and the nascent sciences, a fabricated break that is beginning to be rightly questioned. Orientalism was at the inception of the Academy of Sciences. France challenged the Portuguese and the Spanish as a Catholic power in Asia. Beginning in 1493, the pope had given the Portuguese exclusive rights to proselytize, and the obligation to acquire souls for the Catholic Church, along with rights to commerce in Asia. The papacy had retaken control of propagating Catholicism in Asia by the creation of the Propaganda Fide in Rome in 1622, which included a polyglot press and a school for languages. The purpose of the new papal institution was to convert Europes Protestants as well as the heathen. This was previously the task of Iberian Jesuits and Franciscans, who had exported the Spanish Inquisition to Goa and the Americas. Now the papacy aimed at distancing conversion from Iberian national aims, as the Portuguese were distrusted in Asia because of the massacre of their Japanese Christian converts; Japan had closed trade to everyone but the Dutch. Through a slow process, the popes allowed the Jesuits to fall under the French ag in 1660s, an event further crowned by the new-found power of French missionaries through the formal creation of the Missions trangreswhich still have their beautiful gardens and compound on the Rue du Bacin 1664, the same year as the creation of the East India Company. A special relationship existed between the emperor of China and Louis XIV, at least in Louiss mind. The Jesuits were to become his representatives and ambassadors in Peking. Missionaries were an important group diplomatically. Both Huguenot and Catholic missionaries played an important role in the expansion of French trade and industry. It must be remembered that even monks did not abstain from trade; some were caught smuggling diamonds from India in the soles of their shoes. Under

Orientalism As Science 103Louis XIV a major change would occur as science, coupled with a new Catholic fervor at court, served French imperial aims. The French court sent several important Jesuit mathematicians and astronomers as its representatives. Louiss court also opened its doors to the rst ambassadors from Siam, the Ottoman empire, Persia, and Morocco. Louis XIV sent ambassadors and missionaries to Persia, India, Siam, and China. Most of these relationships were commercial and new. Despite their failures, they had lasting cultural consequences on France. In the 1660s much of what had been informal in France became institutionalized under Louis XIV, whose ambitions for control meant subsidizing scholars and scientists to tie them to his court. He even included the best Norman corsairs in the royal navy to capture Dutch ships and their cargoes of exotic goods. Despite its failure to trade directly for goods, except in the Levant, Paris became a major center of consumption for luxury goods both imported and domestic. Much of this bounty was not always due to direct trade but to the prizes caught by French privateers of St. Malo and Dunkirk at the kings service (see Chapter 5). In the midst of war French corsairs brought in captured cargoes of indigo and spices, North African Ostrich plumes, Persian silks, Chinese luxury goods, and American furs. To counter the success of their rivals in the Indes orientales, the French created several commercial companies; Richelieus Compagnie du Levant was reincarnated by Colbert in 1670. The French West and East India Companies, created in 1664 by Jean Baptiste Colbert, were royal companies with private investors. They entered the Asian market decades later than the English and Dutch, and had to compete not only against the longer-established companies, but with better-established French merchants and very successful French privateers who delivered exotic goods to consumers on the French markets, especially during the Dutch wars of 16721678.

The Creation of the French Royal East India CompanyLouis XIV ordered Colbert to inaugurate the Compagnie royale des Indes, the French Royal East India Company (FREIC) to go to Japan, India, and Persia. In 1664 Colbert hired the services of a writer by the name of Franois Charpentier to extol the virtues of the new French company and its yet nonexistent trade in India. The successful merchants of Marseilles and Saint Malo, Dieppe or Le Havre, were reluctant to invest. The pamphlet of propaganda written for the inauguration of the company by Charpentier was a fundraiser.3 It was hoped that France could trade directly to counter the successful Dutch who ooded the French markets with goods. A royal company with funds of fteen million livres was formed, with three million livres in shares subscribed by the king. Investors were reluctant. Modeled on the Dutch company, Frances was nevertheless very different because it was a royal company. A Breton captain, Kergadiou de Saint Gilly, was hired by Colbert to give conferences, which were essentially propaganda

104 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceto stress the prots of the India trade. Jules Sottas, the historian of this rst phase of the company, wrote that its failure was due to despotic meddling of the state in the affairs of the company.4 For this rst expedition to India, Colbert engaged a member from each of the two most successful merchant groups in Asia. He engaged Franois Caron from the Dutch VOC, whose rst name came from his conversion to Catholicism, which conferred naturalization.5 The FREIC hoped to model the VOC and hired one of its best. Another director was hired among the Armenians. Marcara Avanchintz came from the thriving commercial center of New Julfa in the capital of Isfahan. To oversee both newly converted recruited directors, a French director general, de Faye, was also appointed. In December of 1666 a French ship, La Couronne, left St. Malo with all of them aboard. The ship was bound for the headquarters of the newly formed French Company in Port Louis, Madagascar. The hope was that Marcara, with his knowledge of the Indian trade, would facilitate their establishment in India. Franois Caron, designated as Marcaras superior, was a specialist in Japanese trade. The initiative failed in part because of their rivalry.6 Marcara relayed in a trial he later initiated and won against the FREIC that en route to Surat his superior Franois Caron approached him with the corrupt proposition to work in the name of the French Company but make personal prot on the side. While G. Rotroandros study of Franois Carons life has shown that this was customary practice for Caron and others in the service of the Dutch Company, in this instance we only have Marcaras word for it. Marcara refused the offer, taking offense at the idea. Then and there began a long enmity. Caron attempted in every way to get rid of the troublesome Armenian. In May 1669, Marcara set out for the kingdom of Golconda, accompanied by his servants and a French merchant by the name of Roussell. Upon Marcaras arrival on the east coast of India, he employed his contacts there to obtain a farmn for the French, the same permission to trade that the Dutch had been seeking for several years. Rivalry took over at the news of this success. Posterity would attribute the opening of India and Indian trade to Franois Martin.7 Franois Martin had been sent to physically arrest Marcara and chained him in a ships hold in which he would travel for months. In his memoirs, Franois Martin wrote: It was a mistake to choose an Armenian, whose nation is well known in India, as Director for the Company of such a prestigious nation as ours. It had been surprising and had not served our reputation.8 The main accusation was, according to Martin, that the Armenian was giving all the commerce to Armenians. In Marcaras version, the Frenchmen did no work, but acted like debauched drunkards who had turned the companys quarters into a whorehouse. While their versions differ widely, the story of the street riots in Golconda after Marcaras arrest were described the same way by both men. Marcara was extremely well-connected and highly regarded in Golconda. Three grandees took up his cause; Anazarbec, described by Martin as a renegade Armenian jeweler at the Golconda court, the governor of Masulipatam, and the provost of the local merchants all demanded his liberation.

Orientalism As Science 105Martin would be the only one to gain from this situation, as the other Frenchmen died on the trip. The many deaths on this rst French expedition was to become a pattern; another pattern was lack of funds. They had no money to live on, let alone conduct commerce. They had no connections and lost their frman; they no longer had permission to trade. When Marcara managed to get back to France, the dvots were his supporters during his trials against the FREIC in Paris, because he was an Armenian Catholic convert and made a case of his devotion. The conversion of Orthodox Christians was a French cause under Louis XIV. Marcara was but one of several newly converted Catholic Armenians in Paris. In this period some Armenians had come or written from Safavid Persia to Louis XIV to offer their help in crusades against the Ottomans, a cause close to the aims of the dvots.9 That he had substantial support at court and from many aristocrats against the company speaks of how little priority the aristocracy put on French commerce as compared to religion. Under Franois Martin only a modicum of commerce with India began.10 Very quickly the bankrupted company had to be saved by the merchants of St. Malo. From 17061719 the company simply lent its name to their private trade. As the FREIC dissolved in 1719, the Malouin traders had established several factories on the Coromandel coast, Pondicherry, and Massulipatam. In Bengal they had factories in Hugli and Chandernagor. On the west coast Surat was abandoned for Calicut. In the year the 1664, the year the rst FREIC was formed, the future French hero of the Indian wars against the English, Dupleix, was born. He left for India at age twentyve, with the new East India Company, formed in 1722. The new company was more successful, but three decades later the French lost most of their Indian holdings to the English.11 Dupleix lived in India for thirty years, made brave but failed attempts at monopolies on the commerce of calicoes, called Indiennes, and fought the English at every turn for French commerce. He returned to France ruined. He died the year of the Treaty of Paris in 1763, which left India to the English. His life span, 16641763, was marked by the exact beginning and end of French commerce in India.12 Most Frenchmen in India had to fend for themselves, as the story of a ship surgeon for the new FREIC called Nicolas lEmpereur will show. Many Frenchmen ended up as mercenaries in the armies of local Maharajas, or as servants and soldiers for the Mughals. Despite all the difculties, the cultural inuence of this episode is signicant because of the works of French travelers; chiey remembered is the traveler Franois Bernier (16251688). Bernier was from Anjou; orphaned early, he studied in Paris. While serving as a secretary to the famous philosopher Gassendi (15921655), he studied medicine in Montpellier.13 He adopted Pierre Gassendis views on observation and skepticism. Gassendi aimed to reconcile Christianity with science. His inuence on many travelers of the time would be very important, as many of them allied Christian quests with scientic curiosity. As will be examined, Bernier became part of a network of travelers who shared common views. Many of the travelers under Louis XIV were doctors who had studied at Montpellier. Bernier served as a personal

106 Orientalism in Early Modern Francephysician to the Mughal emperor and had occasion to tour the country with the suite of Emperor Aurangzeb. A modern observer in line with the philosophy of his master Gassendi, Bernier noticed and recorded the peoples of India, and the manners, customs, institutions, and economy of various parts of India, including the economy of Bengal, and recorded them with some detail.14 His descriptions of the different regions of India were unparalleled, and his description of Kashmir was the rst in Europe. He was in correspondence with the new Academy of Sciences in Paris. In India he met two other travelers who left descriptions of India, Tavernier and Chardin. Although they were not mentioned in histories of the East India Company, these independent merchants in the India trade were also involved in Colberts project, as will become clear later. Often studied alone, Bernier, Chardin, Tavernier, and Jean and his uncle Melchisdec Thvenot all had interests in India as part of a network concerned with the collection of goods and information.

Huguenot Merchants in Asia and Their Ties to the CompanyJean-Baptiste Tavernier (16051689), Jean Thvenot, and Jean Chardin (16411712), each traveling independently, met in the early months of the year 1667 at Bandar Abbas, in Persia. There they had to nancially bail out the distressed representatives of Colberts new East India Company in Persia. The representatives had failed to get any concessions in Persia. Much like their unfortunate colleagues in India, they had arrived at the Shahs court without any money or gifts.15 Jean-Baptiste Tavernier was the most seasoned of the three. Tavernier was born in Paris in 1605.16 According to his biographer Charles Joret, his father Gabriel Tavernier was born in Antwerp. He ed from Antwerp to Paris in 1575, in order to avoid the Spanish Inquisitions persecution against Protestants. Tavernier was on his sixth trip to India as the FREIC was formed. Paradoxically, this Huguenot had rst been sent to India by the dvot faction, Richelieu and the Capuchin Pre Joseph in 1632. He stayed in Persia with the Capuchin Pacique de Provins, the rst ambassador to represent the France in Isfahan. The Capuchin missions often served as a French postal service in Asia, and the networks of missions had letters waiting for travelers. The object of Taverniers rst trip was to send reports home to Richelieu. There was talk of a crusade against the Ottomans with the Persians. Only his second trip in 1638 inaugurated his long career as a gem merchant on the routes of India. On his return from his fth trip, Tavernier sold Louis XIV some of the greatest diamonds in the world. By his sixth trip Jean-Baptiste Tavernier was also an ofcial merchant to the Shah of Persia, the Mughal emperor in India. On his sixth trip in 1664 he took with him a nephew, Pierre, the son of his brother Maurice, to establish local representation for his familys gem trade in New Julfa, the Armenian suburb of Isfahan, which was a hub for both the international silk and gem trades. On the occasion of this voyage, he was entrusted by the English resident with an important packet of letters for Surat,

Orientalism As Science 107which contained information on the outbreak of war in Europe, and it was stolen by the Dutch, blanks substituted in its place. The English in Surat were furious when they received the blanks and threatened Tavernier with assassination. Tavernier sent a strong protest against this Dutch treachery to Batavia. It would involve him in a life-long lawsuit. He wrote a venomous tract against the methods used in Dutch trade: The History of the Conduct of the Dutch in Asia. His hatred of the Dutch endeared him to Louis XIV. Throughout his work, the two groups he followed were the Dutch and the Armenians. He documented their trade, their methods, and their routes. It was through Tavernier, Thvenot, and some Capuchins that the court and Colbert had information about Asia beyond the Levant. Before the creation of Colberts FREIC, Jean Thvenot (16331667) was the rst to leave for the East that year, in October of 1663. He was on his second journey, and his account of the rst was being published through the auspices of his uncle, Melchisdec, as he started his second trip. A botanist and linguist, he had little in common with Tavernier and Chardin. He was there only to inquire and to study, not to acquire. He had a university education at the Collge de Navarre (now Ecole Polytechnique). When he met up with Tavernier, he had just returned from a years stay in India and had crossed the subcontinent on foot from Goconda to Surat. From there he sailed to Bander-Abbas where he met Tavernier and Chardin. He passed the summer of 1667 in Isfahan, where he was injured in the leg by an accidental pistol shot. He died from his wound on the way back to France, at the Armenian convent of Miyana on November 28. His legacy was not insignicant, as his uncle Melchisdec Thvenot (1620 1692) had immense inuence on the use made of travel accounts by the French court. Jean and his uncle, both orientalists, were from a wealthy family of the noblesse de robe, and their undertakings, although at the service of Louis XIVs court, were selfnanced. Melchisdecs lasting legacy was no less than the Academy of Sciences, an institution discussed at length below. Related to Colberts company, the academie was housed by Colbert, and texts like Augustin Beaulieus 1632 manuscript giving directions for the formation of a commercial company in the Indes orientales (referred to in the last chapter) were among the travel accounts that Melchisdec published for the rst time at his own expense. Melchisdec, with his work on travel and geography, was a strong proponent of the creation of the East India Company. The meeting of three of the most famous travelers of the time, Thvenot, Tavernier, and Chardin, in Persia was part of the many coming and goings related to gathering information for Colbert and the company of 1664. A closer examination proves that even the Huguenots Tavernier and Chardin were involved in the interests of Colberts company. Missionaries and Huguenots served the purposes of the company and their own. The lives and careers of Chardin and Tavernier were intertwined. Jean Chardin had been sent on a rst trip to Persia in 1665 by his father, Daniel Chardin, a prosperous Huguenot Parisian jeweler, and an associate of the Taverniers. In 1663, Daniel Chardin gave jewels to sell to his partner Jean-Baptiste Tavernier at the Safavid court in Isfahan. Selling jewels for high prot in Safavid Iran to get cash for

108 Orientalism in Early Modern Francebuying diamonds in Golconda was the object of this kind of gem trade. He was on his sixth trip to India via Persia at around the same time. At this point Taverniers and Daniel Chardins long business relationship had soured.17 It was a great loss, as Tavernier was now appointed an ofcial merchant to the Safavid Shah Abbas II (16421666). To replace Tavernier, who represented the Chardins, Daniels eldest son Jean entered the diamond trade in 1665 to represent his fathers interests. At age twenty Jean Chardin left for India accompanied by his fathers more seasoned partner, Antoine Raisin. During the 1660s, this Huguenot network was already ostracized from some aspects of social life in France but was very much involved in the Asian gem trade abroad. When Louis XIV declared that Protestants were excluded from the professions on April 3, 1666, two decades before the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, many Protestants might have desired to leave France.18 At this time Jean Chardins father was a shareholder in the new French Royal East India Company created in 1664.19 One cannot fail to notice that the moment his son Jean chose for a rst departure to India via Persia was only months after the inception of the French Compagnie royale des Indes. This is a rst clue to Jean Chardins ties to the French Company, and to French interests in trade in Asia. It begins to undermine the commonly held view that Chardins departure was a private venture. Chardin arrived a few months after the rst envoys of the company to Shah Abbass court. He actively helped the French company to obtain privileges in Persia, including the privilege of making wine in Isfahan.20 Chardin succeeded where the company had failed. Jean Chardin wrote on the drugs of les Grandes Indes on his return from his second journey (16711680). The manuscript long left unpublished was called Rponses Monsieur Cabart de Villarmont. It offers further clues that he was tied, albeit too indirectly for his own taste, to the interests of Colberts FREIC. It is Chardins only work on the Indes orientales, which in his day meant nearly all of Asia, with an emphasis on the Indian subcontinent, called les Grandes Indes; it included the Moluccas, China, and Japan. In contrast, all of his published work is devoted to Safavid Persia alone.21 The Rponses was a series of answers to a questionnaire given to Chardin in 1671. The questions had been given to him by a mysterious man in Paris. Throughout the document he refers to the man who questions him only as M**. He used M** for a certain Monsieur Cabart de Villarmont, whose name he kept a secret. This was a mission of intelligence for the FREIC, supervised by de Villarmont. Chardin was contacted directly by M** just before his departure for a second trip to Persia and India in 1671. During the boat ride home, Jean Chardin described for M** (de Villarmont), the properties, the prices, and the usage of tea and spices in Asia as drugs. He also investigated several manufacturing and naval techniques in China, India, Persia, and elsewhere in the Indes orientales. Some of these techniques, such as making porcelain, were still unknown in Europe. The request for information came from the commercial milieu around Colbert; yet, only during his ve-month

Orientalism As Science 109return journey on board a French company ship from Surat to France in 1680 did Chardin hastily respond to 107 questions he had kept for nine years.22 The only possible explanation is that upon his return from India he attempted to ingratiate himself to Louis XIV by providing information.23 His contact, Esprit Cabart de Villermont, was in charge of gathering commercial intelligence; he had previously been posted in Asia as lieutenant general to the king of Cayenne (Guyana).24 De Villermont gathered information about Asia and Eurasian trade and was in communication with the director of the FREIC, Boureau-Deslands. The Rponses are nothing short of a document of commercial intelligence about expensive trading goods for the usage of the factors sent to Persia and India by the FREIC. The answers to the questionnaire were jotted down in the hopes of a possible career in the FREIC.25 The manuscript answers offer not only a wealth of information on drugs and manufacture in Asia, but also on the sexual and eating habits of the peoples of the Indes orientales and of the Europeans living in Asia in the seventeenth century. Chardin described the Europeans living in India, whom he referred to as Europeans Indianizs [sic]. It was a rare source for this aspect alone.26 A glimpse of daily life in the Indies provided important information to inexperienced Frenchmen. Chardin resorted to cultural comparisons that did not always favor his native France. Chardin wished for better hygiene in France, as he discussed the chewing of spice, areca catechu, the betel nut, in India to clean and keep the mouth fresh-smelling. He wrote that many European women living in India imitated the habit of chewing the drugs caat and betel to excess. On the ship back to France he himself indulged in this habit on a daily basis, and he shared this habit with another passenger, an English lady. This anonymous lady was described in another passage devoted to the properties of what Chardin called buang, cannabis sativa, also called Hashish. M.** had asked, The herb that is called Manga in the Indies does it have such extraordinary effects that they are trying to make us believe here.27 The ladys experience with drinking its juice mixed with sugar and cinnamon was described by Chardin, as were views held locally in the Indies about cannabis. It was disdained by the Banians and common among the Muslims. Buang among the Banians, he wrote, was reserved for beggars and gens de nant (nobodies). Chardin did not offer to carry to Paris the usual sample he carried back to France of the other drugs. These samples demonstrate serious planning ahead despite the haste of his answers on the ship home. An entire four pages described tea. This form of precise information on a commodity is right next to an elaborate description of how the Dutch ladies of Batavia drank and prepared this beverage. It is followed by a startlingly long description of teapots. In his subsequent work on Persia, the Voyages, some of the passages of the Rponses included the sections on food in Persia and in the Ottoman empire, but this long passage on tea was entirely omitted. Between his description of 1680 in the Rponses and the printing of the 1711 Voyages, both tea and coffee were no longer rare. They had become relatively familiar products in Europe.28 Indeed,

110 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceChardin left Paris in 1671, and coffee had been introduced to the French court by the pseudo-Ottoman ambassador in 1669. Tea was exclusively distributed in France by the Dutch VOC since 1636.29 Both became vastly more common by 1680. Some of Chardins information was outdated. One of the main messages of the piece was that the climate of the Indies was unsuitable to Europeans. Chardins views on the all-importance of climate on the temperament and the body were shared by his contemporaries. Bodin, as discussed, held these views earlier. It was a systematic view that was considered scientic and was shared by many European doctors in the early modern period. The theories of the Greek doctor Galen (129c. 261) on climates and of the four humors is ever-present in Chardins description, but the Indian usage of the new spices to balance the humors was not acceptable to the doctors of the Sorbonne. In Galenic medicine, balance was restored only through inducing sweating or vomiting, or purging or bleeding; no new drugs were acceptable.30 Yet interest in Indian drugs was not new to Europe. More elaborate scientic works than Chardins on local medical practices through plants had been written by the Portuguese. The best known was the 1563 Coloquios dos simples, e drogas he cousas medicinais da India, published in Goa, India by Johannes de Endem by the Portuguese doctor Garcia da Orta (c. 14901570). In Goa he became wealthy as a personal physician at the service of Alfonso the Sousa. Chardins work was for merchants going to India. Yet the list of drugs he describes is the same one as in da Ortas work. Coincidence? Was this simply because the most popular drugs in India were the list they both chose, or did Chardin possess a copy? The famous Antwerp printer Plantin Moretus (15201589), who read and wrote six languages, had translated da Orta into Latin and printed his work, making it accessible. What is also similar is that the Portuguese work was in the form of a dialogue of questions and answers, which might cast serious suspicion on Chardin. Yet, questionnaires were an old Iberian technique, commonly used by missionaries. As we saw, the Frenchman Ramus advocated it for all travelers. There is little that is original about the questionnaire style. The Dutch used the method, as had the Portuguese before them, and made ample use of it commercially.31 Garcia da Orta had gathered names in Persian, Hindu, and Malay, and he looked at the impact of plants on the human body in medicine as practiced in Goa. He claimed that in Spain and Portugal he did not dare say anything against Galen, who used specic herbs. Printing his book in Goa brought him intellectual freedom. Indeed, it was one of the rst books printed in India. The transmission of Indian medical ideas through da Orta is important, as these were novel ideas in Europe. Chardin too adopted the view that new, exotic drugs could cure or balance the humors, which was unacceptable to the University of Paris.32 When Chardin was writing, the long quarrel about Galenic doctors in Paris and their colleagues in Montpellier was ongoing. The views of the Persian doctor Rhazes, or Al-Razi (860932?), had been part of the University of Montpelliers curriculum for a very long time, and its inuence made the use of many herbs and new drugs acceptable for curing disease. His Kitah al-hawi, translated as the

Orientalism As Science 111Comprehensive Book, was a compilation of Greek, Syrian, and early Arabic medicine and Al-Razis own notes. Some Indian medical knowledge was also part of the book that was the core of Montpelliers Faculty of Medicines curriculum. While Chardin rmly held the belief that living in India produced bodily changes for Europeanstransformations of sexual habits and of appetite caused by a climate that was not suitable for those born in Europehe was quick to dissipate the prejudices and extreme conclusions of M**, who asked: Is it true that the women of Europe lose their period after a year or two that they are in the Indies. Without even as much as a transition the next question came: Is it true that the dogs of Europe taken to the Indies lose their bark once living there after two or three years.33 The absurd questions, derived from texts about the climate of the New World, are next to questions seeking vital information on silk weaving and porcelain making in Asia. Although Chardin described porcelain making, his commercial espionage would bear no fruit. Porcelain would be described by the French Jesuits in China later in the eighteenth century, but their letters would come too late. As we will establish in this chapter, there was a pattern of not using any information coming from Asia, despite the efforts to gather it. In 1680 his answers to M** on the Indes orientales were not deemed worthy of being published in France. Chardin gave them to the FREIC companys writer Charpentier in the hope of publication. Although some scholars believe that the rest of Chardins work, which is on Persia, was also written by Charpentier, Van der Cruysse has established that this is not the case.34 If his commerce in precious stones and jewelry enriched him, it was his writing that insured his posterity. Nearly all of Chardins writing was published in London and Amsterdam, which could be attributed to his status as a Huguenot in exile, yet this is not entirely true.35 Chardins failure to publish the Rponses was perhaps not only due to his religion, but to competition from his fathers associate, Tavernier, now his enemy because of family litigation. Chardin was outdone by his rival Jean-Baptiste Taverniers publications four years before Chardin offered the Rponses to Louis XIV. Taverniers accounts were concerned with serious commercial information. The rst, Les six voyages de Jean Baptiste Tavernier, was published in Paris in 1676. It was nearly 1,300 pages of information on prices, routes and products, merchants groups, accounting, and climate. The two most successful groups in Asia, the Dutch and the Armenians, were thoroughly studied. In great contrast to many trades, the mechanisms of the gem trade, common to the Armenians and Huguenots, Tavernier kept to himself. Only after Taverniers commercial information had already been published did Chardin offer the Rponses and the engravings Guillaume-Joseph Grelot made of Persia as gifts to Louis XIV. The engravings, books, and samples of exotic spices brought as royal presents looked slim. Chardins main gifts to Louis XIV, some precious manuscripts acquired in the Orient for the royal library, did not have the same effect as Taverniers diamonds.36 Taverniers diamonds made him famous. In 1669 Louis XIV purchased from Tavernier a rough blue diamond from Golconda for the sum of 22,000 French louis

112 Orientalism in Early Modern France(147 kilograms of gold) along with forty-four other large diamonds and 1,122 smaller diamonds. The Golconda diamond became known as le bleu de la couronne de France and was a larger diamond later cut down to 68 carats by the kings jeweler. It was later reset by Louis XVs court jeweler in a pendant known as the Toison dor.37 The rare blue diamond passed from Louis XIV to Louis XV, and to Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette. During the nuit de Varennes, in June 1791, when she escaped the revolutionary mob and left Versailles with the king, her diamonds, part of the crown jewels, were given by Marie Antoinette to her hairdresser, Lonard. A self important man, Lonard was partly the cause of the failure of the famous escape as he unwittingly gave away the route. He seems not to have had much sense as he also handed the jewels over to a soldier, who was found murdered and empty-handed the next day.38 The Hope diamond, now at the Smithsonian, is believed to be the diamond reshaped, which resurfaced in 1830. India was the sole source of diamonds until the discovery of mines in Brazil in 1725. Louis XIV now had the best collection of gems in Europe. Tavernier was better known for his Indian diamonds, but his information on commerce was nevertheless important. Pierre Bayle informs us that Tavernier had forced the reluctant writer Samuel Chappuzeau into composing his travel accounts at great speed, as Tavernier promised his work delivered quickly to Louis XIV. The king became anxious to have the work, and it was impossible to refuse writing for the court.39 When Chardin docked in 1680, he was deeply irked by the great success of his rivals Six Voyages.40 Chardin left France dispirited by the lack of opportunity, as the climate toward Huguenots had hardened considerably just that year. Chardin left for a lonely exile, while Tavernier had been showered with every honor. He received letters of nobility from Louis on February 16, 1669, and purchased the barony of Aubonne, in the efdom of the counts of Gruyre, near Geneva. He wrote that his mountainous land reminded him of Erivan in Armenia.41 Like Thvenot before him, the wealthy baron died on the road. The Mercure galant announced his death in Moscow, at 79, where he had arrived in the heart of winter 1689; he died in July. In the 1697 edition of his Dictionnaire, Pierre Bayle not only wrote that Tavernier never really learned to speak French well and owed his books to someone else, he also called Tavernier a plagiarist. Bayle contended that Tavernier had included the work of Gabriel de Chinon in his own.42 Recently Francis Richard has further noticed the incorporation by Tavernier of the writings of the Capuchin of Raphal du Mans, who lived in Persia from 16471696.43 The many sources used by Chardin also make it amply clear that once in England his methods were not those of scientic observation alone. Yet, Chardin became a respected Orientalist with modern scientic ambitions.

Travel Accounts and Informing ScienceThe incorporation of previous travel accounts was a common method, and it did not disappear with the advent of scientic methods; the quarrels of the ancients

Orientalism As Science 113and moderns continued. Observation was key to the information being valid and useful not only to Colbert but to scientists across Europe collecting facts. Chardin explained that he kept a road diary, now lost, which he called his mmoire. The mmoire was a common source for both the Voyages and the Rponses. In the instructions given by Caron to members of the French Royal East India Company in May 1665, he advocated the best technique for keeping track of events and transactions: Keep a precise Journal of all that will occur on land and sea, even if it seems unremarkable.44 Ramuss early questionnaires for travelers, the Ars apodemicae, clearly had the merchants account book and road diary as a model. Writing daily in the journal also served as a cover. Jean Chardin explained that no one but his Armenian valet, Allahverdi, and his partner, Antoine Raisin, knew of Chardins profession. He passed himself off simply as a curious traveler.45 Upon his arrival in London, Jean Chardin immediately became part of the most prestigious scientic society formed in Europe. He received a visit from John Evelyn, Christopher Wren, and John Hoskins, who asked him to become a member of the Royal Society formed in 1660. The rst written trace of Chardins presence in London is his name, which is rst recorded in the minutes of the July 8 (or 18), 1680 meetings, in the Council Minutes of the Royal Society of London for Improving of natural Knowledge.46 It is within this learned society, devoted to science, that Chardin started his writing project on Persia in the seventeenth-century scientic tradition. There are, however, no traces in the minutes of his sharing his work as a presentation. As early as 1685 he was excluded from the society for nonpayment of dues, along with forty-seven fellow members, among them John Locke. The greatest inuence on his work came from his London contacts Robert Boyle47 and John Evelyn.48 He discussed his thoughts on Persia with other fellows such as Isaac Newton and Samuel Pepys, and it is documented that he participated in the new scientic tradition that was being elaborated on by the fellows of the recently founded Royal Society.49 Even if he did not frequent the Royal Society very assiduously, he was in close contact with its intellectual production. Chardins personal library in London contained many scientic works, among them no less than twentysix works by his friend Robert Boyle.50 His knowledge of exotic drugs, of Asian markets, and of the ora and fauna of the East Indies was unsurpassed in England. He also entered the service of the English East India Company to inform the English on Asian trade. Katie Whitaker has dened the culture of curiosity that tied the members of the Royal Society together. They collected and discussed wonders both natural and articial. Curiosi were aristocrats, gentlemen and aspiring gentlemen dispersed in their county homes in the summer, but converging on London in the winter where they attended the meetings of the Royal Society.51 There was a religious aspect to wonder; the Christian curious who observed the works of the Supreme Author.52 French orientalists, many of them followers of Gassendi, had similar views. Collections of rarities graced the houses and gardens and hothouses of the members of the

114 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceRoyal Society, and next to exotic plants and rare objects, monsters like a cat with six feet and two tails and two bodies joined at the mid-back were displayed in cabinets of curiosities. Whitaker described a Norwell physicians collection:The collection contained fossil shells, beautiful agates, and mathematical instruments, which included a telescope, two globes, and an ivory multiplication table. There was an Indian tomahawk and a Turkish scimitar, a Tooth brush from Mecca and a pair of gloves that had belonged to King James I Matters relating to the Romish Superstition, including a Surprizing Representation of the Trinity.53

Clearly this was a group within which the exiled Frenchman Chardin belonged. In his writings he regretted the negative attitude toward commerce he witnessed in Catholic France. Commerce was not the only motive he gave for this second journey of 16711680, which he portrayed as both a quest for religious and scientic truth in his preface of the 1711 edition. In his mind they were one, and he saw no dichotomy between them. He traded throughout the trip to support himself, and earned a good prot in the gem trade.54 Huguenots had an agenda of their own: a religious quest for truth in the Orient. Persia, land of the biblical Queen Esther, was a particular favorite. Chardin aimed to prove that Catholicism had corrupted the truth. He was going back to the sources of religion. In writing Notes sur divers endroits de lcriture Sainte, a work now lost, Chardin had clear orientalist prejudices, as dened by Sad: the Orient was unchanging. Therefore, if one traveled there, one could return to things as they were when Christianity began and reverse the corruption brought by Catholicism. This attitude was not born of imperialism, but of a quest for origins. Chardin clearly expressed this Christian curiosity in the preface to his 1711 edition and described clothing styles, according to him unchanged for centuries, as a clear example of this stability of the Orient across time. Chardin believed, as did his positivist contemporaries, that through observation, one could reach the truth. This search was very much in the line of the Huguenot corpus of American writing on Florida and Brazil, as studied by Lestringant, an encounter that led to the birth of modern history in the sixteenth century. For Protestants, observation remained only the hope for truth. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, science was born out of the encounter with the exotic, in the form of an increasingly scientized ethnography.55 Yet, the quest for origins still dominated much of scientic research, and the Bible further complicated the quest, even for Protestants. The famous debate between Grotius and Johan de Laet, the director of the Dutch East India Company, concluded that the Americans were from the Old World, otherwise it would mean there had been two Adams and Eves. Grotius proposed China as an origin for the American Indians, and Johan de Laet argued for an origin on Herodotuss Scythia. Father Lateau in his Moeurs des sauvages amriquains (1724) proposed Greece.56 The Old World was the reference for the new, but even the Old World was not well

Orientalism As Science 115known and was the subject of an intense curiosity. Europeans risked life and limb to describe the world beyond theirs. In the preface to the 1711 edition, Chardin also wrote that he was writing to satisfy the curiosit of ntre Europe. By 1694 the denition of curiosity had changed tremendously: Curiosity. s. f. Passion, desire, empressement, de voir, dapprendre, de posseder des choses rares, singulieres, nouvelles57 (a passion to learn about and to posses things new and rare) as opposed to Un homme curieux davoir, ou savoir choses antiques, Antiquarius (a man curious of things from antiquity, antiquarian) in the Thresor de la langue franaise of 1606.58 The new denition demonstrates a desire for the novel, the exotic. The word curieux had the connotation of collecting rare novelties and studying them through scientic inquiry.59 As Paul Hazard put it long ago, Chardin was a pioneer, the most obtuse of readers has to see that he saw over there, very far away in Asia, were people who were not inferior to him in any way, even if their lives were different from his own. To the notion of superiority familiar to him, he substituted that of diversity. What a psychological difference!60 Despite the fact that Chardins services were rejected in France, knowledge of the world was considered a precious commodity, and France would imitate England in creating its own Academy of Sciences. Anthony Grafton has emphasized that it was no longer believable that reading the texts of antiquity would illuminate the truth. He gives the example of a highly educated Jesuit who crossed the equator and wrote: What could I do but laugh at Aristotles Meteorology and his philosophy? For in that place and that season, where everything, by his rules, should have been scorched by the heat, I and my companions were cold.61

Orientalism and the Birth of the Academy of SciencesThe creation of the Academy of Sciences in France in 1666 was closely tied to previous contacts with Asia, as the study of travel and geography were at its inception. More than a century after the royal chairs were established by Francis I, all secular knowledge in France continued to be shaped and inuenced by Orientalism. Royal sponsorship at the Collge du Roi, which started with oriental languages and the birth of science, were closely related in France. The French Academy, created to compete with the Florentine Academia del Cimento and Englands Royal Society of 1660, maintained a correspondence with scholars across Europe, especially with the Royal Society. It would not nd room in the closed minds of the professors of the Sorbonne, but would thrive under royal sponsorship rst in private houses and later at the Collge du Roi and the Jardin du Roi, where chemistry would rst be established as a chair. Orientalism has not been considered an important element in the shaping of French science. Yet, the birth of the rst French royal scientic academy in 1666 and the rst academic journal a year later are closely intertwined with Frances intensied

116 Orientalism in Early Modern Francecross-cultural contacts and court-sponsored Orientalism. The scientic academy was rst founded in the Bibliothque Royale, a library rich in oriental manuscripts and travel accounts. In the seventeenth century, many French botanists, merchants, jewelers, and missionaries wrote travel accounts. The information travelers brought from Asia was considered to be new knowledge. So many accounts were written and not published or studied, that Melchisdec Thvenot, Jean Thvenots uncle, attempted a compendium of travelers in the manner of Purchase and Hakluyt in England. He never wrote anything himself. Some erroneously believed that he authored a pioneering book on the art of swimming, but it was a translation of Sir Edvard Digbys 1587 De arte natandi (The Art of Swimming) from Latin into French as a pedagogical tool for Colberts maritime companies. Melchisdec Thvenots contribution was the creation of the French Academy of Sciences in 1666.62 He was named guard of the Bibliothque Royale, which left him ample time to indulge in his love of rare travel books and manuscripts. Thvenot admired England and the Royal Society created in 1660. It was the assemblies he held with a few friends that gave rise to the Royal Academy of Sciences, founded by Louis XIV. There were other groups meeting at that time, such as Bourdelots academy, built on weekly conversations, or Rohault Cartesian Wednesday meetings. Montmors academy of 1663, with Samuel Sorbire as its secretary, had huge ambitions, but most of the meetings were wasted on bickering. Thvenot tried to create a professional group and provided his own nances. His ambitions were rst embodied in a Compagnie des Sciences et des Arts, which he founded with the astronomers Azout and Petit in 1664.63 Prior to that Thvenot had held many meetings in his own house in Paris and in Issy. The French Royal Academy of Sciences, a company created in August with funding from Colbert, was in imitation of the Royal Society of London. On December 22, 1666, the new company met for the rst time at rue Vivienne in the kings library. It decided to meet on Wednesdays to discuss mathematics and on Saturdays to discuss physics.64 In the inaugural meeting the Danish anatomist Niels Stensen presented in French his Discours sur lanatomie du cerveau. It was considered a major break-through in understanding the brain. It compared the brain to a machine. This mechanical way of thinking about the body in the wake of Descartess philosophy would be central to many French physicians for their new research in the next century. Until 1699 the new acadmie had no formal regulations. As Roger Hahn puts it: It was the general expectation that the shedding of words for deeds, the abandonment of authority in favor of experimentation, would yield immediate and tangible results.65 The Royal Library became a formal center. Unlike the informal gatherings in private houses that had preceded it, from its inception it was clear that the royal academy played a consulting role for the imperial aims of the court. The rst conquest was aimed at the many regions of France itself, and the academy was in charge of measuring and documenting French territory, a task completed only after the large Napoleonic surveys were conducted with

Orientalism As Science 117the tools of questionnaires and statistics.66 The mapping of Frances own territory and the problem of longitude for sea voyages, hydraulic systems for fountains, and machines to do human tasks were among its rst projects.67 The rst scholarly journal ever published in France, the Journal des Savants, was published by this new Academy of Sciences the year after it was created.68 The Academy of Sciences was to receive royal funding, only clearly traceable since 1690 by Alice Stroup in the archives.69 Protected and overseen by Colbert until his death in 1683, then by the Marquis de Louvois; the kings scientists only received the visit of the king once, in 1681 on Colberts insistence.70 Louis XIV invited two celebrities, the Dutch mathematician Christiaan Huygens and the Italian Jesuit, later naturalized French, Jean Dominique Cassini. These two stars of the academy were highly paid to mark the prestige of the new academy; they had their own rooms, servants, and a coach and horse, and Huygens was known for his parties.71 Below them in the strict hierarchy of the academy were working members, natural philosophers, anatomists, botanists, chemists, geometers, astronomers, mechanicians, and permanent secretaries. All of them were modestly paid, but crucial to the functioning of the academy. Well below them were the students, who were badly paid or not paid at all and whose path of advancement was a matter of incertitude.72 Not all members were Catholic; religion was not an issue. The death bed conversion of its rst chemist, Samuel Cottereau Duclos (15981685), was a sign of the times as the Edict of Nantes had made it a necessity. Many members held a teaching appointment either at the Collge du roi or at the Jardin du roi. A third of its members also held political appointments.73 The academy was rst housed in several houses belonging to the Colbert family, but the king paid for the transformations involved in building laboratories and gardens. The scientists controlled and maintained the garden, which served for botany, meteorological experiments, and astronomical observations. Cassini complained that the polluted skies of Paris hampered his progress in astronomy. The new laboratory, used day and night, became the focus of the academy.74 Yet, dissections, and even more disturbingly, vivisections, were done in the library, the heart of the academy, tting a table with straps to conne live subjects. Exotic animals from the kings menagerie, his new zoo at Versailles, were sent after their deaths to the kings scientists for examination. Alice Stroup describes how the stench of the operations and the horror of clean-up were sanitized with enormous amounts of alcohol, eau de vie, in the library, until Cassini, greatly annoyed by the odor, as were readers, banned all the operations from the library.75 The academy collected travel accounts and had a vast correspondence with travelers. Melchisdec Thvenot received many letters from Bernier, for example, answering the questions he sent to India. The academy supported travelers by providing the many drugs necessary for some travelers to maintain their health on their journeys. Jean Richer received the drugs recommended for his trip to Cayenne.76 In doing so it clearly followed the medical views of Montpellier. Many members traveled for their

118 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceresearch, the rst among them a botanist, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (16561708), who traveled to collect for science.

The Jardin du RoiJoseph Pitton de Tournefort became one of the rst directors of the Jardin du Roi after he took trips across Europe and in the Ottoman empire, Persia, Armenia, and Georgia to collect plants for science. He was born in the city of Aix and studied with the Jesuits. After two years collecting plants, he studied medicine at the Faculty of Medicine in Montpellier. Montpellier looms large in the history of French herbal gardens. The Jardin du roi was modeled on the garden in the University of Montpellier. Located close to the rst European herbal gardens in Padua, created in 1542, Montpellier beneted from the knowledge of many students and professors with international ties to Italy and to northern Europe. It had the rst institutional herbal garden in France, although many private gardens collecting simples predated it. The University of Montpellier had a medical school that was inuenced by oriental medicine. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (9801037) and Al-Razi (Rhazes) (865925) were on the curriculum. Al-Razi had amended Galens idea by introducing experimentation with the use of liquids and new drugs. For the new drugs a garden of simples was needed. Traditionally under the archbishop of Montpellier, the university remained much more open to foreign ideas than did its counterpart in Paris. It was also more tolerant and open to Protestants even during the religious wars. Felix Platters diary and Emmanuel Le Roy Laduries work on the Platters has made the universitys religious tolerance famous. Felix left his familys garden to travel on donkey back to Montpellier to study plants and medicine with Guillaume Rondelet. On his way he saw Protestants like himself crucied and burned in Lyon and other French towns. His letters to his father tell of his fright that it might be his own fate in France. Montpellier was not free of atrocities committed in the name of religion, but it was a haven compared to most towns. Felix, who lived above an apothecarys shop, witnessed turpentine being purchased to fuel res that were not burning fast enough to burn some Calvinists. Felix Platter, one of Montpelliers best known students, did not become as famous as many of his classmates, who created the science of botany.77 The Platters were private collectors. A private curiosity cabinet sometimes became the basis of a universitys collection; such was the case of the University of Bologna. It received the collection of Ulisse Aldrovandi (15221607), the director of the universitys botanical garden. According to Paula Findlen, his herbarium is the rst collection deserving the name of museum. His work was of great signicance for the development of French natural science at a later date. In the sixteenth century, the papacy, Portugal, and Spain ruled the world and had easy access to its treasures, and along with the Italian cities they were the foremost centers of collecting. Philip IIs support of Francisco Hernandz de Toledo, who spent six years in Mexico gathering

Orientalism As Science 119ora and fauna, and his botanical garden in the Escorial, were royal commissions that demonstrate collecting nature as clearly tied to imperial power. However, Paula Findlens work has shown that the story of Europes early herbal collections, and that of its early cabinets of curiosities, is a story of individual collections.78 In the seventeenth century physicians associated with the trading companies would travel and form worldwide networks with merchants, but earlier collectors were often sedentary and bought plants sent to them by others. In France there were the collections of Pre du Molinet in Paris, and most famously the collections and garden of Pereisc in Aix en Provence.79 Nicholas Claude Fabre de Pereisc is remembered by the name he gave to a species of American cactus plants: Perekia. Networks of merchants, travelers, scientists, members of commercial companies, and at times government ofcials were involved in gathering exotic plants, in describing them as a rst classication system that gave rise to the science of botany.80 Paula Findlen quotes the rst holder of a chair of natural history, Giuseppe Gabrielli (14941553) at his inaugural speech in 1543 as deploring the unhappy decadence of our times that led the princes not to support naturalists and physicians and to shun the study of nature. The rulers of Ferrara were innovators and exceptional in their support of the study of plants.81 Late in the sixteenth century a succession of Hapsburg emperors in Prague and Vienna invited the best naturalists of Europe. In France Henri IVs very early support of Olivier de Serres and the garden at Montpellier and its naturalists was therefore exceptional for a monarch and only had an equivalent in Spain. A rst garden in Montpellier had disappeared, and it was rebuilt under Henri IV. In his Thtre dAgriculture, Olivier de Serres (15291619) wrote: The medical garden, that by the kings orders was reconstructed in Montpellier, by Monsieur Richier de Belleval, physician to the king and professor of anatomy and botany in the university of the town [he] has lled it with simples and medicinal herbs of all kinds both domestic and foreign.82 Simples was the name for medicinal herbs, and save for private gardens, the 1593 the garden in Montpellier was the rst to grow them. De Serres went on to give the name of each plant, organizing them as simples dOrient and simples dOccident, showing the large presence of foreign plants.83 The arrival of exotic simples from abroad and collecting was often the inspiration of medical gardens and the collections of simples. Possession of the exotic had close ties to the birth of science, as Paula Findlen has shown in her study of sixteenthcentury collecting. Under Louis XIII, the kings Catholic zeal caused the destruction of Frances best herbal garden at Montpellier. A modest royal medicinal garden was originally planted by Guy de La Brosse (c. 15861641), Louis XIIIs personal physician, in 1626. It functioned as Pariss medicinal herb garden. The edict for the creation of an herb garden for the Collge du Roi, one century after the rst chairs were created, is dated 1635. The project was predictably opposed by the Sorbonne, which did not believe in botany. The garden was part of the Collge du Roi and courses were open

120 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceto all. Radical new ideas like the circulation of the blood by Harvey were freely discussed in the courses. A hundred years after its creation of the Collge du Roi for the teaching of oriental languages, the Jardin du Roi was to bring Paris radical scientic transformations, with the creation of chairs in the new sciences of botany and chemistry. Under patronage of Richelieu, Guy de la Brosse, the kings physician, became the rst instructor of the Jardin du Roi. Harold Cook describes that he was not only an excellent botanist but an excellent (Paracelsian) chemist, teaching both at the Jardin du Roi.84 This would be the rst instruction in chemistry in France. Paracelsuss ideas were banned by the Sorbonne. In the very same year the garden was decreed, 1635, the rst book describing the owers of Canada appeared. It was signed by a man who never left France, Jacques Philippe Cornuty. It inaugurated American botany in France and predated John Jocelyns famous 1672 book on the plants of British America by nearly forty years. The rst part of Cornutys work was devoted to the plants of Canada, although scholars disagree on whether they were all from French Quebec, or generally from the North American mainland. The second part was a description of the plants around Paris. The author evoked those Moderns who without being intimidated by extraordinary perils have crossed oceans to discover new lands. The book continued to be a teaching tool for botanical demonstrations in the Jardin du Roi and at the sites described by Cornuty for another century and a half.85 Cornutys book used the classications of Matthaeus Lobelius (15381616), who studied medicine in Montpellier. Fanatically patriotic and proud of being Flemish, Lobelius stressed in his writings that Flanders had given the best minds to Europe. Nevertheless, as a persecuted Protestant he left Flanders to become physician to King James I in London. The process of systematic classication of the worlds ora and fauna that began in Europe in the 1500s has been called possessing nature, the naming of names. Marie Louis Pratt has placed nascent botany squarely within a history of Europes imperial dominance of the rest of the world.86 The French and Flemish had a central role. Lobeliuss classication of plants was only superseded much later by the French botanist Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, whose ideas were adopted and elaborated on by Carl Linnaeus. Montpelliers Flemish students, Felix Platters classmates, were major contributors to this classication and the nascent science of herbalism, later called botany. Major botanists, Clusius, Rembert Dodens, and Lobelius were all the Flemish students of one man in Montpellier: Guillaume Rondelet (15071566). Clusius Charles de lEcluse (15261609) is remembered for his introduction of tulip bulbs, which led to a nancial frenzy on the stock market of Amsterdam, called tulipomania.87 The tulip was only one of many new bulbs coming to Europe from les Indes. Lobeliuss work showed how herbals were trying to keep up with the ow of exotic new plants coming to Europe. In his 1576 Plantarum seu stirpium historia, there are more than forty new bulbous plants, most of them from the markets of the Levant, such as narcissi, crocus, alliums, lilies, erythromium, and colchicums.88 Although it was the gardens of Louis XIV that showcased them, oriental simples and bulbs reached

Orientalism As Science 121France much earlier. The scholars working on Cornutys plants of Canada also concluded that most of the American plants reached France before 1627. The Jardin du Roi (today the Jardin des Plantes), always under the directorship of a graduate from Montpellier, grew in importance under Louis XIV; Joseph Pitton de Tourneforts description of this journey was published as Relation dun voyage du Levant.89 He collected over one-thousand three-hundred plants for the Jardin du Roi from the Ottoman empire, Armenia, Georgia, and Persia. He was especially interested in Mount Ararat, where Noahs ark had landed, as he believed the origin of all things must have started there after the ood. Looking forward to a lush garden, disappointed by its aridity, he called the arid mountain crowned with snow une montagne horrible. Pitton de Tournefort was protected by the queen. In 1683, Fagon, Louis XIVs doctor, had appointed Tournefort as the queens doctor, and it is through her protection that he became the director of the Jardin du Roi. De Tournefort gave the reason for his mission in Asia, assigned by the Comte Ponchartrin, who now headed the Academy of Sciences, as observation. He had to observe (tre attentif ) to anything that could further science. Ponchartrin had suggested to Louis XIV the departure abroad of the best observers in order to collect information on natural history, ancient and modern geography, but also anything regarding the commerce, religion and mores of the people inhabiting these lands.90 His travel account is a geographical and social description of Greece, Anatolia, Armenia, and Georgia with a description of its people and with a close eye on the quarrels among the Armenians and the French missionaries trying to covert them. Like most French travelers he was in charge of gathering information not only on ora and fauna but on the Christians in Asia. Ironically, after returning from his dangerous journey he was killed by a carriage in Paris while distractedly crossing the street, now Rue de Tournefort. Joseph Pitton de Tourneforts system of classifying plants, immortalized by Linnaeus, was based on the form of the corolla. Of permanent importance, and still accepted today, were the clear distinctions de Tournefort made between genus and species, and the exhaustive analyses of genera, which he was the rst to draw up and illustrate. Tournefort expounded on this system in his Elments de botanique (1694). After de Tourneforts accidental death Antoine de Jussieu succeeded de Tournefort as director of the royal garden. While director of the Jardin du Roi, Jussieu received several exceptional exotic treasures. Two were extraordinary: one was a live coffee plant, the global consequences of which we will examine at length in the second part of this book. The other remained buried until it was recently unearthed by Kapil Raj.91 Raj found a forgotten fourteen-volume herbal made and sent from India to Antoine de Jussieu: Botanical Elements of the Plants in the Garden of Orixa, Their virtues and Qualities, Both Known and unknown with their Flowers, Fruits and Seeds, Translated from the Oriya into French.92 Held at the Muse dHistoire naturelle in the Jardin des Plantes, twelve of the fourteen volumes contain 725 double-folio paintings and 722 plant descriptions. The remaining volumes contain the names of plants in French with

122 Orientalism in Early Modern Francean index of each plant, their vernacular names transcribed, followed by their medical and economic uses. The following is a summary of what Raj has found. The FREICs ship surgeon, by the grand name of Nicolas lEmpereur, hoped he could solve the issue of the high mortality faced by the French in India. Indeed, of the 120,000 Frenchmen who had sailed to the Indies, 35,000 died during the voyage alone. To solve the crisis, once in India, lEmpereur planned to buy all the books that the people here have and nd out how they use them. I plan to translate them into French so that we know all the cures, great and small that are as yet unknown to Europeans.93 In the same letter, he complained to his friend Gabriel Devigne, head of the Catholic Socit Mission Etrangres in Paris, that the French in India were poor, while the English thrived. While he worked in Chandernagore in 1706, the largest French factory, lEmpereur started his correspondence with Antoine de Jussieu, reporting on the English and their successes and promising him that he would spare no effort to send all that is curious. LEmpereur was not the rst to attempt this. We described Chardins feeble efforts; Raj discusses the trading networks that Garcia da Orta, a medical doctor at the service of the Portuguese governor, had to penetrate to gather his materia medica for the book he would publish in Goa. The gem trade and the spice trade brought da Orta his Asian partners, who then gave him knowledge of local plants and medicine. LEmpereur relied on the same networks as da Orta.94 The tie between the French Royal East India Company, the Jardin du Roi, and the Socit Mission Etrangres becomes crystal clear in lEmpereurs contacts. The Dutch VOC had long used its physicians to collect information on the plants of Asia and had used it to their advantage. The story of the treasure he sent to Antoine de Jussieu to save the French from death in the Indes orientales, as told by Raj, is worth retelling as it is a clear instance of how, in great contrast to what was done by the Dutch, information gathered abroad was ignored in France. Nicolas lEmpereur tells the story of the immense task he undertook to record and classify the plants of India. To pay for all this, he set himself in private trade and sold uncut emeralds from South America in India. He met two fakirs, who, against alms, would tell him of the properties of the plant. LEmpereur employed an army of gardeners and painters at his own expense. He established trade links with merchants as far way as Nepal, and since some of the plants he received were unknown to his fakir partners, he started experimenting with patients both European and South Asian. Chandernagore, where lEmpereur was posted, was a major trading post, and he had access to the hundreds of painters who worked for the calico market, whose expertise in drawing owers completed his description of the simples. Kapil Raj offers the hypothesis that some, but certainly not all, of the paintings were copied from the Dutchman Van Reeds Hortus Malabaricus, which had appeared a few years before lEmpereur started. All the material was not in the Oriya language, and there are many Tamil names. Despite the possible use of preceding sources, there seems to be little doubt in Rajs mind that this was lEmpereurs achievement, as he ruined both his health and his fortune nishing it. Started in Orissa in 1690, the fourteen-volume

Orientalism As Science 123work was completed in Bengal and shipped to Paris, to the Academy of Science, in 1725. LEmpereur also included a wonder remedy for epilepsy, which he sent as a gift. The volume and the drug arrived safely in the hands of Antoine de Jussieu.95 Nicolas lEmpereur heard nothing after the arrival of his magnum opus in Paris. He had spent a lifetime and every penny he had earned on compiling the volumes, and after losing his position in the company was reduced to begging. After a couple of unanswered letters to Antoine de Jussieu, lEmpereur sent complaints about him to whomever he knew in Paris. As the botanical expert to the French company, Jussieu was well aware that the Dutch had a monopoly on the spices of the Indies and had gained much through botanical knowledge. His disinterest was not a disinterest in the competition for knowledge or spices; rather it was, according to Raj, a disdain for the importance of the kind of work accomplished by Nicolas lEmpereur. Yet, Antoine de Jussieus writings show that he believed there was a place for correspondence with botanists and doctors in foreign lands, but it was to improve medical knowledge and an understanding of the ora within Europe. Both men only saw the utility of knowledge about exotic things for Europe alone. Jussieu erroneously wrote that, only thanks to such work done in foreign lands, it became clear that the exotic remedy ipecacuahana was nothing but the common violet, found abundantly on French soil. This was not what Nicolas lEmpereur had hoped for; he wanted the French to conquer diseases in the Indies through local drugs so that they could conquer the markets for their exotic imports, as had the Dutch.96 It may be further argued that the writings of Jussieu and lEmpereur show that the two men at the service of science had totally different worldviews. Like Linnaeus in Sweden after him, Antoine de Jussieu was stubbornly obsessed with nding cheaper domestic substitutes for the expensive exotic imports in demand on French markets, in order to protect French markets against foreign imports. Jussieu, like many economic thinkers, thought that the foreign commodities in French markets were a danger to Frances prosperity. Contrasting views were often found between European factors in India and the domestic policies of men at home. Jussieu was not as keen on commerce as lEmpereur was.97 Unlike the Dutch and English, in French views, save for the Huguenots, commerce was regarded as a very low occupation and not a very noble goal. In France, this dichotomy between desire for the exotic and forming trade and intellectual barriers against it had deep roots in French political economic thought, an issue that will be examined in the last chapters of this book. Scientic knowledge was gathered at great cost worldwide and served Louiss new institutions such as the Academy of Sciences far more than it served overseas expansion. The cultural impact of the information gathered were long-standing within France. A notable curieux, a member of Aixs parliament, Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc (15801637), devoted his entire life to collecting books and curiosities from abroad. He organized two trips in order to acquire singularities for his cabinet of curiosities, books, manuscripts, vases, mummies, chameleons, and crocodiles. His library had a vast collection of orientalist works and travel accounts. The city of Aix was

124 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe administrative center for the French commercial in the Levant. Marseilles, the port for oriental products, was often Perseics center of attention. His face tuned toward the sea, the impatient administrator expected his treasures from the markets of Cairo. There was no commerce of antiquities to speak of; mummies, obelisks, vases, statues, and manuscripts arrived packed with little care by the spice traders from Alexandria. The Egyptian objects arriving in France were simply part of the bulk commerce of Marseilles. Many precious objects were destroyed in transit. For example, the Sarcophage of Mykerinus, proprietor of the third pyramid of Giza, fell to the bottom of the sea. Peiresc was the proud owner of two Egyptian mummies. Claude Saumaise (15881653), another curieux, had acquired the Epistles of Saint Paul in Arabic. Packed with pepper, mace, and clove, lost in lists of hundreds of drugs, spices, plants, medals, and antiquities of Egypt, the precious manuscripts longed for by Peiresc and Saumaise were not the object of any inventory, they were listed as good for the public. A Coptic manuscript Peiresc offered to the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1602 1680) began the long process in France of the deciphering of hieroglyphs. Under Napoleon, when Jean Franois Champollion (17901830) famously broke the code of hieroglyphs with the Rosetta stone, he did it with the help of a manuscript that Peiresc had given Kircher, the 1636 Coptic Forerunner (Prodromus Coptus).98 Hieroglyphs played a large role in this Jesuits search for a universal pictorial language to convert the world. A biography of Peiresc redresses the erroneous idea that the tie between Coptic and the Hieroglyphs was established by the famous Jesuit.99 Together with Saumaise, the Jesuit worked for Peiresc. The rumor that the famous Jesuit, who is better remembered than his patron, abused of Peirescs sponsorship may be misleading. The Jesuits work was marred by fabrications, forgeries, and fantasy.100 Peirescs intellectual biography presents him as a scholar with exquisite taste and a good eye for Egyptian esthetics and style. Far from being the only collection in the region, he asked his network of purveyors about what everyone else, such as the treasurer of Lyon or other Provenal collectors, was collecting. The quest for things Egyptian was not merely a matter of style; much was dependent on what Europe perceived as its own role in the world and as its own past, what it accepted as its own, or saw as exotic.101 The constant view that the past was a foreign country in the European quest for origin changed over time, with Greece imposing itself with unprecedented ubiquity during and after the French Revolution.102 The quest for the key to hieroglyphs was just one aspect of early Egyptology. Peirescs disappointment in Athanasius Kirchers scholarship on hieroglyphs should not eclipse the Jesuits substantial scholarly contributions to the study of Egypt and China. Of his forty books, the one that is best remembered is his early description of China. Passages from it would color European intellectual production on China into the late-nineteenth century. It was translated into French during his lifetime and had immense impact in France. The Jesuits work on China, China illustrata, was translated into French in 1670. It would be quoted for centuries to come.103

Orientalism As Science 125

The Jesuits in China under the Starry Mantle of AstronomyIn the nineteenth century, the poet Chateaubriand called the Jesuits sent to China by Louis XIV in 1685 les mathmaticians du roi. The term has stuck. Frances relationship with China attracted the attention of a slew of intellectuals. Leibniz, Voltaire, and Quesnay are but a few of the writers who integrated the narratives of China left by the Jesuits into their own intellectual production. The Jesuits realized they dealt with a culture older than Europes they could not simply dismiss. The rst work left by the 1685 the expedition was father Le Comtes Nouveaux mmoires sur lestat de la Chine, published in 1696, which was condemned by the Sorbonne in 1700. It would become part of the well-known collection of Jesuit letters, Lettres diantes et curieuses, published in 1702, which contained a number of the letters written by the ve mathematicians. Philosophers like Montesquieu turned to another compendium made by Father du Halde, which recycled some of the same Jesuit publications. The ve Jesuits sent by Louis XIV arrived in China in February 1688. They were not the rst French Jesuits to reach China; the way had been opened to them by a French Apostolic vicar in the 1660s. A century before that, the Portuguese had sent the rst Jesuits to China. Louis XIV had no right to send missionaries to Asia because of the religious monopoly of Padroado, and what he did has been called an expedient by historians of this episode.104 Louis sent the Jesuit mission as scientists part of the Royal Academy of Sciences. With the exception of Father le Compte, Fathers Fontenay, Bouvet, Gerbillion, and Visdelou all were inducted into the Academy of Sciences only a few days before their departure. In March 1685 the ship lOiseau boarded the ve Jesuits and Father Taschard. Aboard there also was the orientalist Abb de Choisy, in the personal suite of the rst French ambassador to Siam, the Chevalier de Chaumont.105 This embassy to Siam was the consequence of relations opened since 1662 by French missionaries with Phra Nara, the king of Siam. The detailed story of these missions and relations with Siam have been marvelously told by Dirk Van der Cruysse in a series of in-depth works.106 Frances access to Siam and China was through French Apostolic vicars put in charge of all of Asia by the pope. The Propaganda Fide created by the pope in 1622 to reconvert Protestants in Europe and heathen populations was adamant about distancing itself from any national goals in Asia, especially those of the Portuguese. Rome trained native priests, such as the wealthy Brahman of Diwar, known as Matteo Castro de Mahalo, who left Rome after his training at the Propaganda Fide to preach in Goa. The papacy, suspicious of the Iberians, turned to France, a country without any empire in Asia, to have French missionaries carry out the goals of the Propaganda. This idea was conveyed to the Vatican by a French Jesuit, Alexandre de Rhodes (15911660), who created the rst church in Tonkin in 1652. He had come back to France to ask for royal support to create new French missions in Asia. He failed and turned to private funding. A group of missionaries called les bons amis met with Rhodes in Paris and volunteered. They left for Rome with Rhodes in 1657 and

126 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceproposed that French money fund missionaries to aid Apostolic vicars for the pope. This would promote Christian rule over Asia and the popes hold over missions. Alexander VII (r. 16551667) accepted after some hesitation. He divided Asia into three regions, each under an Apostolic vicar: China, Cochin China, and Tongking. All three vicars were to train secular priests in a center in Paris to serve under them in Asia. The funding obtained by Rhodes was responsible for the creation of the Socit des Missions trangres, in charge of providing training both for secular priests and missionaries destined to go to Asia after 1664.107 Two of the Apostolic vicars were French. With the center in Paris, Rhodes had managed to move the Jesuits under the French ag. Rhodes resented the fact that our good French folk let foreigners grow rich in the India trade.108 The model had already been set by the Portuguese. Siam and China became accessible through Alexandre de Rhodess efforts and those of the French Apostolic vicars; Franois Pallu, otherwise know as Mgr. dHeliopolis (Balbek), had gone as far as Funjian accompanied by two missionaries. After the declaration of the Gallican Church in 1682, Louis XIV demanded that the vicars who depended on the pope pay him direct homage. By the time Jesuit mathematicians were leaving for Siam, Chateaubriand was right; in Louiss views the Jesuits served the king.109 Louis XIVs absurd notion that he was sending the French Jesuits to convert Phra Nara, the elderly king of Siam, to Catholicism, needs to be reiterated. The Siamese relationship had brought Paris the rst real Asian embassy from anywhere, the contrived Ottoman visit of 1669 notwithstanding. A Siamese delegation came to Louis XIVs court in 1684. The French Siamese relationship was built on different but mutual illusions. By all accounts the relationship that cemented the diplomatic tie with Siam was the common interests between the Jesuit Father Taschard and Constantin Phaulkon, the Greek prime minister to Phra Nara (King Mongkut).110 When the French arrived, the Greek prime minister was at the pinnacle of his power and was in control of Siams foreign policy. Constantine Hierax came from the Greek island of Cephalonia, the son of an innkeeper, yet Father Taschard wrote that the Ionian Greek was the son of a governor of Cephalonia, and his mothers forebears governed the island under the republic of Venice. Van der Cruysse has unmasked Father Taschards genealogical fabrications of the Greeks identity as an accommodation to suit French views on class. In reality Phaulkon was a self-made man. A linguist and a merchant turned into an entrepreneur who became a diplomat by sheer accident. The French were welcome, as they did not have an empire and were not suspected of ill will. Phaulkon feared for his own fate, and once the old king passed away, he dreamed of an allegiance with a power other than the powerful Dutch. He spoke Latin to the Jesuits, and he knew no French but spoke Greek, Siamese, English, Malay, and Portuguese. Father Taschard was convinced by Phaulkon that it was only a matter of time before the king of Siam converted to Catholicism. In turn, Taschard, told Phaulkon that a French army would come if there was a revolution in Siam.111 Yet, when the French ambassador wanted to give his speech about joining the two crowns of Siam and

Orientalism As Science 127France under Catholicism, the Greek prime minister was adamant about skipping the passages stressing conversion.112 The discomforts of protocol, such as lying prostrated face down in front of the emperor, the elephants on their silk cushions, and the shock of the exotic have been retold in detail by Dirk Van der Cruysse. In the end the FrancoSiamese relations failed miserably, but they were, as had so many failures before them, to leave a cultural mark and produce the most profuse literature; thousands and thousands of pages were written about eeting contacts made by France. In the 1688 embassy to Siam there was a highly amboyant and ambitious orientalist, who has left his memoirs, edited by Van der Cruysse.113 Franois-Timolon de Choisy was a mandarin because of his learning and androgynous because of his mothers upbringing. Born the last child of an ambitious courtier, his mother raised Franois under Mazarins watchful eye as Louis XIVs younger brother Philippes playmate. Their father had nearly lost his throne to his own brother Gaston, so Mazarin decided that Monsieur, as Louiss brother Philippe was called, should grow up too rened and effeminate to create political problems for France. Since their tender infancies both Franois and Philippe were treated and dressed as precious little girls. Franois Timoleons entre at court with his playmate Monsieur gave him a very high rank, so high that as an adult the Abb de Choisy, as he was known, could afford to go to mass dressed as a bejeweled and elegant aristocratic woman. The only time he dressed as a male was on his trip to Siam. Timolon de Choisys life embodied all the paradoxes of Louis XIVs reign. The strict rules of the Catholic Church on adultery and homosexuality did not apply at court. He longed for the embassy of Siam but was judged unsuitable because of his eccentric lifestyle. Instead he became the rst orientalist to study Siam. If the Siamese relationship failed, there were tangible scientic results that endured. When King James II, cousin to Louis XIV, lost his throne because of English suspicions of Catholic and Jesuit world conspiracies, he took refuge in France. He visited Cassinis laboratory at the Academy of Sciences. In 1690 Cassini showed off his knowledge of longitude and how the information sent to him by the Jesuit mathematicians in China and Siam had helped him rectify the location of the summer palace of the king of Siam by twenty-four degrees compared to the academys 1683 map.114 Many scientic instruments were sent to China from France, and in return there was a vast collection of Chinese works entering the collections of the royal library at the academy, opening an era in which Orientalism went beyond the borders of the Persianate world; nevertheless, the Ottomans remained crucial.

Les Jeunes Langues and Les Armniens du Roi: The Hope for French DragomansA few years after the creation of the Royal Academy of Sciences, several royal institutions devoted to the study of the Orient were put into place. Even if French trading

128 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceambitions were extended, albeit mostly unsuccessfully, to Japan, China, Siam, India, and Persia in the 1660s and 1680s, the Ottomans remained important trading partners. French consuls, always merchants themselves, sent ample correspondence back to inform the court, but they needed trusted translators as they remained dependent on the translating skills of the Greek and Armenian dragomans, subjects of the Sultan. Dragoman is from the Turkish word tarjuman, translator. Jean-Baptiste Colbert wanted an institution to train French dragomans with unquestionable loyalties to France. French consuls and merchants had complained that these appointed intermediaries spoiled French enterprises in the Ottoman empire. In 1669, an Ottoman ambassador came to Paris. Soleiman Agha was a self-styled ambassador according to Jean Chardin, as his trip had been nanced by the French, specically by Monsieur de la Haye, the French ambassador. He was having difculties in the application of the capitulations, because the French had aided Venice in a war against the Ottomans. The crisis prompted the creation of an institution that endures to this day, the Institute for Oriental Languages, INALCO, which had its very early inception in Louiss policies.115 Louis XIV created the cole des jeunes langues the same year as the Ottoman embassy came to Paris. After the Revolution it became the cole des langues orientales and later the Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales (INALCO), which it is still called today. Six French boys between ages of eight and ten were sent every three years for language training in Constantinople. Called jeunes langues, their grants were paid by the merchants of Marseilles. In that same year of 1669 Marseilles, nicknamed la porte de lOrient, was made a free port by Colbert. The young boys sent on the road were sent to stay with the Capuchins in Constantinople, who exposed their young wards to a smattering of Latin, French, Italian, and Turkish. All of these languages, save Turkish, were of little use for commerce. Funding was irregular and problematic; the Capuchins complained of their paucity of means but always received negative answers to their requests. The boys arrived irregularly, and the dangers and the length of the journey was but one of the reasons. The Chamber of Commerce in Marseilles was not steady in its commitments, as the court had made the merchants totally responsible for the nancing of this royal institution. The missionaries defeated the purposes of their Marseilles sponsors. Instead of training dragomans loyal to France, they turned the children toward ecclesiastic vocations instead, by valuing religion above commerce and worship above education. They reproduced the prejudices of France in a land that valued commerce and where the boys could have adapted to local customs. The hurdles faced by the French ambassadors in Istanbul were certainly the reason for the inception of several such exchange programs. This was an important moment: the French commercial capitulations had been revoked, and they had to be renewed. The new French ambassador sent by Louis XIV, the Marquis de Noitlel, was responsible for the most important embassy since that of Gabriel

Orientalism As Science 129dAramon in 1547. In 1671 once again, France desperately wanted to prove loyalty and friendship. Jean Chardin was en route to India via Persia in 1671 during this crisis and has left the best description of the difculties awaiting the new ambassador Noitel. Chardin had to pass himself off as an Englishman to cross the Ottoman border, as the French were now regarded as enemies and spies.116 Noitel was only received by the most important dragoman in the Levant, who barred him from an audience. Chardin calls him Panaioti, a Greek dragoman, who spoke many European languages; he was the dragoman appointed to the Ottoman court. Chardin remarked on the vast revenues of the dragoman, on the power he had to negotiate treaties, and on his absolute loyalty to the Ottomans. He viewed this loyalty with some astonishment and chagrin. No doubt, the mediation of the Greek translator was felt bitterly by the French ambassador, who viewed himself as superior, being an ofcial envoy of Louis XIV.117 Panaiotis power was the inspiration for the training of translators for the French king. As relations became better it was thought useful to train Ottoman subjects in France to propagate the glory of France in the Levant. Louis XIV created a school for these translators, Louis Legrand. Today the building houses the most prestigious high school in Paris. He donated twelve royal fellowships for young boys to come from the Ottoman empire and study languages in Paris. These royal fellows were called les Armniens du Roi, or the Armenians of the king, because French dragomans had generally been Armenians or Greeksnot because the boys were Armenian. Only four of the 392 boys trained in a period of a hundred years were Armenians.118

Court-Sponsored Orientalists and the Birth of Orientalist LiteratureIn addition to schools, there were other court-sponsored orientalists in the line of Postel. The most famous were Antoine Galland and the two Petis de la Croix, father and son, all three subsidized by the French king. Antoine Galland is the most famous of all French orientalists; he had various forms of sponsorship during his three trips to Constantinople in the suites of two different French ambassadors sent by Louis XIV. He was author of many works, but to his great disappointment he is remembered as the rst translator into a European language of the A Thousand and One Nights, translated from Arabic into French in 1704.119 Gallands many unpublished manuscripts were mined for the scientic information they contained by other travelers to the Levant. Pitton de Tournefort was among the many who lifted passages from Galland for his publication. This was a habit considered routine and inoffensive, but decried by Pierre Bayle, who cared about both authenticity and authorship, in order to establish the validity of observations made by travelers. Save for his tales, Gallands many works remained unpublished and unrecognized in his lifetime.

130 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceAt the age of seventeen Galland was sent on his rst mission to the Levant, according to Colbert To acquire a perfect knowledge of the language, customs, history, sciences and arts of the orientals.120 He was given a special mission by the king, which was to record the customs of the Ottoman Christians, the Armenians, and especially the Greeks because of religious controversies within France. Just like the Huguenots, the Catholics were seeking an original Christianity to justify their own rites. The purpose of such a mission of observation was also to inform Louis in hopes of converting Ottoman Christians to Catholicism. Through the capitulations he considered himself their rightful protector. Gallands rst trip was in the wake of the diplomatic crisis of 1669, and as he was in contact with other travelers, he recommended Guillaume-Joseph Grelot to Jean Chardin as an illustrator for his travels in Persia, and he read Bernier and corresponded with him. Galland was responsible for collecting Colberts nest oriental manuscripts. This was in fact his main mission, and Colbert had asked him to to ornament our France with the spoils of the Orient.121 As early as 1667 Colbert, in the long tradition of Richelieu and Mazarin before him, gave an order to bring back good ancient manuscripts in Greek, in Arabic, in Persian, and other oriental languages, except for Hebrew, because we have them here in large quantity.122 There could be no surer sign that French Orientalism was breaking away from biblical studies. Galland watched the 1670 crisis in Istanbul unfold further and witnessed Noitels disgrace in 1677. The crisis on the French side had been caused by the issue of the arrival of Sleyman Agha, the pseudo-ambassador, sponsored by the previous French ambassador to Istanbul, Monsieur de La Haye. The Chevalier Laurent dArvieux, who knew that Louis XIV had recalled de la Haye from Istanbul, witnessed the events in Istanbul and recounted the Sultans disdain for the French in its aftermath.123 DArvieux recorded that the idea to use the Ottoman ceremonial protocol used in Istanbul at Versailles to receive Sleyman Agha in 1669 was Monsieur de Lionnes. When Louis realized that the reception was to receive a gardener, an impostor and a bostanci from the palace, he was furious. Louis decided in retaliation to send a nobody to Istanbul, just an agent. It was only after the merchants of Marseilles made a huge fuss that he dispatched the Marquis Charles de Noitel, with whom Galland was associated as a secretary.124 Noitel too would be humiliated and disgraced. He accepted to be received by the Ottomans on a lowly stool, not on the ceremonial sofa, which angered Louis XIV. The episode was nicknamed laffaire du sofa. Noitel could not sustain the cost of his embassy and was poorly subsidized by the court. Many representing France had been left to defray their own costs. When he tried to get the French merchants to cover the cost of the embassy, Noitel made the same mistakes as Andr du Ryer before him and lost support. The merchants from Marseilles and their representatives Fabre and Roboli had the last say; he did not prevail in Istanbul. Unable to have the Sultan listen due to interference by Panaioti (Panaghiotis Nikoussios), he was recalled to France in great disgrace. France had two seasoned dragomans of its own in place in Istanbul, Fornetti and Fontaine. The formers family was from Pera and

Orientalism As Science 131served the French since the sixteenth century. The French and those protected by the French, such as the Swiss clockmakers of Istanbul, were the largest group of Europeans in Istanbul.125 The hapless Noitel returned to France ruined and in debt. Galland took three trips to Istanbul. Gallands last trip in 16791688 was sponsored by the Levant company and took a new ambassador, the Marquis de Guilleargues, to the Sultan. The Levant company created by Colbert in 1670 collapsed and with it Gallands funding. The ambassador found him useful despite the fact that he was not part of the embassy. This was to be Frances most successful embassy to Istanbul. On his return in 1688, Gallands collecting mission for the kings library was handed over to Paul Lucas (16641732); under the direction of the Abb Bignon the librarys holdings went beyond acquisitions from the Levant and Persia, and book collecting became universal in its scope. In his three trips Lucas had the exact missions given to Galland, collecting and observing the Christians under Ottoman and Persian rule.126 Paul Lucas has left a list of what he brought back for collections at court. The list at the end of his third voyage lists hundreds of Greek and Roman medals for the cabinet des medailles; this form of collection was dear to Louis XIV, and he had moved the cabinet to Versailles, detaching it from the Academy of Sciences. Lucas bought only twenty-ve manuscripts, but specic onesthose missing from the kings collections. There was also a pouch of seventy rare grains given to Monsieur Chirac, the kings physician, and a sapling or grain to grow the rst plane tree, the platane later so beloved in France, yet hitherto unknown according to Paul Lucas. The list of curiosities and singularities, as he calls them, was immense and contained engraved and semiprecious stones, mummies, sea shells, a giants tooth, sheeps teeth made golden by grass, earthen jars, cardamom, and many other drugs and spices.127 Lucas was responsible for introducing the Syrian Hanna to Galland. The tales of Ali Baba and of Alladin have no written source, and their creation is attributed to oral transmission by the Syrian priest Hanna. This crafting of oriental tales was not Gallands ambition. In fact Galland wanted the chair occupied by Hanna, a nickname for Pierre Dippy, the French orientalist who held the chair in Arabic in the Collge du Roi. There were now two chairs, as a second one was created by Louis XIV in 1671 for Petis de la Croix. In 1692 when Galland returned, it was Alexandre Louis Marie, Petis de la Croix, who succeeded his own father at the second Arabic chair of the Royal College; while held by Petiss son, the second chair in Arabic became a chair of Arabic, Turkish, and Persian. Some changes were ordered by Louis XIV, who had also established a separate chair in Syriac. Louis XIV knew that his father Louis XIII had hoped to build the collge but had not gone beyond setting a rst stone. Louis XIV set out to build the royal college, but had no love lost for it as he resented its independent spirit, and despite starting the work, the building was abandoned. The buildings we know today as the Collge de France were built by Louis XVI between 1772 and 1778. The royal college and the scientic network around it was Gallands world.

132 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceIn 1701 Galland had been admitted into the Academy of Inscriptions and only in 1709 was he appointed to the chair of Arabic in the Collge du Roi. Pierre Dippys nephew aimed for his uncles chair, and there were three months of political wrangling before Galland was named. He occupied Postels old post until his death in 1715. At his death Galland, much like his colleagues, had never been paid the wages of his appointment as royal professor, nor the pension promised by the head of the royal library, the Abb Bignon. From the cabinet des medailles in 1715 just before his died he received his pension for the year 1712. He was also part of the Academy of Sciences and did oriental translations for Melchisedec Thvenot, but there are no traces of any wages. Raymond Schwab has done a detectives work to see where Galland was lodged, and how he was paid, and how and when he composed the Thousand and One Nights while he was a professor of Arabic. His journal said he was lodged luniversit. At the time this just meant in one of the three districts of Paris: Cit, Ville, and Universit, the last being all of the left bank, once walled off to keep the rowdy students out of the rest of Paris. Schwab nds Galland lodged in an auberge, a modest boarding house, the Cerceau dor, on top of the present rue des Carmes, across from the rue Laplace. Despite this poverty Galland had his connections at court. Schwab has shown how ambassador De Guillarguess daughter, whom he called la Marquise dO and dedicated the Nights to, introduced Gallands tales to the dauphine at Versailles. This made them an instant hit. In one of the most interesting studies of how and when things were read, Schwab analyzes who Galland gave the tales to before they were published. The manuscripts traveled from hand to hand. Mostly intellectual friends like the Abb Bignon, but many highly placed women also commented on the work. Schwab wrote that Versailles was no bigger than a handkerchief and that people walked on each others heels and bumped into each other crossing doors, and that throwing the Nights into the group was like the Marquise dO throwing a grain in a hen yard. Saint Simon commented that the Nights were all the rage because Versailles recognized itself in the oriental tales. Saint Simons comments, according to Schwab,Shed instructive light on the milieu in which the French adventure of the these Arabic tales took place. In the forefront, without a doubt, was the charming and dangerous Marquise dO, taking action, suited as she was through her own qualities and habits to understand and make a success of these harem stories. Yet, beyond this turbulent basket of crabs, he [Saint Simon] suddenly explains that all of the court had to adopt and patronize a book, which excited its imagination as it recognized very familiar objects as if looking into a deforming mirror.128

Schwab judged the court and its extension to be no more than two-hundred tightly knit families; he also contends that the key reading public of the time in Paris was of about ve-hundred people.129 The names recorded in each tome of the Nights clearly mark the rst readers the books went to; seven of the volumes were written in Caen,

Orientalism As Science 133and the rest were written in Paris while Galland was a professor of Arabic. Gallands own intellectual milieu was even smaller. He was part of the same network of travelers and orientalists described earlier, and they had the same political network of patrons as support. Despite the fact that Galland was named antiquaire du roi, his methods were not antiquarian. He adopted the observation methods of the modernes, and in the quarrels with the anciens, or antiquarians, there was no one as virulent as Galland. He was part of a network of erudites and curieux, and corresponded with many, such as the Lyon archaeologist and traveler Jacob Spon (16471685), a doctor educated in Montpellier, to whom he made his opinion against armchair travelers very clear. He viewed himself as a proponent of experimentation, and like Franois Bernier he followed the ideas of Gassendi, who advocated skepticism and observation within the bounds of Christian faith. Rather than a spinner of orientalist tales, Galland should be regarded as part of the commercial and scientic network engaged in collecting and producing knowledge of the world beyond France.130 One of the great innovations of the time was archaeology, and it was Galland who gave his friend Jacob Spon the idea of digs in Greece. Schwab seemed entirely convinced that this idea was conveyed to Galland by a Janissary and in turn tied Spons rst archaeological expedition in Greece to Gallands correspondence with him: It was an original idea then to dig the earth for objects. Noitel did a survey of Greek ruins with Galland in tow. Before his 1677 disgrace Noitel had the idea to employ painters who sent back to France paintings of the great tour he organized in Greece under the banner of France. His painter, Rombaud Fedhairbe, from the town of Malines, also sent home pictures of the Ottoman court and its ofcials that were greatly appreciated at the time. This anticipates the books of drawings of Turkish costumes that Galland looked through when he was back in Paris, they were made under the new ambassador, the Marquis de Ferriol, who had arrived in Istanbul in 1699.131 French Orientalism had consisted of translations and compendiums, and no works in Arabic or oriental languages were ever printed in France. Savary de Brvess polyglot press planned under Louis XIII had never materialized, and similarly Barthlemy dHerbelot de Molainville (16251695) had hope to print his famous Bibliothque orientale in Arabic. It was only possible in translation and it occupied him until his death in 1697. DHerbelot had occupied the chair of Syriac as a royal professor since 1692. At his colleagues death Galland neglected his own work and nished DHerbelots Bibliothque orientale and published it for him. In 1715, Galland died of overwork, and his colleague at the royal college, Petis de la Croix (son), nished the tales of A Thousand and One Nights. This collaboration is a sure sign of a tight network engaged in the production of knowledge. It considered knowledge more important than personal glory or recompense. Petis de la Croix had great admiration for Galland, yet unlike him, he was not considered an erudite by a dragoman who, like his father, negotiated French diplomatic issues. As his father had done in Algiers in 1674, Petis also translated another work, A Thousand and One Days. Gallands Nights and Petiss Days have identical structures. In the nineteenth century

134 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe Austrian orientalist Hammer searched for the original Persian manuscript, attributed to a certain dervish Mokhles from Isfahan. He failed to nd it. A Thousand and One Days was not a Persian tale and was declared a fake. This was the precursor of a very long tradition of imitations and fakes in France. Of all the aspects of Orientalism, the literary aspects are the best studied. What Saint Simon wrote about the Nights being a deformed mirror of Versailles is not remembered as a metaphor, but others have noticed the analogy between the court of Baghdad and Versailles. That analogy has been studied with some depth by modern scholarship. Numerous scholars after Edward Sad: Ali Behdad, Madeleine Dobie, Alain Grosrichard, Reina Kabani, Reina Lewis, Michle Longino, Billie Melman, and many others have studied French orientalist literature. These are works are well established in the pantheon of the growing eld of studies on Orientalist literature. The analogy made between the harem, the Sultan court, oriental despotism, luxury, gems and spices, carpets, and silk cushions was by all accounts, starting with Grosrichards work, seen as a construct to serve as an analogy to Frances own despotic monarchy. This literature is so vast that while it is the best studied aspect of Orientalism, the fetishized esthetics of the Orient in French literature seemed to hold such fascination that there are still hundreds and hundreds of works to be studied, despite the many excellent theoretical works produced. There is little space here to continue elaborating on this fascinating literary aspect. The French literary production on the Orient is immense, and others are well engaged in doing such research. Michele Longinos fascinating study of French theater is the only work to address the seventeenth century and the rise of merchants and the bourgeoisie in the Levant trade. Her work is solidly grounded in French commercial relations and social realities. One neglected aspect of Orientalist literature remains untouched: Orientalism had ties to economic writing. Together with the better known and explored discourse on despotism, this topic has been chosen to close this book in Chapter 10.

Was the Production of Knowledge about the World Used to Conquer the World?French contacts with Asia in the seventeenth century, as demonstrated, were failures. Their effects were mainly cultural changes within France. Their effect on the formation of institutions and on science in France is the one emphasized here. The best French efforts at transculturation, educating the French dragomans on foreign soil, failed. The enfants de langues were brain-washed by their missionary masters to think like Catholic Frenchmen and disdain the very purpose for which they were sponsored. These failures were not without enduring consequences. The creation of several institutions was signicant in forging French culture for centuries to come. Yet, as Antoine de Jussieus attitudes toward Indias botany proves, despite its util-

Orientalism As Science 135ity, much of what was gathered as information, be it scientic or commercial, was not utilized to conquer foreign markets. Antoine de Jussieu closed his mind to fourteen volumes of owers from India and concentrated on praising the lowly domestic violet because of his views that what was foreign had to be replaced by something domestic for Frances economic health. The idea that foreign goods threatened France and its economy is the object of the last chapter of this book. Yet, there was a proclaimed desire for the exotic and a will to conquer markets in Asia. Exotic goods were much in demand and much consumed, as will be discussed, showing an ambiguity between discourse and reality. There are other equally visible and huge discrepancies between discourse and reality. It was not simply a matter of failure, despite a discourse of conquest present since Francis I. Paradoxically, all of the information gathered to familiarize the French with Asia was not used to conquer. The rest of the world was not as much a center of attention as France itself, as information about the world was not used for France. The best case in point is that Colbert himself, the energetic enabler of most imperial and commercial policies, did not listen to or read the accounts of his own envoy to India, and neither did his successors. The reports from India and Persia of the Abb Bathlemy Carr (16401700), which were forgotten and as neglected as Nicolas lEmpereurs prodigious botanical study, have just been saved from oblivion by Dirk Van der Cruysse.132 The tragedy of Carrs life was not so much posthumous oblivion, but oblivion and neglect while he was at the service of the king. His reports were not read, and he faced an old age of disgrace and poverty, as did the ship surgeon lEmpereur, as did for that matter, French Indias hero Dupleix. Noitel and Galland had not fared much better earlier. Galland, a royal professor, could not obtain his salary; in 1714, nearly ve years into his chair of Arabic, he obtained only part of what he was due for 1713, 300 livres for six years.133 Even subsidized Orientalism was not subsidized. going to the Orient for the French, rather than the road to riches, more often than not meant ruin and an old age spent in poverty. Except for Tavernier and Chardin, few proted from their ventures. If knowledge of the Orient was important, it was so to a few hundred people in France who corresponded with each other. The impact was on science and culture within France. The impact of this new knowledge of the world on the educated elite of France can be best assessed within France by looking at dictionaries, as Isabelle Turcan has just done,134 by analyzing the entries in the dictionaries of Furetire (1690), G. Mnage (1694), and Trvoux (17431752) during the ancien rgime. Lexicography and the French language were inuenced by travel, and she nds Tavernier to be the most cited of all travelers, with twenty-seven entries in Furetire (1690) and ninety-four in Trvoux. Shortly after him is Thvenot with twenty-three and fortyone respectively, then La Boullaye le Gouze with twenty-three and Chardin with sixteen, both only cited in the later dictionary of Trvoux. That the words caimacam and caravansarail became part of the French language and could be looked up is

136 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceperhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this production.135 There was a real transformation of the lexicon, of discursive modes and concepts that is traceable through the dictionaries. None of the contacts between France and the Orient were direct. Most were indirect, negotiated by cosmopolitan intermediaries like the Armenians and the Greeks. Panaioti in Constantinople, Phaulkon in Siam, and Marcara in India are a few of the many local Christians that translated their culture to the visiting French. Of crucial importance to Louis XIV were the Christians of the Ottoman empire, whom Galland and Lucas were made to document as Tavernier had before them. Most of French presence in Asia was through its missionaries and the conversion of Eastern Christians, Armenians, Coptes, Greeks, and Assyrians, a more realistic hope than converting the king of Siam. Catholicism became an imperial tool both inside and outside of France. For Louis XIV, especially after 1685, being French meant being Catholic. The king turned a large part of his population into foreigners through religious persecution and by making Catholicism a state religion. The doctors of Montpellier, often Protestants, were long called medecins trangers by the Sorbonne. Once Catholicism became instituted as a state religion by the king, the Huguenots became the other on their own territory.

5The Turks and the Other WithinThe Huguenots

The inux of Huguenots had a substantial effect on Dutch economic life The Huguenot undoubtedly did much to strengthen the Dutch silk industry. They opened many fashion boutiques in Amsterdam, The Hague and elsewhere, and Huguenot dressmakers, hat makers, wigmakers, and watchmakers introduced new standards of elegance and taste. Nevertheless, there was a tendency at the time (especially in France) to exaggerate the Huguenot contribution. Beyond the silk industry, and the world of fashion, Huguenots in fact found relatively few openings for their capital and skills in the Republic. Jonathan Israel (The Dutch Republic, 629).

The inux of Huguenots in England and the Dutch republic enriched Louiss economic rival. Prior to their departure the Huguenots had played an outstanding role in France not only economically, but in French overseas trade and exploration. If their participation in orientalist study was disproportionately high, it was even more so in the Americas, particularly in settling the Antilles. They had more and more reason to leave France. The freedom of the religionnaires, as the king called the Huguenots, was taken away years before 1685, by the revocation of the Edicts of Nantes, an edict by which Henri IV had granted Calvinists in France the freedom of their cult in 1598.1 Indeed, since 1681 dragonnades, as the brutalities committed by the soldiers were called, were allowed by the king. Frances Protestants were subjected to all kinds of persecutions.2 All persons of the Religion Pretendue Reforme, or RPR as their enemies called them, were subjected to conscations, torture, and even murder by soldiers who were in charge of converting them. The narrowing of their liberty of cult had a longer history. Until 1661 Louis had good foreign relations with Protestant powers in Europe, and the French Huguenots were spared. Until then the policies of his father, Louis XIII, were followed: the application of the Edict of Nantes granted by Henri IV was continued, but with narrower and narrower terms, reducing social privileges one by one. While until the 1650s there were about the same numbers of Calvinist temples as there were in 1589, after 1657 and even before the revocation in 1685, over half of the 587 temples were destroyed. Even before the revocation of the edict, leaving France was punishable by death for the religionnaires. In his clemency Louis XIV


138 Orientalism in Early Modern Francechanged the death sentence to life on the galleys on May 31, 1685, a few months before he revoked all Protestant freedoms. Article IX permitted the conscation of the goods and property of any person having left the borders of France. The economic consequences should not be underestimated, as a large proportion of Huguenot wealth changed hands in this period and this was a boon for Louis and the Catholic Church in France. The Protestant exodus out of France to the Dutch Republic was substantial; it has been estimated as low as 35,000 and as high as 50,000 heads of household. The Catholics rejoiced. Many celebrations took place in the wake of the edict of Fontainebleau, not only in Catholic churches, but in the homes of enthusiastic supporters. Jacques Bnigne Bossuet saw in the king a new Constantine. Courtiers vied for the kings attentions with their lists of new converts, and Madame de Svign wrote enthusiastically: Never has a king done anything as memorable.3 An element of foreign policy had played a role in the decision by Louis, le Roi trs Chrtien, to display unprecedented Catholic zeal. The high point of the fragile French Ottoman relations were before the siege of Vienna by the Turks in 1683. Protestants in Europe made a point of the fact that they had given nancial and technical help to the Turks. Not only did Louis not help the Polish king and his Catholic league in his victory in keeping the Turks out of Vienna, but he used the occasion, before and after the siege of Vienna, to annex territories to France such as Luxembourg, Alsace, and Lorraine. Headed by Jan III Sobiesky, the Catholic king of Poland, the league defending Vienna was blessed by Pope Innocent XI. The battle was also seen in Europe as the joining of Protestant and Turkish interests on the other side, as the leader of the Hungarian Calvinists, Imre Thkly, had appealed to the Turkish grand vizier, Kara Mustafa (1634 1683), to attack Vienna. After the siege of Vienna in 1683, Louis could no longer pose as the universal protector of all Catholics in the world, a role he cherished. A pamphlet published in London, The Most Christian Turk, or View of the Life and Bloody Reign of Lewis XIV Present king of France containing an account of his Monstrous Birth, describes Louiss sharp teeth at birth as a sign of his greed as they made milk ow with blood as he nursed. The siege of Vienna in September 1683 is a central part of this Protestant account of his reign.4 It is clear in the pamphlet that for Protestants the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 was related to Louiss shameless politics over Vienna; it was seen as a consequence of it. The title of Grand Turc became common in Huguenot pamphlets after 1683, as was the discourse that the Turks and the French had combined to share the empire between them. To be called the grand Turk may have been new to Louis, as it was a nickname used for the rst time for a man against whom enemies during the Fronde had written many pamphlets stressing his foreign origins. Louis had used the insult against Mazarin when he was a young child. I was six year old in 1645, the cardinal was passing majestically in front of the Chateau de Compigne, escorted by a brilliant following. I could not help but cry out Voil le grand Turc! After which I had to confront the Queen our mother.5 The nickname pointed to political treachery and was used for Mazarin during the civil war by the faction ghting against him.

The Turks and the Other Within 139Ironically, just as he was being called a Turk in Europe, Louis was offered plans for grabbing the throne of Constantinople. If Bossuet had called Louis XIV a Constantine, there was a precedent in French discourse. French imperial discourse saw Louis not only as the restorer of the Roman empire in Europe, but as the legitimate heir to the throne of the last Byzantine emperor. The discourse so dear to Francis I had not died down after him. Imperial discourse incorporated the French role during the Crusades and took a new force under the pen of several French historians of the seventeenth century; most works included the idea of a European league against the Turks. The league was much like the league formed to defend Vienna in 1683, in which Louis had denitely not participated. In 1674 Leibnizs proposition to Louis XIV for the invasion Egypt was to be a pan-European project headed by France. Leibniz called Egypt the Holland of the East to provoke the king of France, and he had hoped to prevent Louis from conquering German lands. The double discourse about the Ottomans would have been complete if Louis himself had planned a crusade to conquer Istanbul, but there is no trace of what he thought of the crusading plans presented to him.6 Ironically, this was at a moment when Ottoman and French relations were much better. France had a series of ambassadors that were not received, yet France was given a new consulate in Salonica, and its trade in Egypt had its taxation reduced to three percent. The project of conquering Istanbul was part of a centuries-old imperial discourse. Essentially, within Europe the rivalry was with the Hapsburgs for the title of Holy Roman Emperor, as it was under Francis I. Early in the seventeenth century the historian Antoine Aubry (16161695) wrote De la preeminence de nos roys, et de leur preseance sur lempereur et le roy dEspagne (On the Preeminence of our Kings and on their preseance over the Emperor and king of Spain), it had several editions during the reigns of Louis XIII and XIV.7 Interest in the history of the Crusades of Byzantium added to the discourse about the preeminence of the French empire in the Orient. This discourse was built up by historians who argued that the French king was the rightful successor of the Byzantine emperor. Faruk Bilici has studied this episode under the subtitle la couronne de Constantinople lot de consolation, pointing to the fact that if the French king could not be the emperor of Europe, Byzantium might be a consolation. Alexandre Haran has unearthed the documents justifying the messianic imperial hopes of the French kings.8 There was a major effort to juristically demonstrate the imperial rights of the crown of France. Jacques de Cassan, a jurist, was commissioned by Louis XIII to write a legal and historical treatise to justify French rule over several territories, some of which Louis XIV would conquer from the Hapsburgs while they were busy defending Vienna. Cassans work, La recherche des droicts du roy, & de la couronne de France, svr les royavmes, dvchez, comtez, villes & pas occupez par les princes estrangers, had several editions under Louis XIII and Louis XIV.9 It demanded restitution of any territory that ever had fallen under French rule. With the afrmation that Charlemagne was French, this included many of the German territories, hence Leibnizs crusade to save them from Louis. Yet, Charlemagnes empire,

140 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceincluded what the French called Gallia Orientalis, or lEmpire dOrient, therefore Byzantium, was also part of French imperial discourse under Louis XIV.10 In France Byzantine studies had their inception shortly after the fall of Constantinople. The French king, Charles VIII (r. 14831498) had verbally obtained from the last emperors nephew, Andreas Paleologus (14531503), the rights to the title of Emperor of Byzantium.11 In the seventeenth century the idea of a crusade was revived by Mazarin and Louis XIII and their entourage of dvots. Byzantine studies accelerated in France and justied Frances interest in restoring the Greek empire by ruling it. Because of these favorable political circumstances a historical school of Byzantine studies was formed in Paris in 1645, la Byzantine du Louvre, as the school was called, formally the Corpus Byzantinae historiae, which produced thirty-four works of original Byzantine texts and their translations into Latin between 16451702. The most important representative of that school, according to Jean Michel Spieser, was Charles du Fresnes du Cange (16101688), who started his career by editing the work of the crusader chronicle of Villehardouin, which came out in 1657 as one of the volumes published by the Byzantine du Louvre.12 Geofroy de Villehardouins work on the Crusades had the conquest of Constantinople as a central theme, making the entry of the French into the city during the Crusades fall under the legitimate limits of the French empire. There were some other pretenders to the throne of Byzantium besides the French king. The Duke of Nevers was considered the last of the Paleologues, as he descended from the Byzantine emperors. The Greeks appealed to him for a crusade against the Turks in 1609.13 The dvots were the chief supporters of France in proposing this crusade and advocated creating ties with Persia against the Ottomans; one of their heroes was the Capuchin Pre Joseph (15771683), who was in close contact with the Duke of Nevers, and was the man who sent the Huguenot Jean-Baptiste Tavernier to observe the Greeks and Armenians in Persia and the Ottoman empire and report to the king. Pre Joseph was also the instigator of the rst ambassador to Persia, Pre Pacique de Provins, and later Tavernier would take another Capuchin to Persia, Raphal du Mans, who gained access to the Persian court.14 Through the capitulations Louis saw himself as the protector of all the Christians in the Ottoman empire and beyond. The conversion of the Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians of the Ottoman empire to Catholicism thus fell within Louiss imperial project and satised the crusading discourse of the Capuchins. Pre Joseph remained true to the medieval ideas of crusade and the French conquest of the holy land through a European league. The Capuchin father even visited Rome in 1616 to present the imperial credentials of the Duke of Nevers to Pope Paul V. The duke wanted the throne and to obtain it was planning to unite against the Turks most of the Slav populations of the Balkans in a Catholic league. The Order of the Christian Militia was created in 1617 to unite Europe. Pre Joseph wrote La Turciade, a poem in honor of this crusade that was never to be; yet, appreciated for his political ideas, Pre Joseph became Richelieus closest political counselor about the Ottomans. His views were that Catholicism as proselytized by the Capuchin missions

The Turks and the Other Within 141abroad was a royal religion, that accepting Catholicism brought with it the rule of the king of France. The Capuchins were royal missionaries as early as the reign of Louis XIII. The view that Catholicism was a royal religion was also the basis of the progressive narrowing of Protestant rights within France, as it was seen as a sign of lack of loyalty to the monarchy. Abroad, the missions played a major political role in trying to convert the Christians of the Ottoman empire and Persia. With the foundations of two missions in Isfahan, thanks to the generosity of Shah Abbas (15871629), by Pacique de Provins and the installation of the Capuchin mission in the French embassy in Istanbul in 1624, Pre Joseph obtained some success. In 1626 missions were also settled in Syria and in Beirut. Religion was the best tool of Frances hopes for empire.15 Shah Abbas was well aware of this and never let the Capuchins settle near the Armenians, les Chrtiens dOrient, as they were called, were the prime targets of this French imperial policy. The Capuchins were far more engaged in advancing the kings cause beyond the borders of France than were the French consuls in the Levant, as their real center of support was Marseilles. Much of their success depended on their relationship with the merchants of Marseilles, not the king or the court. Some consuls went beyond the call of duty, which was usually a commercial one. A previous French consul from Damiette in Egypt, Jean Coppin, on his return to France wrote a concrete program of invasion of the Ottoman empire for Louis; it was to happen via Egypt at the head of a European league. In his Bouclier de l Europe ou la guerre Sainte, published in 1686, he advocated a new crusade in the wake of Vienna, where the Ottomans had shown their weakness. He did not have kind words for the Christian Ottomans, Armenians, and Greeks, but he did see them as potential allies once Europe was established on the terrain. His text was not the only one in this vein; Bilici has studied a number of these texts. On his fourth trip to Istanbul the orientalist Petis de La Croix wrote something along the same lines, where he proposed nothing less than the burning of Istanbul. He was in the city to help the widow of the ambassador, Madame Anne Marie Pontac de Guilleragues, after the death of the French ambassador in 1685. Published in 1686, Petis de La Croixs thesis analyzed the current situation of Istanbul in his Etat present au just de lEmpire Othoman, based on a text by Hezarfen Huseiyn Efendi, and argued for the weakness of the Ottomans after Vienna. He gave a strategy of bombarding Istanbul from the sea so that its wooden houses would catch re. Much of this can be found in an introduction that Bilici has written to a plan for the invasion of Istanbul by an engineer called Gravier dOrtire, written for Louis XIV, which Bilici published for the rst time. Bilici concedes that it is in fact unclear what fate would have been reserved to the text by Louis XIV.16 DOrtire studied the plan of the city mathematically and demonstrated with clear graphics how to bombard Istanbul.17 Louiss grandest fantasy, his rights to the Byzantine throne, as argued by French historians and jurists to legitimize the invasion of Istanbul, never took place. The only real French interference was the manipulation of the Ottoman Christians in

142 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceIstanbul by the French embassy. The patriarch of the Armenians in Constantinople, Avetik, was kidnapped by the French in Istanbul and sent as a prisoner to France and incarcerated in the Bastille in Paris, in the hope of replacing him with a Catholic patriarch.18 Nothing else had any reality, but Bilici shows that the Gravier DOrtire text advocated dividing the Ottoman empire among a European league after Istanbul was conquered. Venice would get Slovania, Croatia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia. The Polish king would get Moldavia and Valachia. Count Imre Thkli would get the principality of Temesvar to help him get the Hungarians to revolt against the Hapsburgs. France would get Morea, Thessaly, Macedonia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and the islands of the Archipelago. The French king would rule from the capital, which would be Istanbul. DOrtires believed that in the aftermath of Vienna, since the Ottomans were weak, if an important navy appeared in the Dardanelles, the capital city would be immediately abandoned by the Turks. He believed the Christian populations, the Chrtiens dOrient, would help France to tailler tous les Turcs en pice (cut the Turks to pieces). This was wishful thinking; in fact both the Armenians and the Greeks resisted the French missionaries and Avetiks kidnapping was in order to destroy local Armenian resistance to the Catholicizing of local Christians by the Capuchins and Jesuits. Gravier dOrtires plan spared the women and children but advocated that because the army would be dismantled, another unfounded hope, all survivors should be sent to serve the chiourme (rowers) on the French kings galleys. Louis XIV remained an ally and never fought the Turks despite all this rhetoric. The French ambassador struggled in Istanbul for precedence and audience, and French power nowhere matched this pompous discourse of conquest, which seemed to compensate for the many humiliations French envoys had been subjected to by the Ottomans. The contrast between discourse and reality was immense. The few Frenchmen in Istanbul were not seen as powerful, and they were often not well received and were disdained. Yet, on the domestic front French power over the Turks was expressed by the institution of slavery. In the royal galleys slavery was a reality for many Turks and became one for Protestants. Slavery by the corsairs at the service of the Ottomans remained a constant danger. Gallands tale of the captivity of a merchant from Cassis is unique, as it tells of a French man as a Barbary slave and allows a glimpse of slavery on French soil. Gallands Histoire de lesclavage dun marchand de Cassis tells the story of Jean Bonnet, slave to a very well-known character by the name of Dom Philippe, a convert to Christianity. Well known to the French, he was mentioned in the Mmoires of the Chevalier dArvieux and in the travels of Jean Thvenot. Born to a Dey in Tunis on the Barbary coast, Dom Philippe converted to Christianity in Palermo and lived in Sicily and Spain for nearly ve years, where he became rich as a merchant. He lost his fortune and returned to his hometown of Tunis bankrupt. He escaped the death sentence reserved to those who had abandoned the Muslim faith because of his mothers intervention. Dom Philippe was given the punishment of walking the

The Turks and the Other Within 143streets of the town of Tunis very slowly, dressed in the garb of the identity he had chosen, as a Spaniard. The Spanish were reviled. Should he survive, his life was his own. He did. Dom Philippe, the French believed, was still a Christian after his return to Tunis; as a secret agent he proposed to the king of France that Tunis be his protectorate, but meanwhile he was cultivating his ties with the Ottomans. He continued his ties to Europe and staged all kinds of plots to make Tunis fall under the French. The Sultan named him pasha of Algiers. Soon after he took the post Dom Philippe succumbed to the plague and died in 1686. Antoine Galland had met Dom Philippes former slave, Jean Bonnet. Jean Bonnet, a relative of a man of the same name who was destined to be the French consul at Salonica and a friend of Gallands, told him about his own captivity as a slave of the famous Dom Philippe.19 Since Galland himself had escaped capture by corsairs in 1679, he was very interested. Galland swears to the authenticity of this tale. Jean Bonnet was from Cassis, a town next to Marseilles, a town Galland qualies as a village that the Levant trade had built into a city full of beautiful merchant houses.20 His captivity as a slave of Dom Philipe took place between 1669 and 1672. Bonnet took part in the war over Crete in 1669 and the siege of Candie, and was captured as a prisoner of war. He was liberated by the edict passed by Louis XIV with the Ottomans in 1672, which liberated hundreds of French captives. The rst published edition of Bonnets tale as told by Galland was very late, prepared by Louis Langls, it only appeared in 1809. It was missing the last pages of the story. The last pages told of Bonnets life as a successful Muslim corsair and slave owner, and of his very short return to Cassis before he took off to trade again in the Mediterranean. While in Cassis he learned the following:After the rst compliments I learned that my parents had with great difculty bought a slave to exchange against me, as he was the chaise21 carrier for Madame Arnoul, wife to Monsieur Arnoul, superintendent to the galleys. Thinking his freedom was thrown off by my return the slave started crying when he learned the news of my arrival. But he was consoled when told that he would be exchanged against a relative that I had written about to the Captain of La Ciouta.22

This passage and many other pages are missing in the 1809 edition. Both Jean Bonnet and his parents were French slave owners, which was unpalatable to Langls. The new editors of the text argue that there was reluctance to remember the issue of slavery within France, that this was a moral and ideological censorship exercised by Langls in the wake of the French revolution and its, albeit very temporary, abolition of slavery.23 Nevertheless, slavery was a part of French life in the seventeenth century, especially in the south of France, where many wealthy Frenchmen were slave owners. As will become clear later, not only was it fashionable to have your chaise carried by slaves, but it was all the rage to have a Turkish galrien serve your guests at dinner parties. Perhaps, as the discussion below will make clear, the silence about slavery on French soil had much deeper roots and was systematic.

144 Orientalism in Early Modern France

Building the Navy: Turkish Captives and Protestant Galley Slaves in FranceUnder the reign of Louis XIII the court did not think of freeing French captives on the Barbary coast, but this attitude changed under Louis XIV when a series of wars marked a new policy in the Mediterranean. The 1672 treaty liberating Jean Bonnet is a case in point. On top of several wars, a successful negotiation was held by the court specically to free captives. Colbert decided that too many ships owned by Marseilles merchants had been lost to the corsairs and decided to build up the number of galleys to serve as an escort to the Marseilless merchant eet. The situation changed after the rst French attack of the Barbary coast in 1664. After 1665, because of French presence in the Mediterranean, the number of ships captured was smaller. In more than one way the French considered the captives as belonging to the Ottomans. When Louis negotiated for their freedom in 1672 and 1674 it was part of general negotiations; through their wars the French wanted a foothold on the Barbary coast, and the rest was tangential. In France slavery was dened as Ottoman, not French. French dictionaries since 1606 and as late as 1694 dene a slave in the following way: ESCLAVE Qui est en servitude & dans lentiere disposition dun maistre. Un jeune, une jeune esclave. esclave More. esclave Turc. esclave Chrestien. vendre, acheter, delivrer, racheter des esclaves. ds quun esclave touche la terre de France, il est libre. affranchir un esclave, le mettre en libert. le maistre a droit, a puissance de vie & de mort sur ses esclaves.24 [SLAVE: Who is in servitude and at the disposition of a master. A young slave, Moorish slave, Turkish slave, Christian slave, buying and selling, delivering of, buying back of slaves, as soon as a slave touches French soil, he is free. To manumit a slave, to free a slave, the master has rights and the right of life and death over his slaves.] The belief expressed in the 1694 dictionary that the minute one set on French soil one had ones freedom is a strong denial of the institution of slavery in France. Under esclavage the only example given is he was a slave in Turkey who preferred death to his slavery.25 Slavery was entirely associated with the Ottomans and the Turks and despite the publication of the Code noir under Louis XIV in 1685, not a word about African slavery was included in the dictionaries in 1694. The French were the third most important European slave traders in the Atlantic slave trade and already had their production of sugar cane and cacao produced by plantation slavery in the French Antilles. According to Lucette Valensi and Simone Delesalle, the rst information published anywhere on African slaves appeared in 1675, in Jacques Savary de Brlonss Le Parfait Ngociant.26 Although under the word slave one nds the terms Moorish slave and Turkish slave, slavery was considered to be an Ottoman phenomenon.27 Another important element to note in the 1694 dictionarys denition was the long-held pretense that being on French soil meant automatically being free. Louis XIIIs galleys, and Louis XIVs even more so, were full of slaves that lived for a part of the year on French soil. Eluding the reality

The Turks and the Other Within 145of slavery on French soil was not a matter of nineteenth-century censorship; it had a long tradition. The notions of slavery and Orientalism are closely intertwined in French views on slavery, as was clear from the discussion of Bodins theory of oriental despotism; Bodin asserted that the peoples of the Orient were happy to be slaves, and ready to accept the rule of despots. Elsewhere is where slavery existed, not Europe. Bodin argued that Islam was the traditional instrument for freeing slaves in a land where populations were systematically enslaved by monarchs and that Islam grew as a consequence through liberating them. In Bodins views, In fact the power of the Arabs was acquired only by this means, once Homar a lieutenant of Mehmet promised liberty to the slaves who would follow him, he attracted such a great number that in a very few years they were Lords of all of the Orient.28 Bodins view that slavery was oriental and was elsewhere prevailed in France. There were slaves on French soil but this reality was denied. Religious conversion to Catholicism was the card to manumission in France, and not being on French soil as the dictionary asserts, just as conversion to Islam was on the Barbary coast. Turks and Protestants could be manumitted if they accepted Catholicism on the galleys. Captivity had a religious aspect across the Mediterranean both in Marseilles and Toulon, as well as on the Barbary coast. While there were European captives on the Barbary shore there were Muslim captives on Europes galleys. The impact of the presence of these Turkish captives on France and French views cannot be overlooked; the port towns of Toulon and Marseilles had an important Turkish population during the off-season when the galleys were stationed in the port. Many of the galley rowers had occupations in town to make some extra pay. Ottoman captives formed an important part of the seasonal labor force of Toulon and Marseilles. The captives in France were a labor force. Condemnation to slavery had a religious aspect, but slave capture and sale was commercial. The captures made in the Mediterranean by Barbary corsairs were more about trade than religion, as Alain Blondy has clearly argued.29 Much of what was captured from commercial ships ended up on markets in Italy or in France. Livorno was a free port and Marseilles became one after 1669, and they were both favorite destinations for corsair booty. Blondy quotes an Italian historian, il dispaccio delle prede il vero formite del corso, and dispatching of the booty through sale was the reason for what the French called la course.30 Booty was the real reason behind Barbary piracy, and the enslavement of Europeans was part of the booty. The issue of slavery on Louiss galleys was different. In France, building up the French navy and competing in international commerce were the main goals. The previously dilapidated French navy was intended to defend ports like Toulon and Marseilles. French galleys were manned by Turkish and Protestant slaves, and the court served the needs of the navy with political prisoners. Building up the French navy through ships had been a major agenda since Richelieu in 1626, and galley slavery and slave labor in

146 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceshipyards was part of the process. To make sure the French navy would never lack men, French sailors were tied to the navy by servage. In 1672 Colbert instituted servage for all sailors, and this law of life-long indentured servitude held for all French sailors, although not their ofcers. The galleys were a priority for war and commerce in the Mediterranean. To man the French galleys, Turkish prisoners of war were chained together with French convicts, and later with French Huguenots. From the end of the sixteenth century some criminals were sent to the galleys, and by the middle of the seventeenth century, as the navy grew, this became routine for all criminals. When illness compelled galley oarsmen to disembark on French soil, the condemned convicts were crowded and chained in damp dungeons, fed old black bread and water. They often died covered with vermin and wounds. It was in these conditions that Vincent de Paul cared for the galley convicts of Paris and won their hearts, and while tending to their diseases and wounds he even converted many of them.31 A house was purchased in the capital where Vincent established the rst hospital for convicts and galley slaves. Because of his success with them he was ofcially appointed by Louis XIII to the royal almoner of the galleys. This sent de Paul to Marseilles, the center of galley slavery. The Lazarists, the order he created in 1635, became the royal almoners of the galleys under the reign of Louis XIV.32 When the French read captivity accounts of the European captives held on the Barbary, this form of suffering was not an exotic tale to them. Many were familiar with the chained convoys of French galley slaves. Convoys of prisoners walked from Paris to Marseilles through many towns before being chained to the oars of royal galleys at the port. Under Louis XIV galley slavery grew to unprecedented proportions in France when the Protestants joined the convicts and the Turkish captives as galriens du roi. In this period the most abundant tales of captivity were not those written by Barbary captives, Catholics oppressed by Islam, but by French Protestants oppressed by Catholicism at home and sent to the galleys by le Roi trs Catholique. Many of these stories are triumphant tales of Protestant resistance to Catholicism in the face of martyrdom. Although some Huguenots were sent south to Marseilles and Toulon or to Bordeaux and Dunkirk before 1685, it was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 that marked the real turning point. Should they be caught escaping France, the galleys was their fate. The Protestants were described as different from the other men on the galleys. These well-connected and literate galley slaves were often members of the bourgeoisie, and at times of the aristocracy. Unfortunately for them, the congregation once founded by St. Vincent de Paul was in charge of converting them, at times with terrible brutality.33 These new galriens du roi could be viewed as prisoners of state and political dissidents. Dissidence was punishable by death. They suffered the same fate as the Turks and convicts, only worse; they were subjected to more religious pressure and torture. Protestant galley slaves developed a very strong bond with their Turkish companions, who because of Ottoman power had more privileges.34

The Turks and the Other Within 147The Turks were numerous on galleys in Toulon and Marseilles, and by all accounts they were given the toughest tasks. The current expression fort comme un Turc (strong as a Turk) originated on the French galleys, whose oarsmen were led by a Turk on the rst bench. Most of the difcult spots on the oars were occupied by Turks, allegedly because of their strength and skill. There were usually fty-two oars, 13 meters long. The front and the rear of the galley, important for setting the speed and any change of direction, were reserved for Turks. They controlled the movement of the galley, and their place in the hierarchy of the galleys was quite high. The French missionaries and the French court had to exercise unusual caution with their Turkish captives due to the existence of the many hostages held by the Barbary corsairs. Any unusual mistreatment would have political repercussions that would hurt the European captives.35 While the Barbary tales of Europeans converted to Islam familiarized the French with Islam, albeit in a specic way, the Turkish war captives brought the French face to face with Ottomans inside French territory. The Turkish oarsmen often acted as teachers and trainers, and their collaboration was important for the French navy. Training was necessary because being an oarsman rowing in galleys was dangerous and synchronization was key. If the oars were not synchronized, the men in the bench in front of the oar would break their skulls on it as it descended.36 There were also young children of about ten sent on the galleys by the court. Their formation as future French naval ofcers on galleys was also often the responsibility of Turkish galley slaves. Irked by this Turkish hegemony over the youth, despite their own lack of skills, missionaries took over this task, but unfortunately they only taught catechism and none of the skills necessary. The pedagogical positions held by the Turks is yet another example of the deference given to them for fear of reprisal against French captives. Beyond that, it was a recognition that the Ottomans still had the best galleys and oarsmen. Such considerations were not extended to their companions the Protestants, who had a far worse fate, unless they could pay for some relief.37 No letters or money were allowed to reach them, except if ways were found to break surveillance. At rst the Huguenots and Turks were closely associated together in French views, because of their collaboration on the Mediterranean as corsairs capturing Catholic ships. In the late seventeenth century a new factor tied the two groups together, and an element of active collaboration emerges from the archives. As Louis started treating French Calvinists as criminals, a serious network was organized to help the French Huguenots survive the galleys to which they were condemned. The Huguenots had an extremely organized network to look after their congregation as the kings political prisoners, and in 1699 it even had its regulations published: Les rglements faits sur les galres de France par les confesseurs qui souffrent pour la vrit de lEvangile. These were the statutes of a secret organization aboard the galleys. The success of this secret network within the galleys depended entirely on the Turks and their participation in it.38

148 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceThe Huguenots were not allowed any communication, because the court was well aware that a vast network of Swiss bankers and other merchants was sending the Huguenot prisoners money through letters of exchange. This money was key to improving their lot, and a better placing at the oars or more food was key to surviving. Barbary captives were allowed to write, so correspondence from the Barbary coast reached France, but this was not case of the Huguenots on Louis XIVs galleys. A regular postal service was instituted by the Lazarists with the Barbary coast.39 Mail from the French held in North Africa was regularly disinfected with vinegar, which gives one an idea of how the region was conceived, as ridden with plague and disease.40 No such thing was allowed to the French on the kings galleys. The court was afraid that Huguenots were spies for their Protestant enemies and had banned any contacts between Protestants and the outside world. The corruption of the lower ofcers running the galleys was common knowledge, so money earned or received was the ticket to survival on a galley, and the Turks were the only ones that the Protestants could depend on to obtain outside funds. Most of what was sent to them through the secret Protestant network came from abroad and went through the Turks who were a bote au lettres (mailbox) for their Protestant shipmates. This was a dangerous role that could have cost them their lives.41 Money was required on the galleys to avoid death through mistreatment and starvation, as in many prison environments. All the oarsmen worked on the off-season in Marseilles or Toulon to earn money, save those not allowed to leave the ships, but few earned enough. The tavern was an important institution, ubiquitous on French galleys, and it took most of what anybody earned or owned away from them, including the yearly clothing allocations sent by the king of France on the rst of every January. Rations of food and wine were subject to the corruption of the lower guards on board. Placement on a bench was the job of a committee, higher ofcers than the guards but still corruptible, simply more expensive. Everything had its price. If you had money you could buy yourself the best spot on the bench, or best of all if you could pay enough, never leave the town of Marseilles. In 1703 it was estimated that about one-third of the galley slaves did not leave the port because they bribed the ofcers. The solidarity between these two groups became stronger as the harassment of the Protestants took a terrible turn.42 The famous affaire du bonnet, classied as a high priority as an affaire dEtat in 1700, was just one of many episodes of brutality against Protestants in the galleys committed by the order founded by Vincent de Paul and the Carmelites, royal almoners on galleys. The red bonnets of the galley oarsmen, issued every January rst by the king with their shorts, shirt, and hooded cloak, was an essential part of their costume. When mass was said by the missionaries they insisted that the chained gang remove their bonnets, save for the Turks. The refusal of several Protestants to take their bonnets off to honor the kings orders resulted in brutality and whippings that left several men dead. Europe grew indignant at the brutality of the Catholic brothers, and after this episode all of the galriens, both Turks and convicts, sided with their

The Turks and the Other Within 149companions of the reformed religion. Louis XIV issued orders in 1701 reining in the brutalities, as they were harming what he considered his capital; the king owned the men that the priests were killing. In contrast to the Protestants, the Turks were never harassed during mass. This is clear in the account of a royal almoner, Jean Bion (16681735), who was so horried by the violence against Protestants on the royal galley La Superbe that he ed to Geneva and converted to Calvinism. In 1708, shortly after his ight to Geneva, the newly converted Jean Franois Bion wrote Relations des tourments quon fait souffrir aux Protestants sur les galres de France (Relation of the Torments That Protestants Are Made to Suffer on the Galleys). It remains the best source for the situation of the Turks and the collaboration of the Turks and Protestants. The Catholic attitude was very different toward the Muslim Turks, who were, according to Bion, never bothered during mass: on ne les violente en aucune manire pour leur religion, car lorseque lon dit la messe, ils sortent et vont dans la caque u ils fument et se divertissent.43 [There is no violence against them in any way because of their religion, as when mass is said, they leave on small boats and smoke and amuse themselves.] The Turks had privileges few experienced on the galleys. The constant diplomatic exchanges between the French and the Barbary corsairs explains the great precautions taken with the Muslims on the French galleys, because the lot of the Christians on Muslim galleys was tied to the lot of the Turks on French galleys. Diplomatic correspondence conrms this. In 1707 the Turkish galriens complained that some Turkish tombs in the compound reserved to galley slaves had been soiled by dirty straw that had been thrown into them. The court immediately ordered a full inquiry because si on a parle au Dey dAlger, on puisse faire entendre quon ya remdi.44 [If one speaks to the Dey of Algiers, one can convey that we have remedied the situation.] Fear of reprisal from the dey of Algiers on European captives gave the Turks minor advantages over their companions; nevertheless, tolerance did not extend to letting them follow their own religion openly. They were not allowed to pray ve times a day or have a space for their cult. During the winter season Marseilles was partially a Turkish town, and its inhabitants were familiar with the galley slaves as they sought work in the shops. When the galleys were at their apogee around 2,000 slaves came into town to work. By law, two men had to be chained together at all times in order to leave, and after an order in 1675 it was required that each man leaving for town be chained to a Turk. These rules were not always implemented. Conspicuous for their shaved heads and their galley costumes, the chains made them even harder to miss. In 1702, more than seventyseven master craftsmen and merchants representing the entire body of corporations in Marseilles used the galriens for labor.45 The labor of both Turkish and Huguenot slaves was also crucial to the building of ships in the shipyards of Toulon. The wages of a worker who was part of a corporation was about twenty sols per day, while the galley oarsmen asked for ve or six. There was no discrimination against Turks, and in some cases they were in even higher demand. Some private homes also employed

150 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethem. Marc Vigi writes: il tait du dernier chic pour les Marseillais un peu snob de convier des repas servis par des Turcs.46 [In Marseilles households it was considered chic for the snobbish to invite guests to a meal served by Turks.] If it was the trend for fancy meals to be served by Turkish captives in wealthy households, one wonders if the laws on chaining a criminal to a Turk were implemented. Few bourgeois would have welcomed a French convict in their household. Many eyewitnesses attest to some galriens roaming around the city without wearing any chains at all. This lack of precaution against ight was because the law made employers responsible for using the kings private property. They paid several times the market price of a slave should any of their employees escape, a sure source of revenue for many corrupt ofcials.47 Many royal edicts made slave employers pay huge nes, such as 1,000 livres if the galriens escaped or were maimed and could not serve on the royal galleys. It was a steep ne as it could buy two top quality slaves on most slave markets of the day. Despite the risk of escape, the ofcers on the galleys wanted the oarsmen to work in town. They had their cut, and they later collected all of the money earned as bribes for better food or placing. The rest went to the tavern for drink. A percentage of the money earned went in advance directly from the potential employer to the guards and to the ofcers of the galley, who therefore doubly encouraged this commerce. Only dangerous men or criminals and Protestants in times of war were conned to the galley during the off-season, and they also needed wages to survive. For these men, the main off-season work in connement was knitting. Some oarsmen were entrepreneurs and had enough capital to buy silk and cotton thread to make other men knit socks that were sold in town. Another occupation was the construction and operation of small shops in barracks at the port, where galriens worked for themselves as artisans producing objects for sale. This cheap labor created friction with French established artisans and workers trained within the corporations. In 1702 rules were negotiated by the guilds and corporations with the ofcers of the galleys to regulate the hire, salary, and rights of this captive slave labor during the off-season. There were several ports in France where Muslim Turks were common as day laborers among the population in the winter. The labor laws applied to the Turks and the Frenchman alike.

Abraham Duquesne, French Corsairs, and Colberts Eurasian TradeWhile most Protestants suffered torture and imprisonment, one was raised as a marquis as late as 1681, when the dragonnades were tearing French cities apart. Abraham Duquesne (c. 16101688) was given title of nobility for his contributions to the French navy. In 1787 under the reign of Louis XVI a ship was christened after Abraham Duquesne.48 Naming a ship after a famous dead hero was a revolution, as over a century before Louis XIV had banned the common practice, and he had all

The Turks and the Other Within 151the ships named with attributes to his own glory, names like the Couronne, and the Royal Louis. The practice of the navy celebrating the king alone was broken with naming that ship. Duquesne, a Protestant by birth and conviction, had been given the title of marquis by Louis XIV in 1681, despite Colberts dislike of him. What could have permitted such an exception? Together with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Dusquesne is considered the founder of the French navy, and there is no doubt that he deserved it. Abraham Duquesnes brilliant career spans the entire history of the French navy; it began with its creation under Richelieu and ended in its glory days in the 1680s, when the French navy, thanks in part to Duquesnes expertise and leadership, was at its zenith for a short time. Abraham Duquesne gave up all opportunities to receive the honor he deserved: to become admiral of the French navy. He refused to convert, saying: If I could betray my God, then I could be led to betray my king.49 Duquesne, who led the navy into several major battles, was not a nobleman, and to boot he was a heretic, but he had earned an enviable post in the royal navy, where posts were coveted by the sons of the highest noblesse de robe. Colbert, who was just instituting his commercial policies, was humiliated by the French defeat at Gigery in 1664 and was looking for a scapegoat. While the gazettes were happy to blame the French failure in Gigery on the man-eating habits of the inhabitants and the barbarity of the Berber armies, the superintendent of Toulon and Marseilles, who was also head of the royal galleys, accused Duquesne of pillaging a Dutch ship for his own prot. As a Huguenot and a son of the city of Dieppe, the city most notorious for the best of the French corsairs in the Atlantic, Duquesne was apt to be framed. Colbert investigated and cleared him of the charge. Colbert had no love for Duquesne, as their tense relationship would prove, but he recognized in him not only the qualities of a warrior but of someone who could build up the French navy. Duquesne would be allowed to rise socially because he helped the king centralize the navy, which was previously largely in the hands of merchants, Normans or Marseillais. Duquesne helped put the navy in the hands of the state. The son of a Dieppe merchant, he grew up watching ships being readied for commerce with Brazil, the Mediterranean, and Sumatra. He was, like many Norman sailors, given the right during wars to raid enemy ships. Booty during wars was not piracy as it was allowed by letters of marque. As soon as the aforementioned investigation was over, Colbert invited Duquesne to Versailles, where he stayed from January 1, 1665 to May 3 of the same year, a great honor for a mere merchant. At his departure he was given 3,000 livres as his due, plus another more substantial 12,000 livres as thanks for having taken the cargo of a Turkish ship the Pearl, two years prior. He was then put in charge of nding the best commercial port in Normandy for Colberts new commercial navy and its ambitions to go to India. He went home to his eighty-year-old mother in the suburb of Saint Sever, in Rouen.50 There he got into quarrels among local families over whether Le Havre or Dunkirk should be the kings new port, which led to the idea of a port in Charentes on the property of a Huguenot family, which could easily be conscated. While going up and down that

152 Orientalism in Early Modern Francecoast of seasoned seamen, he advertised to whomever would listen that no one paid better than the king.51 This was not minor advertisement. Abraham Duquesne was a high-ranking member of the navy, but also a local whose word was taken seriously. Norman and Breton corsairs and their ship crews worked for the best pay; it had been that way for two centuries. The fact that Louis XIV now could afford to hire the best corsairs was a major asset in his wars. The relationship between Louis XIV and the corsairs became a close one. Two of them would be accepted as part of the royal navy. Louis would even lend his own ships for la course, a pirating war run by corsairs at the service of the French court against the Dutch or against Spain, in an unprecedented complicity established between the king and the Norman corsairs. Duquesnes services to Colbert were so important that his fake credentials of nobility, presented by his eighty-year-old mother, were knowingly but readily accepted in 1665 when titles of nobility were being investigated for fraud. Well before the creation of the East India Company and well after it, Asian goods also entered France through an illicit channel that was very important and often remains unexplored in works about trade. Corsairs working for France would attack Dutch and English ships in the Atlantic as they were nearing their destinations and bring their cargoes to be sold on the market in France. The merchants who later saved Colberts failing East India company, the merchants of Saint Malo, were long established in Eurasian trade, albeit without going to any Asian markets. They never left the Atlantic shores but managed to bring many exotic goods to markets. Their prizes were legal and documented in the second half of the seventeenth century. The type of war they ran for the French king was called la course.52 Piracy was illegal; la course was not. The French corsairs had successful gures that were the equivalent of Drake or Hawkins for Elizabeth I. The monarch issued the corsair ships Lettres de Marque, giving them formal permission to attack ships of an enemy power during war. Under Louis XIV the line between the royal navy and the corsair was blurred, as after 1681 these ofcial permissions allowing the capture of an enemys commercial vessels were routinely given to the French corsairs by the minister of the navy. The best of the corsairs temporarily became part of the French navy and were received at Versailles. Their crews were exempted from servage. It is almost impossible to give an all-encompassing denition of the French corsairs; most attempts have led to oversimplications, as the course was run out of the posts of Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne, Le Havre, Cherbourg, St. Malo, Morlaix, Brest, and Nantes.53 It was also very important in La Rochelle, where many of the corsairs were Protestants. The corsairs had a long history and had been active in the English Channel and the Atlantic since the end of the thirteenth century as important players in the Hundred Years War. Captured corsair prizes, the booty of sea battles, made up a large percentage of the exotic goods in the market. The Dutch war was a commercial war. During Louiss reign the guerre (war) de course was an opportunity for France to reap the benets of Eurasian trade without going to Asia.

The Turks and the Other Within 153Louis XIV wanted the cooperation of successful corsairs against his enemies. Dunkirk, when it was in French hands, was the center of la guerre de course. Jean Bart (16501702) and Jean Doublet (16551728) are among the most famous of these French corsairs from the port of Dunkirk.54 During war, the most well-equipped corsairs were lent ships from the French royal navy. They not only attacked commercial ships, but some of them were intrepid enough to bring in war ships. Until the beginning of the century, warships and commercial vessels remained similar until the Stuarts created large warships with enormous artillery power that proved efcient against Spain in 1588. Among the 122 corsairs running the war, the most important were Ren Duguay-Trouin from Saint Malo and Jean Bart from Dunkirk. The king decided that they were to enter the royal navy. Like Abraham Duquesne, these corsairs were from merchant families, prosperous and long established in maritime trade. Unlike the army, Louis XIV had total control over giving rank in the navy. The navy would bear the marks of Colberts policies. Based on merit, men such as Duquesne, Duguet-Trouin, and Bart were given titles of nobility and reached the highest ranks of the navy, but never the admiraltythere was a glass ceiling. The post of admiral was reserved for top aristocrats, as Daniel Dessert has analyzed, as were the highest ranks of the navy. Jean Bart was given the titles of chef descadre et commandant de Dunkerque, and Duguet-Trouin lieutenant-gnral des armes navales. Foreigners were rare in La Royale as the navy was called; Bart, a Fleming, was one of three foreigners in the ranks of the entire French navy.55 Acceptable legal prizes were, rst, enemy ships, second, ships that did not hoist their pavilions or had no papers, or any ship, even from a friendly nation, carrying goods from an enemy nation. The prizes had standardized ways of being distributed. In a corsair expedition there were three main parties: a ship owner, usually a merchant who provided the ship; the corsair captain who provided the crew; and a third party who armed the ship, providing arms, ammunition, food and drink, rope, and every item that might be needed. The prizes caught were recorded and sold at market price, including the ships. A tenth belonged to the king, or after 1681 to the admiralty of the French royal navy. A fee went to the judges and administration recording the prize. Then the remainder was equally divided by the ship owner, the party arming the ship, and the captain, who paid himself and his crew. The captain got twelve parts, his lieutenant eight, the ship surgeon six, the ship script six, the carpenter and cannon master three each, then one or two for soldiers and below them the crew, either 1/2 or a 1/4. One made the best money as a captain if he owned the ship, as then two thirds of the prots stayed for the captain and the crew. Jean Bart was over two meters (nearly 7 feet) tall and a amboyant gure, born in Dunkirk to Flemish parents. Bart started sailing at twelve and was among the crew of the Dutch Admiral de Ruyter, a man adulated by his crew. He sailed alone as one of the Dunkirk privateers for the French court and devised methods of capture that became famous. In four years alone, 16741678, he captured over fty Dutch

154 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceships. Many sources point to the astonishing fact that the tall and awkward Bart was received at Versailles while he barely knew a word of French but spoke uent Flemish, English, and Swedish. During the six years of the Dutch war, which was a commercial war, Bart alone had brought in 81 ships as prizes. Colbert was well aware that while the port of Dunkirk had lost 32 captains and 3,000 sailors in the war, the privateers of Dunkirk had captured 384 ships for the French navy and a booty of 3,787,695 livres.56 The French suffered many irreparable naval losses at the hands of the Dutch. Patrick Villier has been studying the intriguing memoirs of the Norman Jean Doublet (16551728).57 Very few direct accounts remain, and therefore Jean Doublets is very important even if it has some chronological errors. Doublet extended the guerre de course to the islands, as the Dutch war was also fought near Curaao, where the Dutch had settled. The French Antilles were part of the conict, and most of the battles were run by corsairs.

The Normans in the French Antilles and French ColonizationIn 1664 a great effort was made to evict Dutch traders from French territory in Saint Christophe while the Dutch were not even at war with France. Yet, this ght was unpopular, as the French were isolated without the Dutch. The history of French colonization in the Antilles was nally a success, and France would have colonies at last. Canada had in many ways escaped Richelieus grip; despite his hope to monopolize its fur trade, it was in the hands of coureur de bois and private individuals, and many of the fur traders in Canada were Normans. The Normans, many among them Huguenots, were to the Atlantic and Caribbean trade what the Marseillais were to the Levant trade. The Huguenots were crucial in establishing French presence in the islands and in North America.58 As discussed previously, the Normans were trading in the Atlantic since the early 1500s if not earlier. Paul Butel notes that from Honeur and Dieppe in Normandy and from La Rochelle, a Protestant city, and Bayonne in Aquitaine, enough ships left for the Caribbean to make it possible to speak of a continuous French trade during the last quarter of the sixteenth century. French corsairs and libusters, many of them Huguenots, knew the islands well before colonization. When the famous corsair Jean de Fleury approached Martinique in 1620, the indigenous inhabitants of the islands greeted the ship with bows and arrows ready to shoot; the French started screaming from the ship France bon, France bon and showed the wares they had come to trade, mostly axes, knives, and metal tools. They were so well received and so well fed that they could barely walk back to the ship. They were not the rst, and the inhabitants seeing the wares knew what to expect.59 The immediate retreat shows clearly that this was not a rst encounter. Richelieu had hopes for colonization and the commerce of tobacco, the main crop of the islands, when he created a rst company, the Compagnie de Saint Christophe, in 1626. This would

The Turks and the Other Within 155not have been possible without two Norman subscribers, Pierre Belain dEstambuc and Pierre Gourney. D Estambuc, a libuster, while running his ships to the islands had noted the Englishman Thomas Warners success with tobacco and had sought the cardinals protection to establish himself. He was given the commission to establish the French on Saint Christophe and grow tobacco. Unlike the English who were established in Virginia, the French were isolated and could not get provisions without Dutch or English carriers. In 1629 the Spanish attacked both the French and English on the islands. Tobacco prices had collapsed in Europe in 1630, but the French had managed to produce 200,000 pounds of tobacco, about half that of the better-established English.60 From then on planters began to think of sugar cane. On February 12, 1635, Richelieu created the Compagnie des Isles dAmrique and was its chief investor. Five months later Charles Linard de lOlive planted the French ag with its eur de lys and the cross on the west coast of Martinique while having his men chant Vexilla Regis. This was not directly Richelieus company; badly funded, the company had left it to a group of merchants from Dieppe to nd funds, men, and ships. Judging the island too mountainous, Linard de lOlive, decided alone to lead the 350 Normans to another island, Guadeloupe. Martinique would be colonized nevertheless, not directly from France, but by the Norman entrepreneur Belain dEstambuc, now familiar with the many problems of settling Europeans, as he had already settled a few hundred men and women on Saint Christophe. Despite the dismantlement of Richelieus company and defying any orders, Belain dEstambuc took it upon himself to send two ships with a hundred French inhabitants of Saint Christophe to settle Martinique, where they arrived with provisions to plant sweet potatoes and other plants to survive. Guadeloupes new inhabitants were not led by an experienced leader, and when bragging about the new French colony of Guadeloupe, Theophraste Renaudot in his Gazette failed to mention the horrendous famine that decimated the colony.61 The Gazette of February 1638 presented a rosy image of French colonization; it read: The Sieur dOlive did everything to gain the affection of the savages in this island he gave them crystals, mirrors, knives, combs, whistles, needles and pins and other bagatelles. The word bagatelle means small things, implied that the savages were won over easily by de lOlive, the representative of the French court. In fact the Huguenots engaged in the Atlantic trade and the libusters had traded with the indigenous peoples for a long time. Even when he worked with Richelieu, Belain dEstambuc had always followed the old ways of friendship and trading, leaving religion alone. The mission given to the Sieur de lOlive was to convert the inhabitants to Catholicism by the Cardinal de Richelieu. It was going to create severe problems. The locals had mainly dealt with Huguenots and libusters who did not care about conversion, so this pressure had never been encountered previously. The famine also pushed de lOlive to let the French occupy Indian gardens and steal food. Duplessis, a Huguenot cofounder of the colony in Guadeloupe, was opposed to these political moves and pursued the old ways of friendship with the indigenous Carabes, and he took refuge among them.

156 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceA decade later, when settling Grenada mid-century the war between the Indians and the French took place for the same reasons; it was exacerbated by the fact that African slaves were often recruited by the Indians to revolt against their French masters.62 Under Louis XIVs reign France started to settle Saint Martin and Saint Bathlemy in 1648 and Grenada in 1650. In the system of the engag tobacco growers worked for three years and got a parcel at the end, although many masters abused of the system and made it seven years of servitude, as it was for the English. After 1650 sugar had replaced tobacco as the main crop of the French Antilles. Columbus had taken sugar cane to Hispaniola very early, but not all of the islands knew its cultivation, as it was labor intensive. The Dutch were chased out of Brazil in 1654 and brought sugar cane to the Dutch and French islands. The French islands proted from the arrival of Marano Jews from Brazil, who were important for their expertise in rening sugar. In 1651 La Compagnie des Isles dAmrique had sold its rights to individuals, who were running the islands as personal efdoms, to Colberts annoyance. Despite the existence since 1638 of a lieutenant general to represent the king of France, the local governors were all-powerful. In 1663 Colbert decided that to monopolize the commerce of the islands would put an end to this. As he had done for India, in same year, 1664, another company, the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales was created with a capital of seven million subscribed by the king. Its second article forbade French commerce with the Dutch. The arrival of the ships of Colberts company and their representatives created a revolt in Martinique, where company men said the inhabitants had a coeur hollandais (Dutch heart). While the French had four ships, the Dutch had 200, and they carried French tobacco out for sale and brought in all the European goods the French craved and were dependant on. Their Dutch heart was a necessity that court policy did not understand. Colberts company was detrimental to their commerce. Just as the Marseillais did not like the Compagnie des Indes Orientales, the French in the islands resented the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales. As early as 1666 the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales had to make concessions and allow the French in Martinique to trade with foreigners if they were allies or at peace, which was the case of the Dutch, for a fee of ve percent. There were no such incidents of revolt in Guadeloupe. In Saint Domingue there were some problems, chiey because the all-important French libusters now had to have the authorities adjudicate their catches and booty, and they resented this. After many issues the Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, which had lost many ships and had no real nancing, had to forfeit its monopoly in 1668 and open the islands to foreign trade, to the exclusion of the Dutch. The exclusion was a gesture, as they could in any case not prevent the Dutch from trading. A real turning point took place for Louis XIV in 1674, when Colberts very unpopular Compagnie des Indes Occidentales was dissolved as it went bankrupt. A council of ten members chosen by the king in 1675 was instituted for the islands in 1679.63 If part of the islands were colonized the state had little to do with it. Colberts company was a failure as were the companies before it.

The Turks and the Other Within 157The French libusters, based on the island of Tortuga, ran raids against Spanish holdings and were deeply involved in the settlement of the islands. In the French part of Saint Domingue, Bertrand dOgeron, its governor, who was a buccaneer in origin, left piracy to work on the agricultural development of the island. He tried to reign in the libusters, associated with Morgan, from pillaging, but failed. A good part of the libusters, however, did get involved in the sugar plantations of Saint Domingue through the incentives he gave. The famous libuster Ducasse became the next governor of the island, and he and his companions were key in taking the island from tobacco growing to a sugar and indigo economy. In 1715, at end of Louis XIVs reign, Saint Domingue counted 7,000 French colonists and 30,000 slaves working on 1,200 plantations devoted to indigo, and 138 sugar plantations. Ducasse encouraged a number of libusters to engage in producing colonial products.64 The islands had escaped Louiss control. One edict would attempt to change this. The Code noir was promulgated by Louis XIV in 1685, which established a royal administration to look after its application on the island of Saint Domingue in the 1690s in order to keep the islands under royal control and take away power from local governors.65 It was the result of a commission ordered by Colbert in 1682, who did not live to see its results. There was nothing humanitarian about the Code noir. It aimed to exclude Jews and Huguenots from the prots of trade. Colberts aims were to look after the protability of islands for France and to legislate the relationship between master and slave more closely, and even more importantly, to keep order and avoid a revolt of the growing servile population. The code also directed the master to assume the cost of feeding older or sick slaves, and established nes if they were left to charity of the hospitals. It spelled out punishments for every crime and established royal legislation over a master and slave relationship that had been a private one. A revised Code noir was again issued by Louis XV in 1724, and it had long legal consequences on the Antilles. Most historians afrm that it had little effect on the harsh daily life of the plantation slaves. Its cold administrative tone sheds light on the cruel realities of life on the islands. Article one evicting the Jews gives religion as motive, but Colbert had built reneries in France and now sugar was being rened in France and not only on the islands. The Marranos (Spanish and Portuguese Jews who had converted to Christianity, often accused of still professing Judaism in secret) were in great part in the renery business in Martinique, and their departure would leave the rening business for France. Yet, it would be a mistake to read the code for commercial motivations, because the timing of the code, the same year as the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, points to the religious motivation of the code. The islands were closed to Protestants and Jews. Article two demands that all slaves be baptized and educated to become Catholics, Article three forbids any religion except Catholicism, and Article four forbids work masters (commandeurs) of any other religion to be employed by plantation owners. The next article forbids making slaves work on Sundays and religious holidays, not out of humanity but for religious reasons. Because

158 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceof the sacrament of marriage, Article nine forbids separating families in order to sell them. The Code noir was also essential to Louis XIV as he entered the business of the slave trade. On January 20, 1685 Louis XIV wrote: We establish the Compagnie de Gunine for the commerce of negroes, gold powder and all merchandise on the coast of Sierra Leon and the Cape of Good Hope.66 During Louiss reign at the turn of the eighteenth century the entire French Antilles owned 30,000 slaves as opposed to the English who owned 110,000; of those, 50,000 worked in sugar cane plantations in Barbados and 40,000 in Jamaica. In 1713 there were 274 sugar cane plantations in Martinique and the French held 26,000 slaves. The rise of the price of sugar after 1690 had contributed to this success, although prices would stagnate in 1713, reducing these numbers.67 At the end of the reign of Louis XIV the French Antilles were far from playing the global economic role they later played just before the French Revolution. In France and all territories controlled by France including the Antilles, 7,000 square kilometers altogether, rigid punishments were being inicted on any Protestant who would not convert. Abraham Duquesne, still a convinced Calvinist, left France by buying the land of another famous Huguenot. He bought the Baronie dAubonne in Switzerland, lands that Jean-Baptiste Tavernier had settled after his return from India in 1659. Tavernier too had received titles of nobility from Louis XIV. Both men had received these royal favors before 1685. After 1685 it did not matter how many services one had rendered to France, how many prize ships one had brought in, or how many islands one had conquered in the Caribbean, one converted or, like Duquesne, if lucky enough to be free to go, one left France for good. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the Code noir were part of Louiss ultra-Catholic universal stance. It was to compensate for the fact that after the Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 he could no longer comfortably pose as the protector of universal Catholicism and its imperium. It was in the wake of this episode that he would be called the Grand Turc, just as those around him were writing a plan for a new crusade.68 Charles Frostins work has demonstrated Huguenot leadership among the French buccaneers, many of whom were also of the reformed religion. The Huguenots, now banned from the islands by the Code noir, had been and were crucial to the French for the commerce and settlement of the islands.69 The European Atlantic trade in the Caribbean was still generally small in size in this period, even for the better-established Dutch and English.70 For Martinique, which with Saint Domingue became important for French colonial goods in the eighteenth century, the gure cited by a contemporary source is thirty ships.71 Huguenots and Jews were important in this commerce; a third of the settlers of the islands before 1685 were Jewish, and their departure would become a setback.72 A majority of the settlers were the seafaring Normans and Bretons and some peasants from the Poitou. The much abused system of indentured temporary white slavery, the engag, was all-important under Louis XIV.73 Sugar and to some extent indigo were the main crops under Louis XIVs reign, and late in his reign the king was hoping for another crop: coffee. It was not to be.

The Turks and the Other Within 159While Louis XIV was alive coffee remained a rare and expensive Asian import. The Dutch had grown it successfully in their colony of Java. It was well after his reign that France became the worlds rst exporter of coffee grown in the French Antilles, initially in Martinique. Nothing demonstrates better that the exotic is a matter of reception and perception as the naturalization of African coffee as a French good. The road to coffee becoming a colonial good and national habit was long and took well over a century. It was orientalists traveling to the Ottoman empire that rst brought coffee to France.

This page intentionally left blank

Part II Consuming the Exotic

This page intentionally left blank

6Coffee and Orientalism in France

I have heard Mr. De La Croix, the interpreter in the Turkish language say that the nephew of M. Thvenot, traveler to the Levant, was the rst to bring coffee to Paris for his own use, and to treat his friends to it, among whom was [Petis] De La Croix. Some Armenians brought it [to France] later, and more or less built its reputation up to what it has reached today.1 Antoine Galland, 1696

Antoine Galland refers to the authority of another orientalist, Petis De La Croix, to trace the origins of coffee drinking in France. The history of coffee in France and French Orientalism were closely linked, as descriptions of coffee came from travelers with an intellectual interest in the Ottoman empire or Persia. Many seventeenth-century sources about coffee are Dutch, French, and English travel accounts. The most notable are the rst to mention or describe coffee, such as the German Leonard Rauwolfe (d. 1569), the Englishman Sir George Sandys (15771644), Jean de Thvenot for France (16331667) and Italian Pietro Della Valle (15861652); the latters efforts are remembered for linking the new beverage he observed in Persia to antiquity. Even though there were no records or any mention of coffee in Greek or Roman texts, in his quest for coffees origins Della Valle insisted that it was nothing other than nephente, which Homer described as a drink Helen brought with her out of Egypt.2 Galland claimed that one of the rst to serve coffee in France was the traveler Jean de Thvenot.3 Thvenot, who encountered coffee drinking in Constantinople, introduced his friends to this exotic drug. Antoine Galland pointed out that it was the Armenians who spread its usage throughout Paris, but Galland did not give any more details about the spread of coffee in France. Since he was an orientalist, his discourse was focused on the oriental origins of coffee and its uses in the Ottoman empire. There were already several cafs in Paris in 1699, when he was translating from the Arabic the ideas of a man named Jaziri. Coffee was clearly considered an oriental product, despite its African origins, and continued to be viewed as exotic even when the French succeeded in planting it as a colonial product in Martinique after 1723. The following two chapters examine both the uses made of coffee to observe the impact it had on French material life, and the discourse about coffee drinking. Coffee illuminates some views the French held about exotic products and also the discourse these goods solicited about the


164 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceOrient. In the early seventeenth century coffee was considered a rare and exotic curiosity, and save in medical treatises, where it is often qualied as an Arabic taste, it was mostly seen as an Ottoman habit. Rightly so, as the rst coffee house opened in Cairo in the rst decade of the sixteenth century. The central market for coffee was Cairo, and the source for the coffee was Yemen. Coffee represented one-third of Egypts foreign trade by the eighteenth century. In a sample of eighty coffee merchants who were studied by Andr Raymond, thirty were North Africans, fteen Turks, and twenty-eight Syrians. These merchants conned their trade to the Red Sea and to the export of coffee within the Near East and Eastward to India and the South Sea.4 In France coffee, save some exceptions examined below pointing to Persia or to Armenians, remained imagined as an Ottoman drink in most writings and illustrations. Coffees African origins were silenced in every part of this discourse in France; Africa only emerged in eighteenth-century paintings, which only represented Africa by black slaves handing coffee to the aristocracy, notably in a famous picture painted by Vanloo (17051765) of Madame de Pompadour receiving coffee, La sultane prenant le caf.5 This was one of many illustrations of women in the French elite as Sultanas.6 Depicting a black slave serving coffee was more a tie to the European slave trade than to Africa itself. This silence on the African origins of coffee replicates the silence on the slave trade that lasted until a century later in the 1770s. There was an element of orientalist imitation in coffee drinking, and as we will discuss further, imitation of things oriental and Ottoman extended beyond fashionable coffee drinking to fashions in gardens, furniture, dress, and jewelry. These consumer tastes led to transformations as profound as building French factories necessary to domestically produce imitations of the imported utensils for coffee, such as porcelain cups, or the fabrication of domestic textiles for oriental dress, such as French-made brocades and calicoes. Furniture, textiles, dyes, and even coffee went through many transformations to become domestic products. These material imitations and their consumption speak of open admiration for oriental luxury among the French elite, but admiration was not the only view solicited by the foreign. There was resistance. Coffee and its usage highlight some of the complex reception and perception of the exotic in France. There were several stages of commodity indigenization that coffee underwent as an exotic good in France.7 The French colonial enterprise eventually used its knowledge of coffee and coffee growing gained under Louis XIV to grow coffee in its colonies. Less than a decade after the death of Louis XIV, the French succeeded in creating a thriving crop of beans in Martinique. Until then, coffee was an expensive oriental good imported to France. The image of Africans serving coffee only appeared after the colonial success of coffee in the French Caribbean. Partly because of colonial plantations, patterns of coffee consumption changed dramatically over time, yet coffee was adopted before it became a colonial good, as an expensive and rare exotic luxury, making a purely economic explanation for its indigenization

Coffee and Orientalism in France 165insufcient. It was prized because it was an oriental luxury, and that elusive element of taste and fashion played a role in its spread, which is explored in the next chapter.8 Coffee would continue to be marketed as an oriental luxury long after it was grown in the Caribbean, pointing to the fact that its oriental provenance was important to its image. Coffee was seen as an oriental habit because French travelers had visited the coffee houses, which had been well-established for over a century in Cairo, Istanbul, and Isfahan. The diffusion of coffee in the Ottoman Empire was chiey a consequence of the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluk state of Egypt in 1516, where the rst coffee house was opened. Ethiopia could not fulll the new demand for coffee in the Ottoman empire so Yemen, later the largest exporter of coffee, began to supply this market in the 1540s.9 Coffee drinking was common in the Islamic world well before the 1670s when the new cafs were opened in Paris, that also opened a new sphere of sociability beyond the tavern, which was exclusively male but not upper class.10 Among all of the exotic plants imported to Europe, coffee, tea, and chocolate played a transformative role in French society, but most transformative of all was coffee, because of the creation of the caf. Of the three new beverages that became part of the European diet in the seventeenth century, coffee was the most discussed. Tea and chocolate had their importance, but their social impact was not as dramatic in France, although chocolate played a major role in court banquets. Because of its social impact, coffee was the object of various forms of discourse in dissertations, plays, poems, songs, and travel accounts. As a new drug, the French found coffee controversial because its properties were unknown. This gave way to medical debates, some of which repeated much older debates that had occurred earlier in the Ottoman empire and were transmitted through travelers and translations from the Arabic. In seventeenth-century France, natural history, medicine, commerce, and the economic state of the nation were closely linked in the writings on exotic plants. Royal commissions for the study of the subject of coffee were rare. Only one of Louiss personal physicians, Monsieur Nicolas de Blgny (16521722), wrote a treatise on coffee at the kings request. Most works on coffee were written by independent merchants and scholars.11 Treatises on the exotic new beverages of tea, coffee, and chocolate were commissioned by private individuals both for their commercial and scientic value. Sometimes an individual served the court, and Chardins seemingly innocent commissioner gathered information for the French company and the French court. Like many historical transformations, the birth of that major institution, the French caf, and the French habit of coffee drinking, happened without much conscious planning. Discourse from the court, the guilds, caf owners, and consumers offers a complex view of its early history. It helps to reconstruct how the taste for coffee was acquired and sheds light on the social agency of what was considered to be an Ottoman beverage. Coffee drinking affected elements as diverse as receiving

166 Orientalism in Early Modern Francehabits in the domestic sphere, the transformation of the public sphere by the caf, and medical knowledge and drugs. As Braudel wrote so pertinently, certain minute events that are barely marked in time and space become part of the structures of everyday life.12 It is worth noting the exceptional profusion and the diverse nature of the material, but only the most salient works on coffee will be discussed here. Several different forms of discourse examined here range from royal edicts to songs and pamphlets, from medical treatises to bad verses written by caf owners. Seventeenth-century physicians wrote entire dissertations about the properties of the new drug at the Sorbonne and at the University of Montpellier.13 Paradoxically, these learned tomes were the most popular, as they were summarized and became public reading. Because medical controversies about drinking coffee were so hotly debated at universities in Montpellier and Paris, they made news in the pamphlets and the gazettes.14 Such was the case of Philippe Sylvestre Dufour (1655?), who published a compendium on coffee as early as 1671 and was considered a scientic authority on coffee by his contemporaries, despite the fact that he presented himself as a humble merchant.15 Views about coffee and health changed dramatically and gave way to some interesting debates that hid their initial political underpinnings. Yet, if coffee was directly associated with the Ottomans, it was also associated with their subjects, especially with the Arabs and the Armenians. The Persians, because of travel accounts describing coffee in Persia, were also clearly part of the discourse. More surprisingly, even chinoiserie has been associated with coffee. One cannot help but think of Sad as he pointed to this undifferentiated view of the Orient. It has been argued in his wake that discourse about Arabs is not a strong element in French literary works until the nineteenth century and Napoleons (17691821) expeditions to Egypt. However, there is a strong exception in the case of coffee.16 The origins and medical properties of coffee were culled from manuscripts in Arabic. What is certainly true is that the same discourse on Arabs did not appear in literature, fashion, or paintings, the most studied aspects of Orientalism. In the realm of the arts coffee was clearly associated with the Ottomans alone. The most blatant of all identications of coffee with the Ottomans is a much reproduced engraving (see p. 167) in Philippe Sylvestre Dufours Traitez nouveaux & curieux du caf, du th et du chocolate. Ouvrage galement necessaire aux medecins, & tous ceux qui aiment leur sant.17 The engraving depicts three seated men: in the center is tea, represented as a Chinese man, coffee to his left is a man dressed in Turkish garb, and chocolate is represented as an American Indian. The three gures represent the origins of these three beverages as they were perceived in France at the end of the seventeenth century. Only chocolate is accurately represented, as the other two represent the regions that exported tea and coffee. Tea was imported from China but had its origins in the Himalayas, and coffee, represented by a Turk, was an African plant cultivated by the Arabs. Coffee was originally produced beyond Ethiopia in Mocha, a town in Yemen, but coffee is represented in Turkish dress. On the engraving there are the

Coffee and Orientalism in France 167


Courtesy of the Library Company of Philadelphia.

utensils necessary to the new drinks. The bowl for coffee is not the small njian (cup) brought in from the Ottoman empire. Intellectually, coffee was the scientic domain of orientalists and travelers. Some works examined coffees roots in Muslim society and their views held about coffee. One of the most consequential works on coffee was a commissioned translation from the Arabic. The commission was given to none other than Antoine Galland (1647 1715). His translation of an Arabic manuscript purchased in the Ottoman empire and brought to France remains the most widely quoted work in studies about the history of coffee to the present day. The translation was inspired by Gallands trip to Constantinople, where he read about the origins of coffee in the work of a Turkish historian.18

Travelers and Orientalists: The Origins of Coffee According to Gallands Translation of an Arabic ManuscriptNowhere is the link between coffee and Orientalism clearer than in the work of Antoine Galland. The most famous of all French orientalistss translation was published in 1699 and was studied again by many orientalists, including Sylvestre de Sacy (17581838). To Gallands dismay, it was a light work of ction he had contributed to the royal library that made him famous for generations to come: Les mille et une

168 Orientalism in Early Modern Francenuits. Galland considered his translation about coffee a much more serious work. He had it printed for his intellectual friends as De lorigine et du progrs du caf. This opinion was shared, as his translation was immediately noticed and picked up by the Journal des Savans, the journal of the French Academy of Sciences. The properties of coffee were considered new knowledge even after several works had been published on coffee by physicians.19 Gallands translation was commissioned. A letter dated December 15, 1696 by Monsieur Chassebras de Camaille asked Galland to provide him and his literate friends with information about coffee. The commission was inspired when he and Monsieur de Chassebras drank a cup of coffee together, and Galland recounted reading a Turkish historians work on coffee during his stay in Constantinople.20 If Galland was attempting a history of coffee for his sponsor, his translation was not the rst important work on coffee; there were several books published much earlier, notably Philippe Sylvestre Dufours in 1671 and 1684, and Nicolas de Blgnys in 1687. However, Galland claimed higher authority on the subject because of his travels to the source of coffee drinking, which he believed to be the Ottoman empire. As he expressed in the text, his authority lay in his knowledge of the Arabic language. Antoine Gallands translation was responsible for spreading knowledge of the origins of coffee among the elites of France. Europes knowledge of coffee was largely based on this French translation of a work by a man named Abd al-Qadir al-Jaziri (circa 1558) who traced the history, usage, and controversies of qahwa (coffee) in the Islamic world where it was rst used. The translated manuscript was dated 1587 and entitled: Umdat al safwa hill al-qahwa. Thanks to Gallands translation it became widely quoted. Jaziri credited one Sheikh Jamal-al-Din al-Dhabhani (d. 1470 or 1471), mufti of Aden, as the pioneer who rst made and drank a cup of coffee (circa 1454). Its usefulness in driving away sleep made it a religious drink in Su circles with their all night ritual of worship. Gallands translation became the authoritative work on coffee in Europe, save for one, an earlier description of coffee made by a Maronite orientalist living in Rome, Faustus Nairon Maronite (d. 1711). Faustus was a Syrian scholar and orientalist working in Rome who gave a different story about coffees origin. Antoine Galland did not treat his predecessors 1671 essay on coffee kindly. According to Jaziri, the rst wide usage of coffee was in the Near East in the sixteenth century, which is also conrmed by other sources.21 Yet Galland digressed from translating Jaziri. Instead of translating faithfully he added that the most popular origin of coffee was that the goat-herder Kladi saw his goats dance and hop around energetically after chewing on a coffee bush. Galland accused Faustus Nairon Maronite of inventing this ridiculous myth of coffees discovery in his De Saluberrima potione Cahue. Galland seized the occasion to adamantly tear down his predecessor. Galland made this personal tangent away from the text he was translating in order to chastise Faustus Nairon Maronite for transmitting incredible myths about goat and camel keepers discovering coffee. Worse, totally straying from Jaziri, Galland maintained instead that coffee came from Arabia Felix and had been used in Ethiopia

Coffee and Orientalism in France 169since time immemorial. After disparaging even Narions knowledge of Arabica strange point of honor for Galland as the Roman orientalist Faustus Nairon Maronite was Syrian and a native speaker of Arabic, Galland falsely claimed that Jaziri gave the real origins of coffee drinking to monks and to the Christians of Arabia Felix. Galland then accused Nairon of not wanting to admit that there were still Christian Arabs left in Arabia Felix after the prophet Mohammed and the regions conversion to Islam. This was a strange accusation, since Nairon himself was a Christian Arab, as the word Maronite appended to his name clearly attests.22 Jaziri never mentioned any Christian monks, and he attributed the origins of coffee drinking to the Sus during their rituals. Competition among scholars explains but does not entirely justify Gallands disingenuous scholarship. Indeed, this feud with Nairon was only partially about scholarship and authority about the Orient. He also forcefully disempowered the discourse of a native informant about his own culture. Galland was a mere translator, while Faustus Nairon Maronite described from experience. Galland won the contest of scholarly credibility in subsequent French works on coffee. Therefore in French dissertations on coffee, Gallands word as a Frenchman capable of reading Arabic was taken over a native speaker posted in Rome. Yet, the dispute about knowledge of coffees origins was an even larger issue, and Gallands claim that Christian monks initiated the usage of coffee was very suspect indeed. His source, Jaziri, despite what Galland claimed in translation, attributed the origins of coffee drinking to Su Sheikhs.23 Ralph Hattox in his recent work on coffee, after examining the manuscript by Jaziri 300 years later, along with other Arabic sources, wrote: Throughout the various stories and legends that have come down to us concerning the origins of coffee drinking in the central Islamic lands, there is general agreement on two points: First the use of coffee is invariably tied to Yemen. Second most stories connect it to a man, or men of one of the mystical Su orders.24 Unless Galland genuinely believed that the Sus were not Muslims but Christians, his motivations were clearly of a political nature. He appeared intent on giving the Christian monks the edge. Much of what Abdelcader (as the French called Jaziri) wrote about coffee in the Ottoman empire that Galland translated has often been repeated in books on coffee. The favorite fact mentioned is that the rst prohibition against coffee dated to 1511 in the town of Mecca. All of these stories of opposition to coffee, and many other details, are found to be exactly the same in a recent work of Ralph Hattox, a book on coffee in the Middle East, as they were in the French account by Galland 300 years earlier. Except for the origin of coffee, Galland did not stray much from the Arabic text. Both used the same Arabic manuscript, once in the Bibliothque du Roi, now read by Hattox at the Bibliothque Nationale.25 In Jaziri the rst chapter is devoted to the 1511 Mecca ban, one he could not have witnessed as it was before his time, so Jaziri used several sources to describe the event. The Mamluk pasha Khair Beg was depicted as the principal opponent to coffee. He was the inspector of markets in Mecca, and the arbiter

170 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceof morals, which Hattox qualies as a combination of being head of consumer affairs and of the vice squad. Troubled by the riots in coffee houses, the authorities hoped to ban coffee. Coffee houses were banned at the meeting Khair Beg called, but to assert that coffee itself was contrary to Islam, it had to be actually proven harmful. One Friday Khair Beg brought a large vessel of coffee to a reunion and set it in the middle of the room despite the fact that no one drank it. Coffee itself was now on trial. The Muslim clerics from several sects gathered and discussed the issue; using the usual principle of basic permissibility they classied coffee as a vegetable, and as all vegetables were Gods creation, they saw no reason to condemn it. According to Jaziri, the disappointed authorities thought it was necessary to get the medical advice of two doctors of their own to counter this, and two Persian brothers, kept in the wings by the Mamluk pasha, were produced. They both concluded that because coffee was both dry and cold it harmed the balance of the temperaments in the body.26 They were contradicted by a group who used Razhess previous medical writings on coffee to argue that it was deemed useful in medical treaties for drying phlegm and therefore not harmful. They were summarily dismissed on the grounds that the medical works were discussing another plant, not coffee. The faction wanting to ban coffee drinking won and the pilgrims and the Meccans were forbidden to drink coffee, albeit only for a short time.27 In the Islamic world, where its drinking originated, the last prohibition against coffee itself, rather than against gatherings around coffee, was issued during the Hajj of 1544 by the Ottoman sultan. Ralph Hattox calls Jaziris a minority account, adversarial to the Meccans. Although Jaziri had access to and used the minutes of the ofcial version of the events in Mecca in 1511, he also used another source by a certain Abd-al Ghaffar, an eye-witness. Abd-al Ghaffars version adopted by Jaziri was considerably different from the ofcial version. Hattox has analyzed Jaziri and his source biases and has deemed both hostile to the jurists in Mecca. According to Jaziri the jurists of Mecca acted out of sheer fanaticism (tassub) when they banned coffee.28 Jaziris hostile account, adamant on proving the fanaticism of the Meccans, was the one work translated into French and helped produce European concepts of Islams views and mores. While Gallands translation was more vague elsewhere, he dutifully and correctly translated all bans and noted that they were rarely enforced. Coffee was important during the Ramadan and despite some arrests, its usage could not be prohibited. Hattox nds that there is a pattern to the bans on coffee, and none of them were successful for very long.29 The case of Cairo remains memorable because the closing of the coffeehouses caused violent riots. Thanks to Gallands translation, it was clear to his French readers that by the end of the sixteenth century coffeehouses became rmly implanted in the Middle East and North Africa. There were coffeehouses for the rich and other coffeehouses for the poor in all the main cities such as Baghdad, Istanbul, Isfahan, Mecca, and Cairo.30 Yet, Ralph Hattox implies, quite rightly, that the Islamic debates about coffee have

Coffee and Orientalism in France 171been misrepresented in European writings on coffee as a sign of Muslim fanaticism or reluctance to innovate, and as haughtily and righteously preaching against even the most innocent of earthly pleasure.31 What Hattox calls a portrayal of the protagonists as Muslim blue-noses is not a charge one can squarely apply to Galland. Jaziri was the one who portrayed the Mamluk pasha of Mecca and the jurists of the town as banning coffee because of fanaticism (tassub). Yet to falsely promote a Christian Arab monk as the forbearer of coffee, with no basis at all, indicates a reluctance to assign this new and important habit to a Muslim group of Sus.

Orientalism and the Transmission of Medical Ideas about CoffeeA century later the same phenomenon was to arrive in London and Paris and bring all the controversies about coffee with it. Ideas held by Arab physicians entered via translations. In 1659 there was a translation made into English from a short Arabic manuscript. Together with Jaziri, as translated into French by Antoine Galland, they formed many of the ideas in Europes own medical debates on the properties of coffee. In England Doctor Edward Pocokes (16041691) translation, The Nature of the Drink Kahue, or Coffee Described by an Arab Phisitian, was a short extract from a sixteenth-century Arabic work by an author whom specialists have identied as Daud ibn Umar al-Antaki.32 This English translation was only a fragment of a manuscript that held the distinction of being among the rst texts to be printed in Arabic. The extract in Arabic was rst printed in Oxford in 1659 by Henri Hall using Oxfords rst Arabic types, an honor it shared with another text, the polyglot Bible, which Pocoke helped publish. The work aroused the interest of the scientically curious some years after a coffeehouse had been opened in Oxford by a Jew named Jacob.33 Clearly the discourse about coffee preceded even the rst public coffeehouse. After describing the plant as belonging to Yemen and giving a physical description, the manuscript reads:He that would drink it for liveliness sake, and to discuss slothfulness, and the other properties that we have mentioned let him use much sweatmeates with it, and oyle of pistaccioes, and butter. Some drink it with milk, but it is an error, and such as may bring in danger of the leprosy.34

Orientalists, merchants, and scholars had spread such scientic knowledge of coffee in Europe culled from the Arabic sources before use of the beverage became familiar. Coffee was just one exotic plant considered for medicinal usage; it will become clear further on that this was part of a large reexamination of the medical application of exotic plants, many of which came from Asia and the Americas. The Arabic belief that the consumption of coffee caused leprosy did not nd its way in the medical discourse that arose in France, but impotence, lust, headaches, and its diuretic

172 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceeffect were among the many properties debated in many dissertations written about coffees inuence on the body.

The Link to Yemen, Jean de La RoqueIn one such scientic dissertation, Jean de La Roque (16611745), a merchant and traveler, wrote the history of coffee. It was appended to his travel account: Voyage de lArabie Heureuse. Just as Gallands work was, his writings on coffee were promptly reported by the Journal des Savans. La Roque was part of the rst French expedition to Yemen, which departed in January of 1708 with the goal of securing the very rst direct shipment of coffee from Yemen to France. It was an attempt to cut out the usual intermediaries such as the Arab, Armenian, and Turkish merchants. His account of this rst trip is laden with information on early eighteenth-century trade and political geography as he wrote of the cities of Aden, Mocha, and Bayt-al Faqih and gave great detail on daily life and commerce in Yemen. His second trip to Yemen was even more successful than the rst, and the ships the Peace and the Diligent returned from Mocha to their destination port of St. Malo on June 11, 1713, with both a cargo that yielded a 133.75 percent prot for the merchants and extensive information. La Roques account was published two years later in 1716. He clearly had scientic ambitions, both for mapping the area he traveled to and for composing what was considered to be the rst description of coffee in Yemen and in France. His Trait Historique de lorigine & du progrs du caf was published in Amsterdam in 1716 and was quickly translated into many languages. La Roque started his work on coffee by examining the European scholarship available to him on the subject and named the rst description of coffee in Europe, the one by Prosper Alpini (15531617), a famous doctor from Padua, & great Botanist, who in 1580 followed to Egypt a consul of the Republick of Venice.35 La Roque then chose the sources he liked best, and argued for the high credibility held by Antoine Gallands translation from Jaziri: while dismissing other works on coffee, save for Sylvestre Dufours, he wrote that it was a great pity that Gallands letter on coffee was published in a very small print run and that it was chiey distributed to his friends.36 Prosper Alpini was not on his list of favorites, but that was nothing compared to his negative attitude to Faustus Nairon Maronite. All things Italian were being resisted in France, as France was hoping to surpass Italy. The aim was to form a French national tradition and eliminate the Italian inuence that had long dominated the French arts and sciences.37 In La Roques dissertation one nds a patriotic attempt to give pride of place to France by arguing that the French brought new knowledge about coffee to Europe. La Roque cited everyone before him for their description of coffee to join Galland in tearing down the work of Nairon, the Syrian orientalist based in Rome. Faustus Nairon Maronite had published his work in 1671, but at the same date so had a Frenchman, Sylvestre

Coffee and Orientalism in France 173du Four. In a show of Gallic pride, La Roque proclaimed it was Frances role to provide something more precise on the subject of coffee. He was proud that France had brought exact knowledge of coffee to the world through the work of a Lyon merchant. He wrote that no one could say anything better, more methodological, or more in depth than the treatise on coffee by a certain Sylvester Dufour. Yet, La Roque argued that this author lived as a simple merchant who hailed from Provence and worked in Lyon.38

Syvestre Dufour Presented as a Merchant from LyonThat Dufour was presented as a simple merchant deserves scrutiny. La Roque was protesting a little too much that a humble merchant could be a savant. There are things, he wrote, that a merchant knew better. As proof of Dufours credentials, he cited the fact that Dufours work on coffee was reviewed by the Journal des Savans in January 1685 and by Monsieur Bayle in his Rpublique des Lettres, as indeed it was.39 To be cited and picked up by both was certainly a sign of scientic importance. Yet, La Roque should have honestly disclosed that Sylvestre Dufour had been educated as a doctor. Sylvestre Dufour was a savant, an antiquarian, and an archaeologist who had studied at the Faculty of Medicine of Montpellier. La Roque wanted to present Dufour as a neutral arbiter in a bitter controversy that opposed the medical schools of Montpellier and the Sorbonne. Montpellier advocated the use of new drugs such as coffee, while the Paris Faculty of Medicine condemned it. In the preface of his rst edition Dufour acknowledged that he had collaborators such as Charles Spon (16091684) and a certain Chassaigne, both of whom were physicians based in Lyon who had studied in Montpellier. In addition, Charles Spon was an orientalist who had traveled to the Levant in 16751676 in the company of the English connoisseur and botanist Sir George Wheeler (16501723). Wheelers extensive collection of antiquities was afterwards bequeathed to Oxford University. The son of a Calvinist doctor from a wealthy banking family, Charles Spon traveled widely in intellectual circles, and he corresponded with the Parisian Guy Patin, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in Paris (16011672). Patin famously disparaged coffee and tea, and the use of any drugs such as antimony. Spons correspondance with Patin consisted of sixty-six letters about new discoveries in drugs and especially antimony. Among their discussions were Harveys ideas about circulation of the blood, a discovery ridiculed by Patin. The letters from Patin to Spon are the best source for some of Patins views.40 The SponPatin disagreements about anatomy and drugs was reminiscent of the sixteenth-century orientalist feud of the new lisans du roi of the College du Roi, and the old scholastic Sorbonne. Once again involving orientalists, this time their advocacy of the use of chemistry and of new drugs was opposed by the Sorbonne, which insisted on Galens drugs and remedies.

174 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceSylvestre Dufours collaboration with Spon praised the properties of coffee as a drug conducive to good health. It was a manual for its usage. The treatise is the only one that reveals that chocolate was used in solid form in many confections even in that early period.41 He criticized that the French made a black syrup of their coffee because they added so much sugar to it. He wrote two entire chapters devoted to the French usage of coffee, treating the issue with some humor and irony.42 The three doctors educated in Montpellier were behind the results discussed in Traitez nouveaux & curieux du caf, du th et du chocolate. Ouvrage galement necessaire aux medecins, & tous ceux qui aiment leur sant, in which they praised coffee but warned against abuse. La Roque mentioned another doctor in his history of coffee, who was once Louis XIVs brothers physician, Nicolas de Blgny (1643?1722). The interest the court held in exotic drugs was both scientic and commercial. One of Monsieurs several physicians, de Blgny, was sponsored by the court to write about these new beverages as a curative drug. Despite the fact that he was French, La Roque had nothing good to say about him.43

The Outsider, Nicolas de BlgnyNicolas de Blgny clearly stated that he was ordered by Louis XIV to do research and verify information about the properties of the different forms of essences, oils, and ointments obtained from the drugs tea, coffee, and chocolate.44 Although the title of his work published in 1687 indicates that he served the king and his brother as their physician, his appointment was very brief. Nicolas de Blgny had an adventurous life and was condemned for fraud in 1693.45 His work on coffee did not receive a better reputation than its author. Despite the fact that it was very original and he enumerated all of the possible diseases cured by coffee, Jean de La Roque dismissed the work as an exercise in vanity. He accused de Blgny of having written for the love of writing; an emulation indiscrete was the quaint expression used for plagiarism. De Blgny had openly acknowledged Dufours work, but La Roque was once again very biased. Sylvestre Dufour and Galland were the two writers he held as sole authorities. In doing so he was showing his leanings towards Montpellier and its orientalist sympathies. As a coffee merchant, of course he favored a school that supported the use of drinking coffee for health. La Roque dismissed Nicolas de Blgnys claims of having invented several new drugs to cure diseases. Those new concoctions only proted the doctor, not the coffee trade. Although he did achieve the rank of royal physician, Nicolas de Blgnys work was accused by his opponents of being a cheap publicity stunt for his own curative drugs and especially for his newly invented portable coffee pot.46 De Blgny wrote: I could not say with some authors that coffee is of a hot nature and only suitable to phlegmatics, on the other hand I could not argue as others have that it is of a cold nature and only suitable for the bilious and the sanguine. He held that coffee was generally good for everyone if transformed into a

Coffee and Orientalism in France 175drug to take away harmful properties to all. The four humors and their balance were best restored not by the coffee grain in its natural form but de Blgnys drugs.47 La Roque did not like de Blgnys experiments and their results. To drink coffee in substantial amounts, de Blgny had found, would bring great fatigue to the stomach. It would diminish the uidity of blood, and cause obstructions in the liver and the gallbladder. This was due, de Blgny contended, to the terrestrial particules in coffee. On the other hand, he argued that if coffee was made into a volatile tincture, it would amaze naturalists by its marvelous properties. Indeed, de Blgny had made such a tincture, as well as other drugs from the coffee grain.48 Jean de La Roque was an importer of coffee beans into France, and he had little use for de Blgnys medical concoctions; they were bad for business. However, de Blgnys experiments were pioneering in a debate about digestion that would dominate the beginning of the eighteenth century. He was not in any camp but his own, and this would cost him. The doctors of the Sorbonne subjected patients to the Galenic remedies of bloodletting and purgation prescribed by the Greeks, whose ancient school of medicine they espoused.49 Purging and vomiting were the bodys attempts to expel poisons. Parisian concepts were in contrast to Montpelliers, where manuscripts translated from the Arabic had brought in competing ideas via Salerno, Padua, and Bologna, the usage of chemical drugs among them. These ideas were still reaching some Paris doctors through Thophraste Renaudots two sons, Isaac and Eusbe, both detested by Guy Patin in memory of their famous father. Thophraste Renaudot (15861653) was the man who had started it all. Initially a Protestant, after the surrender of La Rochelle in 1628, he became a Catholic. Thanks to the help of the dvots, who loved converts, especially the Pre Joseph and Richelieu, his charitable activity was noticed and supported. On May 30, 1631, he established a weekly, the Gazette de France, in which he defended the politics of the Cardinal de Richelieu. About 1632, he created his intelligence ofce, a bureau des addresses, where he held weekly meetings that constituted a kind of free and controversial school of medicine. Finally, dating from 1640, he inaugurated free consultations for the sick, in which he was assisted by fteen free visiting physicians. He published La prsence des absents (1642), the rst treatise in France on diagnosis, which aimed at permitting sick persons to describe their symptoms to the physician from far away. In 1640, the Sorbonne moved to ban his practice dedicated to the poor. Guy Patin, the dean of medical school, rallied Parliament. In 1640 this Montpellier-educated doctor was asked to become Louis XIIIs physician. This was a rst. Renaudots views had incited Richelieu to attack the very privileges of the faculty of medicine of Paris.50 In fact Renaudot had successfully broken the Sorbonnes monopoly over medicine at court. Richelieus protection of Renaudot was not alien to the creation of a Jardin du Roi by Louis XIII for simples in the tradition of Montpellier. His two sons continued the fathers cause. In this battle over the use of both new and chemical drugs, Nicolas de Blgny was an unafliated adventurer who became renowned for using his drugs to cure

176 Orientalism in Early Modern Francedisease. Yet, he did not belong to the Montpellier faction either. He had made his reputation on his own. Many of the drugs were exotic imports, including a famous new cure de Blgny wrote about, la poudre des Jesuites. Jesuits imported an exotic wood from Brazil to Spain and France, the cinchona bark, that contains a naturally occurring substance effective against malaria, quinine. Despite the fact that the English resisted the Jesuit powder, suspected to be a poison for Protestants, an English doctor, Sir Robert Talbor, gained international fame using it to cure several members of royal family in England. He also saved some of their French relatives. At the French court Nicolas de Blgny was in favor of swallowing quinine and in 1682, after Sir Robert Talbors death, Louis XIV ordered the secret of the fever remedy revealed in writing, just as he would later order de Blgny to write about the effects of coffee. Steven Lehrer argues that cinchona had been included in the London pharmacopoeia since 1677, but the new French book increased the drugs popularity.51 Exotic drugs were Nicolas de Blgnys claim to fame. William Davidson, a foreigner, demonstrated chemistry to students in the Jardin du Roi as early as 1653, as no such branch of learning was yet available in France. The ascendancy of the medecins trangers of Montpellier was at least partially due to Louiss support of physicians like Renaudot or Nicolas de Blgny and the Jardin du Roi, sponsored by the king and independent from the Sorbonne. Louis XIVs views on the matter were shaped by his near-death experience in the hands of his Paris doctors in 1660, which was a spectacular and public episode, as betted Louis. He swallowed antimony. Guy Patins rejection of the drug antimony as a poison, even though it was the drug that saved the king, remained notorious and was detrimental to the reputation of the conservative Paris faculty.52 The controversy over drugs was one that continued for many decades. It did not help de Blgny that La Roque insisted that the benets of the salts, oils, and essences that Monsieur Nicolas de Blgny claimed to have invented to cure diseases had yet to be tested. De Blgny used coffee beans to extract an oil he called huile xe. La Roque believed it quite inconceivable that six to eight drops of huile xe could help cure all the diseases related to hysteria.53 In short, La Roque, even though a partisan of the Montpellier school, still regarded the kings brothers doctor as a quack. The medical school of Montpellier had inherited the use of coffee through the works of Rhazes (865925).54 This famous Persian physician was read in Provence through his immense nine-volume encyclopedia, the al-Hawi or Continens Liber. For our purposes it is only important to remember that Rhazess own experiments and live observation of diseased patients led him to amend the Galenic theory of the humors through the administration of liquids. Rhazes had observed changes in body temperature and disease after introducing hot liquids to patients. Rhazes was also the rst to have ever mentioned coffee in his work. He called the grain bun and the drink buncham.55 Coffee was a hot liquid when brewed and was seen as a potent drug. The debates around coffee in France were at the center of some of the discussion about the digestive system. Bacons interest in coffee is better known, as

Coffee and Orientalism in France 177was the contention that it had helped Harvey discover blood circulation.56 In France some early modern medical treatises, both English and French, could not praise the new beverage enough, while others sternly warned against its use. The debate was as tense as it had been a couple of centuries earlier in the Ottoman empire. Most sixteenth- and seventeenth-century medical treatises in Europe, just like those by Arab doctors, described coffee as cold and dry in nature. The doctors of Montpellier claimed that its qualities were benecial to the gastric system and helped respiratory diseases. The erceness of the debate in France generated a vast medical literature that still remains to be noticed let alone studied. Medical debates continued well into the middle of the eighteenth century. Most of this literature has not been noticed save for one, a dissertation written by Claude Colomb.57

Claude Colomb and the Merchants of MarseillesClaude Colomb defended an entire medical dissertation about coffee and its effects on the population of Marseilles in front of a university committee and the general public, who had been invited. La Roque saw this medical work as a consequence of the mere possibility of a new habit, in the wake of the opening of a rst caf in Marseilles in 1671. The caf, he contended, was only frequented by a few sailors and Levantines. This Marseilles caf was the very rst in France. According to La Roque, coffee was also served on the Marseilles galleys, where it was prepared by the Turks.58 Claude Colomb was sure that coffee was not of a cold nature but a hot one, and that it would burn; his views were not unique, as some Arab doctors had argued this in Mecca. Coffee burned people because it was dry. His opinions were not conned to academic debates; after his public defense on February 27, 1679 in City Hall, coffee was banned.59 It was publicly burned by the city of Marseilles, as according to Jaziri had been done in Mecca in 1511. The notion that coffee disturbed the balance of the humors was attributed to consuming it in excess by Colomb. It is difcult to think that he had read Jaziri as it had not been translated. Pocokes 1659 translation of Anataki was available. He borrowed the properties given to coffee in the Middle East, where the side-effects were thought to be headaches, hemorrhoids, reduced sexual desire, and even male impotence. Colomb took this even further and argued that coffee consumption was uncontrollable and inevitable despite medical warnings. What he meant to prove was moral corruption, that coffee led to gluttony and was addictive (although the concept of addiction did not exist and he did not use the term). He used the term tyrannical. For Colomb only tyranny explained how the French had acquired a new foreign taste, while their habit had been wine drinking. Colomb was asked rhetorically whether coffee was harmful to the inhabitants of Marseilles. He answered that anywhere that coffee had penetrated it had become a tyrannical drink, that it created a violent passion for its consumption, and he added another danger: Among us it would need very little [coffee], that because of the

178 Orientalism in Early Modern Francegreat qualities attributed to it, it would abolish the usage of wine. He brought up serious health issues such as the drying of the kidneys due to the burning of the blood and lymph through the violent energy of coffee. His dissertation clearly centered the debate on the issue around the threat of a foreign beverage displacing Frances favorite national product, wine. He went on to explain that there was no good reason for this: the color, odor, and substance of coffee were all far inferior to that of wine. Therefore why should we drink it in France, he asked? Should we drink it because the Arabs have called it bon? Here he was playing on coffees name in Arabic, bun, which is very close the French word bon. Bon in French means good, and Colomb implied that only the Arabs found it good. Colomb was pointing to coffee as exotic, as an Arab taste, to argue that it should not become a French taste. There were elements of Marseillais xenophobia in Colomb through the identication of wine as the domestic drink of France, while coffee was foreign. It became evident that the merchants of Marseilles may have had a hand in public outcry against a new product, the importation of which they did not control. That Colombs dissertation was defended in City Hall, the domain of the provost of the merchants of the city of Marseilles, is extremely telling of Colombs sponsorship. It turned out that some physicians from Provence also sponsored Colomb; two doctors on the faculty of Aix, Castillion and Fouqu, had thrown a freshman like Colomb into the ames of the budding controversy over coffee. Colomb was required to do this to graduate, and the title of his thesis was Question de mdecine propose par Messieurs Castillons et Fouque, docteurs de la facult dAix, Monsieur Colomb. His work was most certainly supported by the Marseillais merchants, whose livelihood was the imports and exports in the Mediterranean harbor. Wine was a major French export to the rest of Europe and beyond and was part of Marseilless brisk business. The merchants of Marseilles had even sent Colbert petitions to ban the commerce of the Armenians and Jews from the Levant from the port of Marseilles. Among other goods that irked the Marseillais, like silk and cotton cloth, the Armenians were the chief importers of coffee at this date.60 The merchants of Marseilles demanded that a tax of twenty percent be levied on all merchandise brought into the port on foreign ships, or on all cargo belonging to a foreign merchant on a French ship. When Colbert issued an edict in 1669 that revoked the ban on foreign traders, it potentially encouraged Armenians to trade in Marseilles, and the twenty-percent tax due from foreigners remained the last protectionist measure to aid the Marseillais. It was shortly after the arrival of a large group of Armenian traders in Marseilles that Colomb red off his dissertation instead of yet another petition to Colbert. It is possible that larger shipments of coffee arrived from the Levant in the wake of this new freedom, although because they were not part of French trade they are very elusive to trace. Nevertheless an acceleration of imports by foreign merchants, thanks to Colberts encouragement, would justify the vehemence of Colombs rhetoric better than, as La Roque contended, a tiny caf and the consumption of some Turkish coffee by galley slaves.

Coffee and Orientalism in France 179Colberts intentions were clear concerning the Armenians and the Jews. He encouraged their trade in France, and did just what he had done with the East India Company: opened it to foreigners with experience, in the hope that it would benet France. He wrote to the baron of Oppde, who was in charge of the application of the 1669 treaty concerning the franchise of Marseilles: I pray you should give the Armenians all the protection that the authority of your ofce will permit you, to preserve them from all the annoyances of the local inhabitants who do not see what constitutes the advantage of their commerce.61 In 1686, he continued his policy of protecting Armenian commerce. In 1687 the court began to be irked by the advantage that the English were gaining by conducting commerce through the Armenian houses established in Marseilles, so an edict of October 21, 1687 forbade the Armenians to engage in trade in the city of Marseilles. There was another issue behind this that it will be explored further, and that was the trade and production of calicoes or indiennes. As will be demonstrated further, Louis XIV decided to make coffee a French habit by creating a French monopoly of it in 1692. There was some exploration and planning before the monopoly. The year of Colberts prohibition against Armenian trade, 1687, is also the year de Blgny was ordered to write his essay on the new exotic beverages. The disgrace of the royal physician in 1693, not long after the coffee monopoly imposed by Louis, might have been further precipitated by the doctors habit of self-promotion. The king was interested in the sale and consumption of coffee. Nicolas de Blgnys ideas about how to eliminate the harmful terrestrial particules of coffee to sell his own remedies were not welcome at court. The voices of the doctors who decried coffee became eerily absent during this episode of royal sponsorship, reminding one that this was an era of royal censorship and sponsorship. Well after Louis XIVs death, when cafs were opened in Paris and drinking coffee was no longer new, the medical debates continued, as some still viewed coffee as dangerous. In 1718 a dissertation candidate demonstrated that the use of coffee did not cause apoplexy.62 More importantly, a dissertation by a doctor from Grenoble recommended making it milder and drinking it as caf au lait, which soon became a staple beverage in France.63 The addition of local milk to coffee tied the exotic grain both physically and psychologically to the French terroir. The territory of France, its green pastures and its grass-fed cows, entered the cup, diluting the black beverage to sweeten its bitterness and foreignness with white milk. The addition of white sugar was a welcome habit too, as that also would economically serve French commerce through the many new French sugar reneries sponsored by Colbert to rene the sugar from the Caribbean colonies within France.64 Yet there still was some very serious medical opposition to coffee even when sweetened with sugar from the French Antilles rened in France and weakened by the addition of French milk. The defense of coffees moderate usage was famously raised by a certain Daniel Duncan, who had a very prestigious opponent: the very Catholic Philippe Hecquet (16611737). Hecquet, like Patin before him,

180 Orientalism in Early Modern Francebecame dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris and a staunch defender of the Paris school of medicine against its rival Montpellier. Philippe Hequet was a mechanist, like many in the wake of Descartess ideas. He presented his views on coffee in a Trait des dispenses du carme (1709). He was a theologian as much as a doctor, and was very concerned with maintaining sexual continence in the Catholic priesthood through diet; he was convinced that coffee was the perfect remedy against sexual incontinence.65 This does not mean that he advocated coffee drinking for the general public, just for the masculine cohorts that entered the priesthood, and only for its instrumentality in supporting chastity. If coffee helped the clergy keep their vows of chastity, it had adapted to its new Christian society and served the moral good of society; for all others, Hecquet thought, coffee was a bad habit. His focus was on digestion, and he wrote De Digestion et des Maladies de lEstomac; Suivant le systeme de la Trituration & du Broyement, sans laide des Levains ou de Fermentation, dont on fait voir limpossibilit en sant & en maladie (1712) in order to argue against the use of coffee in the general public. Jean de La Roque wrote about his views: Hecquet, a Doctor of Paris, who, in his Treatise des Dispenses de Carme printed at Paris by Leonard, 1709, reproaches the French with Drinking like the Arabs, and that they indulge a barbarous Taste, which is, says he, much to be dreaded.66 His theories on digestion were opposed to the views of Raymond Vieussens (16411715), one of the most celebrated physicians of the Montpellier school. Famous for his anatomical studies of veins and the valves of the heart, Vieussens studied in Montpellier in 1670, where he became the top physician at the main hospital. He left for Paris to become Mlle de Monpensiers doctor. In Paris, Vieussens met Philippe Hecquet, a doctor with conservative Galenic views. Hecquet used the taste the Arabs had for drinking coffee as a negative attribute, to discourage the French from adopting such an oriental habit. Coffee drinking was barbarous, largely because using these new drugs was anathema to Galenic ideas: Coffee was never mentioned by the Greeks. Greek medical knowledge came under re during the reign of Louis XIV. As controversy was raging over coffee, the usage of coffee fell within a climate of fracture and rivalry caused by what has been coined the antimony war between Galenists and antimony chemists, the latter based in Montpellier.67 It was believed in France that antimonys effects on the digestive tract had been discovered by a Benedictine monk, Basil Valentine. He had fed it to the monastery pigs, who had immediately prospered. Antimony burns and had killed the pigs intestinal parasites, helping them fatten in a speedy fashion.68 Delighted, Basil gave some antimony to his fellow monks, who did not prosper, and some even died, as it is a poisonous substance. Named (anti-moine) in France subsequent to this experiment, it took more than a century for it to come into fashion again. Vallot, a Montpellier doctor, made a vessel from antimony, lled it with wine and diluted antimony, and gave it to Louis XIV. It is an emetic and it might have saved Louis: twenty excretions and several bouts of vomiting were recorded after Vallot made him swallow the wine.69 Although in

Coffee and Orientalism in France 181France, the kings cure by antimony had ended the antimony war in 1660, controversy over digestives had shifted to other drugs, among them coffee. By 1711 coffee was considered a digestive and was being served in France as a digestive at the end of the meal, as it still is today, which this poem makes clear:Malgr la bonne chre (despite a good meal), Le convive est chagrin (the guest is chagrined) Si votre caffetire (if the coffee pot) Ne nit le festin (does not end the feast).70

Aside from the addition of milk to create caf au lait, coffee had not undergone any of its future European incarnations; it was still served Turkish style, and it was not considered a common French beverage. The medical controversies over coffee, however, also left a glimpse of the diluted coffee that was to become customary in Europe much later. The caf la sultane was the rst and rather extreme French incarnation of the Turkish brew. This form of la sultane coffee, which would have probably induced some hilarity in Istanbul, was an infusion of coffee husks, thrown out in the Ottoman empire, rather than the thick brew that was normally served. It was the brain child of a certain doctor, Nicolas de Bois-Regard Andry (16581742), a professor at the Collge du Roi, who advised just using the husk of the coffee bean and letting it infuse after boiling it. Or one could do the same to whole beans, as a weak infusion meant no harm to the stomach.71 Yet in France coffee itself had lost its black color, according to some observers. Nicolas de Blgny wrote that if coffee was sold preground it had already been considerably weakened by at least a third from the addition of ground favas or peas.72 Nevertheless, even coffee full of pea powder was viewed as a luxury and a potent drug, which justied the high prices it commanded. The color of brewed coffee was close to that of tea. Andry was also the author of a compendium on tea.73 Several Europeans had written about tea, notably the Dutch. It was brought to France as early as 1636 by the Dutch, who imported it from China. Decades later the famous cooking manual Le Nouveau Cuisinier Royal et Bourgeois stated that tea was less common than coffee because it was not as cheap.74 Tea later came to know the same fate as coffee; it went through the same medical discussions of its properties. As a result of these new exotic drinks and debates that awoke the publics curiosity, several very important books were written about tea, coffee, and chocolate in France in the late seventeenth century. Chocolate was much beloved at court and was adopted from the Spanish. It was popular before coffee and could have in some ways helped coffees dissemination, because both were beverages made from luxurious imported goods. In a recent article on chocolate, the author argues for direct evidence that coffee was recognized as a cognate of chocolate. Such identication is found in Spanish and French sources, such as Carta qve escrivi vn Mdico cristiano, que estava curando en Antiberi, a vn Cardenal de Roma, sobre la bebida del Cahu o caf.75

182 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceMarcy Norton notices that in the early seventeenth century a Spanish doctor visiting the Ottoman Empire observed this new drink coffee so common among the Turks, Persians, and Moors through his knowledge of chocolate because he called the special coffee cups used by the Turks by the hispanized pre-Columbian term used for chocolate vessels: jcaras. He also referred to the vessel used to boil the water as a glass pot or a tin-covered chocolatera with a spout they add a spoonful of ground sugar as with Chocolate, and stir it with a silver spoon and drink it by sipping it like Chocolate, as hot as they can take it.76 All of the early European treatises grouped together chocolate, coffee, and tea in order to describe their usage; a clear indication that they were viewed as having much in common. Additionally, as will be discussed in the next chapter, in France the sale of chocolate and coffee fell to the same guild.77 Nevertheless, despite medical resistance and intellectual opposition to the new drug, there are other elements that came into play in coffees success at becoming Frances favorite exotic beverage and later, cheek to cheek with wine, Frances national drink.

7A Barbarous TasteThe Transmission of Coffee Drinking

After the departure of the [Ottoman] Embassadour that Fashion was continued by several Persons, who found means to get Coffee, by having it brought from Marseille or elsewhere. At last came to that City an Armenian, whose name was Pascal, who in the Year 1672, took up to sell Coffee publickly at the Fair of Saint Germain; after which he set up a little Shop upon the Quai de lEcole, where he gave Coffee for two Sols six deniers.1 Jean de La Roque, 1716

In Audigiers 1692 treatise La maison bien regle there is information about the very early arrival of coffee to Paris.2 Audigier was a master of ceremonies, to the countess of Soissons and later to Colbert. He went to Italy in the 1660s to learn about making the new beverages of tea, coffee, and chocolate. He hoped to open the rst Paris shop serving exotic beverages. He applied to get permission to open an Italian-style establishment to serve coffee and many other beverages. His application was fraught with bureaucratic difculties. According to Audigier, his failure was due to a political contretemps: his request had been supported a lady who had fallen out of favor. Meanwhile, Armenians had been importing bales of coffee beans into France for decades but not nding much of a market for it; according to Audgiers own work La maison regl, a levantine attempted to sell coffee beans as early as 1643 in a covered passage that existed between the Rues Saint Jacques and the Petit Pont. Cardinal Mazarin (16021661) brought his own coffee maker from Italy, a certain More. Audigier used the word More as if it were a rst name. It is most probably the French term for Moor. The Ottoman ambassadors visit to Paris brought the fashion of coffee drinking to the elites in 1669. Yet coffee was already brewed in France; not only was it served in court to Mazarin, it was more widely known beyond the court at least three years before the Ottoman ambassador arrived, as a 1666 poem attests. In this trite poem, the poet complained of a headache and fears the usual bloodletting, saigne, and instead the poet preferred coffee, kave:Ce mot Kave vous surprend! (The word Kave surprises you!) Cest une liqueur arabesque. (Its an Arab liquor.) Ou bien si vous voulez turquesque (Or better, Turkish if you like)


184 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceQuand dans le Levant chacun en prend. (When in the Levant everyone takes it.) On sen sert en Afrique, on sen sert en Asie, (They serve it in Africa and Asia,) Elle a pass dans lItalie, (It passed into Italy,) En Hollande et chez les Anglois (Into Holland and England) O on la trouve fort utile, (Where one nds it more useful,) Et des Armniens qui sont en cette ville (And some of the Armenians in this city) Lapportent encore au Franois.3 (Still bring it to the French.)

It is clear from this poem that, just as Galland asserted decades later, the Armenians were seen as the transmitters of coffee drinking to France as early as 1666. To the best of anyones knowledge no cafs were open, but they had began selling coffee earlier according to Audigier. Arguments for rsts are always ex nihilo, and one can only rely on what was rst documented. Coffee was viewed as Arabic or rather Turkish as the poem states, three years before the arrival of the Turkish ambassador in 1669. One also sees in the poem that the medical ideas of the Montpellier school, swallowing coffee for a headache, prevailed over the dreaded saigne of the Paris doctors. The poem, like most of the literature about coffee, was produced by the elite for the elite, as coffee consumption was a luxury for a privileged group. The cultural-functionalist tradition among historians of consumerism assumes that taste follows discourse or a dominant ideology, a mentalit. This sometimes leaves out how a mentalit was forged in the rst place; orientalists and travelers participated in forging this mentalit as authorities on the Orient, sometimes well before coffee became a generally known beverage. The study of coffee in Paris suggests a complex relationship between taste, fashion, politics, commerce, and discourse. Discourse sometimes predated the general use of coffee. Medical discourse was often derived from earlier disputes in the Ottoman empires and came to Europe, such as it did through Edward Pocokes translation, before the consumption of coffee in cafs. Coffee became so successful in the Parisian literary circles in the eighteenth century that there was a profusion of poems, songs, and plays written about coffee after its consumption. Here it is argued that a taste for coffee was constructed simultaneously on several levels, refuting the vertical trickle down model popularized by Norbert Elias. Nevertheless, because of the written record it is still hard to escape studying the elite, even if this elite can be broken down into several groups. Eliass helpful model of social analysis argues that habits were adopted in imitation of the court by the powerful and then by the bourgeoisie. This is a standard explanation for the spread of fashion and manners. Elias argues that the court was imitated in order for the imitator to participate in the social circles of power. Everyone had to master their passions and watch their manners in order to have a calculated behavior signaling one belonged. In acquiring this etiquette, which was key to rising in the hierarchy, imitation and restraint was crucial. He wrote specically with the French court in mind, as under Louis XIV it was the most powerful court in Europe and it became an arbiter of taste and fashion.4 The king was at the center of this system, like

A Barbarous Taste 185the sun was the center of the planetary system.5 What Elias argues for the process of civilization and adopting habits holds true on one level for the purposes of diffusion of coffee, as once at court, coffee got a social blessing. Yet what is suggested below is that a taste for coffee appeared in several groups of society simultaneously; the taste for the beverage was spread by an Ottoman ambassador at court as well as by Armenians who served coffee to the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the rst cafs, almost simultaneously. At the same time La Roque tells us a Greek street vendor, Candiot, served coffee from a pot on his back.6 The diverse aspects of the discourse in France about coffee examined through royal edicts, the writing of courtesans, merchants, botanists, orientalists, the guilds, and the master steward to Colberts household help dissipate the concept of a monolithic and state-centered teleological orientalist discourse that falls ubiquitously under the umbrella of imperialism. While Louis XIV was offered absurd hopes for the conquest of Istanbul, many different views emerged about the Orient; at court when coffee drinking became a focus of discourse the Ottomans were imitated.7 The French elite, and at times the court, mimicked the Ottomans, dressed as a sultan or sultana drinking coffee. Adopting the trappings of another court was a sign of admiration for the renement and luxury of that court. The late seventeenth-century scientic interest in exotic products and drugs such as coffee was part of the courts agenda, yet the success of coffee in Paris cannot directly be tied to Louis XIVs (16381715) court. The descriptions that follow, of the disastrous monopolies granted by Louis XIV, make clear that one cannot look at coffee as a well-crafted royal project. Nevertheless, as will be clear, once coffee was successful in Paris, Louis XIV directly attempted to use the new fashion of coffee drinking for his own political advantage to raise funds for his European wars, and this impeded the spread of coffee drinking. The hope to promote coffee backred. Yet, as will be apparent from Madame de Svigns correspondence, Eliass model still holds for courtesans, as the inuence of the court on fashion and taste cannot be dismissed in favoring or hampering coffee drinking. Trade played a role that was well beyond the control of the court, despite Louiss mercantilist policies. Long familiar with coffee drinking in the Ottoman empire, the Armenians who traveled to Europe helped to establish coffee in several European cities. Marseilles was the principal port for coffee in France. The rst French caf opened in that port. The Armenians opened several of the rst cafs especially in Paris, but also in Vienna and London. The use of coffee drinking spread slowly to most of Europe after 1645 and very rapidly after 1670.8 The VOC and EEIC brought small shipments of coffee to northern Europe, and La Roque notes that the rst shipment of coffee to France was imported from Turkey by an Armenian and reached the port of Marseilles in 1644. He did not mention coffee being sold in Paris in 1643 near the Pont Neuf, as did Audigier. Contrary to Audigier, La Roque claimed that Venice received coffee about two decades earlier, making it the rst European port to import coffee.9 The race between France and Italy for supremacy continued under

186 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe pens of La Roque and Audigier, and it is hard to know which piece of information to privilege as to the rst port to receive coffee. Neither Audigier nor La Roque had a stake in writing of the Armenian coffeehouse owners or of the Ottoman origins of coffee, even if things oriental were fashionable. It was not coffee itself but its consumption that was important to transforming European habits. It was the opening of public cafs that was crucial. Few footnotes in the voluminous history of trade have had such revolutionary and global socioeconomic consequences as the introduction of cafs to Europe, especially in France. The role of the Armenian diaspora in the spread of new products in Europe is not well known. The role of the Jews in the chocolate trade is a little better known than that of the Armenians in the coffee trade, but both deserve to be highlighted. Both were ideal agents of cross-cultural exchange. While the Armenians were specialists in Eurasian cross-cultural trade and played a considerable role in popularizing coffee, their role was not unique. The Sephardic Jews played a role in importing and spreading the usage of American chocolate in Europe via their Atlantic trade, especially in the Dutch Republic, where they took refuge after being expelled from Spain and Portugal in 1492.10 The Sephardic Jews were introduced to chocolate in Portugal and Spain in the sixteenth century and they carried it further north with them. Just as coffee was becoming better known, by the end of the seventeenth century American chocolate became widely consumed as a drink in European courts. These two major trade diaspora, the Armenians and the Jews, are only recently being well studied to expose their important role in world trade.11 These new products were not regulated. Their role as outsiders establishing themselves in a craft in France or the Dutch Republic was not impeded by the guilds until later, when the guilds caught up with the new products and took over the prot and the distribution of these exotic goods. Coffee was responsible for some tumultuous changes in the guilds as well. Its case highlights and illustrates like no other Louis XIVs new custom of selling the permissions for the crafts and the courts invasion of the legal domain of the guilds, usually under the legislation of the city of Paris. There had been a precedent for the royal invasion of what the guilds considered their own territory under Henri IV, but the methods used by Louis to raise money for his European wars were less scrupulous. Despite the resistance expressed in medical literature, coffees usage spread far and wide.

A New Barbarous Fashion: The Spread of Coffee DrinkingThe issue of taste and fashion is at the heart of many current debates among historians of consumption. We saw that physicians like Colomb, opposed to coffee, argued that coffee imposed itself as a tyrannical taste, a foreign Arab taste. Some went as far as qualifying it a barbarous taste.12 Although the concept of addiction was not contemporary to Colombs dissertation in the 1670s and emerged over a century

A Barbarous Taste 187later, this was what Colomb was arguing by using the word tyranny. As for the term tyranny, since Jean Bodin tyranny was oriental despotic rule without consent. The new taste for coffee had imposed itself on the French against their will. Doctors argued that coffee could not be good because it was foreign, it was dark, ugly, and bitter, as opposed to wine, which was French, beautiful in color, and tasted good. Nevertheless, despite all its faults, Colomb believed coffee would win, imposing itself through tyranny alone.13 French self-identication with Greeks made calling an oriental good barbarous, as Hecquet had done, a natural insult. A foreign beverage was conquering the French without the consumers consent. Coffee was much more common by 1716, the date La Roques work was published. La Roque clearly names ve Armenians as the pioneering force in spreading coffee drinking in Paris. Thanks to La Roques careful survey of the rst maison de caf opened in Marseilles and Paris, the name of each caf owner is recorded. It is fascinating that in orientalist fashion, La Roques treatise on coffee had an Ottoman model. La Roque proudly stated that his survey of the maisons de caf was in imitation of a Turkish historian who had surveyed the rst maison de caf in Constantinople. He recorded the names of the rst men who opened these public places in Paris for the sake of history.14 If coffee was known in France since the 1640s, the new fashion for its consumption was certainly augmented by the visit of the Ottoman ambassador to Versailles in 1669, and also by the visit of the Persian ambassador to Louis XIV in 1715.15 The court of Louis XIV set the rst trend for coffee drinking for a few courtesans in Versailles. Sultan Mehemet IV (16421693) had allegedly sent an ambassador the French sources called Soliman Aga Mustapha Raca, a man described to be in his fties. The diary of Olivier Lefvre dOrmesson (1610?1686) is the best source for this visit, as he documented it in great detail.16 Louis XIV had designed a special outt for this visit, which was embroidered with so many diamonds that dOrmesson estimated their value at 14 million livres. The royal throne was set at the end of a long gallery that was decorated with silk and brocade drapery, precious tapestries, precious vases, and tables made of silver.17 The courtesans around the king were dressed in their best in an attempt to imitate him, and they were described as tous brillans de pierreries, shining with gems.18 The Ottoman ambassador seemed unimpressed by this display, as he arrived dressed very simply. According to dOrmesson he walked slowly, with dignity, and handed the king a letter from the sultan, demanding it to be read, and allegedly remarking that his masters horse had more diamonds than the king of France. Louis said he would look at it and respond. The Turkish ambassador complained that the king had not stood up from his throne to receive him, and said he had been disrespected. Louis responded that he was receiving as was his custom, and the Turkish envoy left quite malcontented.19 The envoy left for the lodgings he had occupied in Paris, where he very eagerly receive the ladies of the elite with a cup of coffee. Some sources make clear that he was a bostanci, a head gardeneras discussed,

188 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceFranco-Ottoman relations suffered from the slight. Yet during the long months it took the ambassador to be received at court he successfully represented the Ottomans to the Parisians by spreading one of their social habits, receiving guests with coffee. The consequences of his presence on coffee drinking in Paris were important. He offered the Parisian elite a beverage new to the capital: a small cup of bitter Turkish coffee. He was the object of great curiosity. The interior of his dwellings was reminiscent of the most opulent lodgings in Constantinople; the French gazettes described that visitors sat on soft cushions among exquisite fabrics and exotic ornaments and were served coffee by young beautiful slaves in gorgeous Turkish costume. Along with the coffee served in small porcelain cups, the slaves handed out precious napkins made of damask and fringed with gold thread. The ambassador added sugar to the coffee when this was requested, and the beverage was the object of many comments in the Parisian press.20 Soon after the Turkish visit of 1669, Parisian street merchants began serving coffee. The beans had been purchased at the one and only Parisian coffee store, located in Faubourg St. Honor, and owned by an Armenian.21 The creation of a new institution, the one that took the name of caf and remains associated with France in most minds, was the venue where the Parisians could get a prise.

Three Armenians and the First Parisian Maisons de CafA cup of coffee was often referred to as une prise de caf in formal documents setting prices.22 La Roque recorded that in the year 1672 an Armenian named Pascal who had arrived via Marseilles opened a caf rst in the rue du Louvres then at the quai de lEcole.23 Previously he had served coffee at a major fair held annually in Paris. His maison de coava was by some accounts a replica of the ones in Constantinople, decorated with Turkish trappings, where black slave boys carried silver trays of coffee among the public sitting in the 140 booths set up annually at the fair of St. Germain.24 La Roque described Pascals cafs on rue du Louvre and the quai de lEcole as being small and mainly frequented by the Knights of Malta and foreigners and travelers familiar with the Orient. This was such a small clientele that he gave up on Paris and left to open shop in London, where coffee was better known, as the English had been drinking coffee since the 1650s.25 The rst Parisian caf is often erroneously said to be the Procope, which still exists todayalbeit as a restaurantin the area of St. Germain-des-Prs. It was established around 1675. Scholars studying the history of consumption know that the Procope was not the rst caf, despite what many tourist guides purport.26 The owner, a certain Procopio dei Cortelli, a Sicilian, had worked as a waiter in the rst Parisian caf, operated by Pascal the Armenian. Pascal soon had another Armenian as a successor, who went by the gallicized name Maliban. Near the Abbaye of St. Germain, Maliban opened a caf on rue de Bussy, which he later moved to rue

A Barbarous Taste 189Frou, near St. Sulpice. Proximity to churches meant clients. La Roque wrote that the rst establishment was not closed; Maliban kept it and returned to rue de Bussy but did not stay long to work there.27 Unlike the Procope, these two cafs no longer exist. Maliban also sold tobacco, another new product, which was associated with coffee drinking in Cairo, Isfahan, Istanbul, and elsewhere in the Near East. After a while in the coffee shop business, Maliban too suddenly left France for Holland. A Christianized Persian named Gregor, who had been Malibans assistant, took over his caf.28 What the sources called a Christianized Persian was almost certainly an Armenian from Isfahan, Persia. Gregor decided to add literature, a new attraction, to his caf. Would it not be a smart move to make cafs more similar to what they were in Persia, forums for poetry, literature, and theater? In 1685 Gregor thought it prudent to move to rue Mazarin, next to the Comdie Franaise, to attract its intellectual clientele. Jean de La Roques descriptions of Gregors cafs were picked up by many writers, and centuries later H. E. Jacobs saw this move as the birth of a new public sphere, the rst caf-thetre in Paris, despite the fact that the Armenians refreshment house was in no way linked to the Comdie Franaise, although it certainly proted by its proximity. Gregor became successful and later left his caf to an acquaintance named Markar, described by La Roque as a Persian. Markar is clearly an Armenian name. La Roque himself said that Maliban and Gregor were Armenians who came from Isfahan, so they were most likely Julfan Armenians, as most probably was Markar.29 They probably came to France from the well-known suburb of New Julfa, where the Armenians lived in close contact with many French visitors to Iran, among the more famous of whom were Chardin and Tavernier, who entered into business agreements with prominent Armenian families. Given the constant commercial contacts, it would not be surprising to nd Julfan Armenians in the middle of Paris. They most probably remained foreign, although some Armenians became French nationals by converting to Catholicism.30 Gregors maison de coava on rue Ftou was left to a man called le Gantois upon Gregors departure.31 Although not documented by La Roque, Armenian ownership of cafs did not disappear, as we will see. Audigier was angered by the success of the Armenians as late as 1692. These two cafs opened by Armenians were not far from where Procopio initially opened his coffeehouse, the third caf to open in Paris. Over the two centuries that it operated, the Procope became a literary caf and a center for political discussions that allegedly attracted the likes of Voltaire and Rousseau in the eighteenth century.32 Most importantly, Procopio dei Cortellis establishment was where the sale of coffee as a beverage rst fell under guild rule. It is perhaps because of the guild records making it the rst legal caf that it is considered to be the rst caf. However, coffee escaped guild rules for some time. In his luxurious caf, unlike in the rst two based on Ottoman coffee houses, ladies were quite welcome and the clientele was a chosen one. The highly successful Procope was rened, fashionable, and integrated the new luxuries. Decorated with the new large mirrors from Saint Gobain, paintings,

190 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceand chandeliers, it occupied the entire lower level of three houses. The renement of the decor and the new luxuries attracted a much vaster clientele, who according to La Roque also appreciated the orientalism of the costumes worn by the waiters. Within this very aristocratic French dcor, Procopio dressed the waiters in what French records refer to erroneously as Armenian dress (see Chapter 9), since coffee remained strongly associated with the Armenians and the Orient in the imagination of the sophisticated seventeenth-century Parisians. A rare work published in 1700 gives a description of what was consumed in Parisian coffee houses and when. It states that the usual time Parisians went to the caf was when returning from different kinds of venues, most commonly after church in the morning. Two friends gave in to some excess when they decided to go to the caf after hearing a sermon in church: they entered at the Armenians where they ordered liqueurs and biscuits, as few limit themselves to just drinking a cup of coffee, which is often the excuse for excess. Clearly the author was pointing out that the Armenian cafs served more than coffee and that he was believed that coffee was an excuse for all even greater excess.33 So much for coffee displacing liquors. There were many cafs by 1716, and the 300 that Jean de La Roque cited were no longer Armenian establishments. There was, however, an oriental, not to say orientalist, style to these establishments. Jean de La Roque wrote that the frequenting of cafs was initiated by the upper class (gens de qualit), and that within these cafs one found the most magnicent objects the Orient could offer; the gold and silver spent there was nothing compared to the rare Chinese porcelains and furniture that decorated them.34 In true orientalist fashion, the leap from Turkish decors to Chinese ones was not a problem; the vogue for chinoiserie was just beginning, and the Turkish decors made fashionable by the Ottoman ambassador in 1669 were now nearly half a century old.

The King and the Guilds and the End of Armenian Coffee HousesIn the 1660s the European East India Companies brought coffee directly from Mocha, in relatively small quantities at a value of a thousand pounds sterling, brought in with other cargo both by the Dutch in 1661 and the English in 1664. Italy and France, better established in the Levant trade, were still supplied by Armenian and Turkish merchants. In 1692 Louis XIV, in good mercantilist spirit, decided to give the monopoly of the sale of coffee to a Frenchman Franois Damame. This juncture changed French attitudes toward coffee after the court sought to control the sale of coffee as a beverage and to prot from it. In an edict promulgated on March 12, 1693, soon after the monopoly was granted to Damame, the king declared that any of the crafts that had previously remained free were to be made into corporations or guilds; that producers were to immediately pay 300 livres to the kings treasury for their royal privilege. The guild of the

A Barbarous Taste 191Limonadiers et marchands deau de vie (Lemonade and spirit merchants), who had been selling coffee for nearly a decade, did not pay up. A manual published in 1705 called Le Parfait Limonadier ou la manire de preparer le th, le caf, et le chocolat & autre liqueurs chaudes & froides (The Perfect Lemonade Seller or the Manner in Which to Prepare Tea, Coffee and Chocolate) was written by one such guild member, Pierre Masson. His work gives an idea of the wealth of spirits, beverages, and fresh juices sold by a limonadier in the seventeenth century. It is remarkably similar to the last part of Audigiers La Maison bien regle, which gives la veritable manire de faire toutes sortes deaux et de liqueurs la mode dItalie (the true manner of making all kinds of waters and liquors in the Italian fashion), as Masson gave identical recipes for tea, coffee, and chocolate. Most beverages described by Masson and Audigier were distillations based on spices, owers, and fruits, and if time has made some of them exotic to todays reader, many were exotic even then. The guilds name, which was coined at its inception in 1634, came from lemons and oranges, both prized for their perfume and taste. After over a century of presence in royal gardens, oranges were still grown in Versailles for their exoticism. The guild also had the confection and sale of any compotes of fruits, crme glace (ice cream), as well as sweets in the form of pastille, a candy made from ground spices, under its exclusive rights.35 The guild was divided into the distillers and the confectioners; the sweets were the domain of the confectioners, the beverages that of the distillers. For the sale of coffee as a beverage, Louis XIV eventually sold the matrise (mastery) of the newly reorganized guild of limonadiers for fty livres to anyone applying. In doing so he was ignoring the existing guild, which was not complying with his demands for money. In the guild he imposed there was no need for apprenticeship or skill, coffee houses fell under the jurisdiction of the limonadier, and one needed only to pay for membership. This greatly irked the famous Audigier, who much earlier in 1660 had hoped to be unique, but never received the last seal he needed to open shop; as a consequence, he had to return to private service in the Colbert household. Now, in 1693, after over thirty years of waiting, Audigier, who had mastered coffee and sherbets in Italy at his own expense, nally received his lettre de matrise without paying. The much disgruntled Audigier wrote of the kings new initiative: So one has made masters of two hundred ignorants gathered from the dregs of the people for fty cu. He went on to say that had he been consulted he would have organized things better and made it so that only those qualied would pay the king more for the privilege of selling the new beverage. His plan, he boasted, would have generated 100,000 francs for the king from Paris alone. An irate Audigier wrote that instead the four hundred now established have not given the King more than ten to twelve thousand francs all together, because they are ignorant and heartless and without will, as they let the Armenians eat their bread right in front of their own faces.36 The nineteenth-century historian Alfred Franklin analyzed the situation and believed that the Armenians that Audigier mentioned were simply included as other

192 Orientalism in Early Modern Francenew masters were in this new corporation. Each master could only have one apprentice; there were four jurors for the craft and they visited all shops twice a year. Once these rst masters were established without formal apprenticeship, it was required that apprentices do three years and a chef doeuvre before becoming masters. Sons were the only ones exempt, and sons-in-law were not required to do the hardest last step, the chef-doeuvre. This new laxity was against guild rules. It successfully attracted outsiders, who had not initially been part of the limonadiers and would have created real competition for them, had Louiss initiative been successful. The newly formed corporation membership was initially so successful that the king regretted having given certicates away for so little, so in 1704 he dissolved the corporation and had all the masters reimbursed, only to immediately form another one reserved for only a maximum of 150 limonadiers based in Paris. Was he inuenced by Audigier? The masters would own their craft, but at the price of 100,000 francs each, because of the advantage in concentrating trade in fewer hands. The limonadiers both old and new were upset and negotiated. They offered to pay double if their existing corporation was left alone, so the king immediately dissolved the 1704 corporation and complied with this demand, predicting great prots ahead. In these statutes new exotic products were added that did not exist in the statutes of the 1670s held by the limonadiers, notably tea, chocolate, and vanilla. These new products alone should have brought in a fortune for the king. Chocolate was a luxury that was all the rage at court; it was laced with spices, a Spanish fashion: Chocolate is a composition of cocoa from Spain, vanilla, clove, cinnamon, mace and sugar that is turned into a paste.37 These sales of the novelty products and of coffee should have insured great prosperity and success for the corporation, but the legislative aspects and the nancial demands made by the court destroyed the corporation and its commerce. Louis XIV farmed out the reimbursement promise for 1704 to the limonadiers to a man named Lescuyer, who was to then collect the debts owed to the king for the higher fees by a larger group of 500 masters. In 1713 these fees were still not collected, and only 138 masters had complied. These demands for high fees and court control absolutely destroyed the community because of all the changes made to it and the pursuits made by creditors, who would seize even the private property of old and new masters.38 Nevertheless, Louis had pursued a clear political agenda, encouraging the sale of these exotic beverages in order to make money for his wars. In 1692 the king had issued an edict that lamented the destiny of wine and viticulture in France. At the same time it slyly stated that because so few Frenchmen currently drank wine, and because wine was out of fashion, the king did not want to deprive his subjects of the new beverages that they were so fond of and that many judged so good for their health: We have proposed to get some help from [their consumption] in the occurrence of the present war. Louis XIVs lament about wine was a feigned patriotic gesture; to declare wine out of fashion destroyed its reputation, and indeed, this was sly propaganda. Strict legislation was planned to enforce and control and also to encourage

A Barbarous Taste 193sales of exotic beverages; their debit control was granted by an annual patent, for which one had to apply annually at the cost of 30 livres. More signicantly, as we mentioned before, on the larger scale of imports in the same year of 1692, Louis XIV gave the monopoly on coffee imports into France to the Frenchman Franois Damame. On Louiss orders Damame was granted the sole and exclusive rights to import and distribute coffee, and an edict was issued promising punishment for breaking a law that stated that any vagabonds and gens sans aveu who attempted to bring coffee beans, tea, chocolate, or vanilla into the kingdom would be punished by the whip and dispatched to the galleys.39 This was Louiss attempt to concentrate the trade of exotic beverages in French hands. The edict had another fascinating aspect: wine, the drink of choice, previously a national drink, was portrayed as pass by Louis in this edict, and exotic beverages were touted as good for ones health.40 Was this a reality or mere propaganda to support the sale of the newly monopolized product? The nineteenth-century French historian Franklin totally dismissed as ridiculous Louiss view that the new drinks had replaced wine. In his view it was simply a device to bring money into the kings treasury.41 One can add that the king was instrumental in setting trends at court and beyond. He inuenced at least one courtiers opinions; Madame de Svigns view changed with fashion and fashion changed with policy. Louiss edict of 1692 setting a privilege for Damame had also imposed xed coffee prices. Coffee could only be sold at the high price of 4 francs per pound. The edict also set prices for tea at 100 francs per pound for the best, 50 for the mediocre, 30 for the common. The prices for chocolate and sherbet were xed at 6 francs and cocoa at 4 francs. As for vanilla, it was not sold in pounds but in pods and was priced at 18 francs for 50 pods. The prices of brewed beverages were also xed: to drink a cup of coffee, une prise de caff, cost 3 sols and 6 deniers, and chocolate or sherbet cost 8 sols.42 Even before these prices were set by the state, in addition to his import monopoly, Franois Damame was given the exclusive right to debit these products for six years, making him oversee the corporation of limonadiers.43 Despite this royal effort to farm out and centralize both the imports and debits of exotic beverages, there was little success in enforcing the edict. Another document issued by the Conseil du Roy urged the execution of the edict and spelled out punishments. These were no less severe than imprisonment in the Chtelet. Reading the edict points out that there was a good amount of smuggling and that the smuggling was done by a well-heeled elite. Those who managed to bring tea and coffee into France took refuge in castles, royal residences, and princely households in order to establish stores and sell completely unfettered.44 The enormous rise in prices created by state control under the royal edict of 1692 encouraged this smuggling. The consumption of exotic beverages severely declined under the debits controlled by the state. The hapless Franois Damame, alarmed at his small revenues and at the large debts he had incurred, asked as a favor that his royal privilege for the sale of coffee, tea, and chocolate be revoked. He maintained that his

194 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceprots would increase when these goods were sold freely. Instead, the import taxes were raised on coffee, tea, chocolate, and vanilla. This new prot, of course, went to the treasury and not to Damame. Yet, the French court continued this lucrative habit of farming out the trade in coffee. In 1723 the Compagnie royale des Indes went bankrupt and it was decided to assign the privilege of the commerce of coffee to the company to save it and to make it at least solvent. The Compagnie already held the privilege of the monopoly on tobacco imports and sale. In several cafs smoking tobacco and drinking coffee were associated, so it seemed a logical step to pair both popular products as Compagnie products. A long set of rules were promulgated making it imperative to sell coffee only in the ofces of the Compagnie des Indes, in sacs that bore the company seal. Prices were set at 100 sous a pound.45 The entry of coffee imports was only authorized through the port of Marseilles.46 A set of severe punishments was clearly spelled out for infractions, including fustigation, banishment, and the galleys, unless one could pay the exorbitant nes that ranged between 1,000 and 3,000 livres. Save for the taxation on imports, however, there were no prots. The Compagnie did not prot enough to want to enforce its privilege. The company also soon realized that the revenue it received from the sales did not cover the costs of all the administration attached to the control of sales. It also had its hands tied by high import taxes, which meant higher prices for retail sales, and this led to a decline in consumption. Like Damames three decades earlier, the privilege granted by the king cost the company money. Once again the taxes on imports went directly to the kings treasury. This nancial loss was not because coffee was not being consumed. It was a matter of who actually controlled the market and the cafs, as well as intensive smuggling.

A Recipe for CoffeeIn the seventeenth century, preparation techniques were not those used in France or Italy today. Pascal the Armenians recipe came from the Near East, and as we have examined, stayed unchanged for a long time. Madame Svigns (16261696) recipe for making coffee was from scratch: at the time coffee beans were sold in their shells and needed to be roasted. Over two pounds of beans were to be carefully shelled, then thrown into a frying pan and roasted until they turned nearly black, all the while tossing the beans carefully so that they remained equal in color. Then she advised using a mortar and pestle, or a mill if you owned one, to grind the beans. To a pint of boiling water one added two small spoons of coffee. She used the term coffee spoon, cuillre caf, attesting to how quickly this word was adopted in the French language. She advised that one should mix the coffee well and put the pot back on the stove until the coffee attempted to rise and foam. One was directed to always avoid the boiling point by lifting the pot from the stove and setting it down again as the foam descended. Her advice was to do this twelve times and add a whole

A Barbarous Taste 195glass of water to the pot of coffee to make the coffee grains precipitate to the bottom. Then you were advised to let the coffee rest in the pot before serving it in cups, with powdered sugar offered on the side. Textually nothing was different from the source of this recipe, the jottings of the traveler Jean Thvenot. Small cups were used to serve the beverage, but it seems coffee was not served as in the Middle East: very thick, sweet, and hot. One look at Madame de Svigns version and one realizes coffee was served very diluted and lukewarm. An exceptional feature of the Parisian consumption of a cup of coffee was the habit of chewing the residue at the bottom of the cup as described by Madame de Svign. Coffee was expensive, which might well explain both the grain chewing and the dilution. Opinions on coffee, however, were as ckle as court fashion; after Marseilless public coffee burning, the court replaced coffee with a new fashion: clear broth and rice. Rice, another Eastern import, was taken as medicine, not as food. Coffee, it was now purported, was a slow poison that dangerously burned the organism. Madame de Svign was as much a slave to fashion as anyone else and gave her culinary opinions. She suddenly stopped using coffee in the 1680s. In the early 1690s coffee was all the rage again at the Versailles court and she was once again raving about the excellence of coffee for ones health. The use of milk and sugar in coffee was common. Madame de Svign objected to her daughters hatred for coffee. She wrote: Why, my dearest one, do you say bad things of my coffee with milk? It is because you abhor milk, without it you will nd coffee to be the most beautiful thing.47 Louiss 1692 edict might explain this renewal of affection in the heart of the marquise, who a decade earlier had deplored its usage. If we take the edict at face value, coffee was indeed a common French habit by 1692, but it was not yet seen as a French drink, even if it was a French habit. The Armenians were able to get into the coffee business because it was a new beverage, and, as was just discussed, it took decades to fall under the supervision of guilds in France. When Pascal opened his rst Parisian caf, Louis had not yet made the rst very loose corporation of limonadiers under his reign, which dated to 1673. A parallel with the guilds in Austria highlights the importance of the shift that took place as coffee fell under guild legislation. To demonstrate how this gap in legislation helped bring in exotic products despite resistance, it is important to examine a second case. The rst coffee store in Vienna was also Armenian-owned.48 The original Viennese recipe for coffee was also initially identical to its preparation in the Orient. Legend has it that coffee was brought to Vienna in bags abandoned when the Ottoman army ed after the siege of the city in 1683. The hero of this tale is a certain Georg Franz Kolschitzky (16401694). Despite the prevalence of this legend, it is now clear from documents studied in the Vienna archives that at least two coffee houses had opened in Vienna before this date. Permission had been granted to two Armenians, Johannes Diodato and Isaak de Luca, one by Emperor Leopold I, and the other by the city of Vienna. They are believed to have been the rst to sell coffee from permanent premises.49 Diodato, whose father was a convert to Roman

196 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceCatholicism, lived among the Viennese Armenian community and obtained the rights to sell Turkish goods in the city. In 1685, Diodato obtained the rst permit in Vienna to serve coffee in a public coffee house, although he had already operated as a coffee vendor earlier without a permit. He soon secured a royal monopoly from Leopold I on the sale of coffee in the city for two decades. Diodatos commercial contacts with the Turks eventually brought him under political suspicion and he had to ee Vienna, abandoning his successful coffee house business to his wife. His exit from the coffee trade paved the way for another Armenian to attempt to break the monopoly.50 In 1697, Isaak de Luca fought for the right to do business in Vienna. To facilitate his way, he married into a powerful Viennese family. Later that year, together with two other Armenians, Andres Pain and Philippe Rudolph, he acquired a city license, which gave him derogation over Diodatos royal license. He now had the exclusive right to trade in coffee, tea, and sherbet within the entire city of Vienna. He immediately opened a coffee house to exercise his monopoly. Diodatos wife was in no position to oppose this, even though her rights were inalienable. When Diodato returned in 1701, he was astonished to see the success of his rival. The new Ottoman embassy staff consumed several tons of coffee a year. Coffee had become a universal habit and there were many coffee houses by the 1720s. In 1714 eleven coffee makers founded a trade association. As the drink became very popular, a bitter controversy broke out between the coffee boilers and the distillers guild. In the 1750s Queen Maria Theresa settled the quarrel by joining the two guilds into one. Next, a heavy tax on alcohol increased coffee consumption.51 What is of interest here is that coffee was almost entirely in Armenian hands in Vienna until 1714 when the guild system took over its sale. After that date there is no known trace of any Armenians in the Vienna coffee shops. However, their Europeanized names make it hard to guarantee that this is entirely exact. The pattern in Paris and Vienna was similar. One difference is that there were monopolies accorded by the Hapsburg monarch and the city to two Armenians in Vienna, while no such privilege is found for the Parisian coffee house owners. The role of foreigners, such as the Armenians, as cross-cultural agents was instrumental in bringing an exotic spice to at least two of Europes coffee-drinking capitals. In Marseilles, its port of arrival, coffee had met with the discourse of Colomb, and the doctors allied with the merchants of Marseilles, determined to keep this tyrannical foreign good out. Even when the caf had become an integral part of the European city, it was not forgotten that coffee was oriental and exotic.

Coffee: A Grain from PersiaFrom Madame de Svigns letters it appears that the French, when they thought it benecial, believed coffee refreshed the blood, dissipated and lowered the vapors and fumes caused by the drinking of wine, aided digestion, and kept the mind alert.

A Barbarous Taste 197Madame de Svign erroneously believed that coffee originated from Persia. In Le Parfait Limonadier the recipe for coffee is the same as Madame de Svigns, nearly word for word including the distorted origins of coffee in Persia. In Audigier the recipe is identical. The explanation for this uniformity is that all of these recipes came from one source alone, the rst source to offer the recipe, the travel account of Jean Thvenot written several decades earlier. As Masson decades later wrote:Coffee is a grain that comes from Persia and other countries in the Levant, where they make the most delicious and most ordinary drink. Being prepared, as we have come to say, its properties refresh the blood, break up and reduce the vapors and fumes from drinking wine, aid digestion and ward off sleep for those who have many things to do.52

The mistaken geographical origins attributed to the coffee grain were due to the fact that the coffee used in France in this period came from PersianArmenian traders, and the Levant and its importers were mostly Armenians, specically the traders of New Julfa and Isfahan. Erroneously considered an Ottoman beverage, it is noteworthy to see the bean equally erroneously portrayed as Persian. The view that coffee was an important Persian habit continued well into the next century. Even later, in a rather negative passage, the Abb Raynal wrote in the 1770s in which the Persian origin remains:In these countries where the customs are not as free as here, where mans jealousy and the austere retreat of women renders society less lively, one imagines the establishment of public houses where they sell coffee. These coffee houses of the Persians soon became the hot spots, where some young Georgians dressed as courtesans represented obscene farces and sold themselves for money. When Abbas II stopped his dissolutions so revolting, these houses became an honest sanctuary.53

Expressed here was the view that the harem, the connement of women, led to the prostitution of young Georgian boys dressed as women. The Abb Raynals work is identied today as a compendium of several authors, including Diderot, who contributed anonymously, and had many travel accounts for sources. Yet, his piece of information was not entirely imagined and comes from the works of Jean Chardin, who went to Persia a century earlier, under the reign of Louis XIV. Jean Chardin wrote very positively of the coffee house of Isfahan in Iran, but he wrote that before the prime minister of Abbas II reformed them, they were quite different: These houses were heretofore very infamous Places; they were servd and entrtaind by beautiful Georgian boys from ten to sixteen Years of Age, dressed in a Lewd Manner, having their hair tied in wafts like the Women.54 In this case the orientalist tradition of relying on previous texts, so well noted by Sad, is quite evident, but there is even more to glean from the selective choice made by Diderot in Raynal to emphasize the negative. Diderot used Chardin; Chardin used earlier travelers.

198 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceChardin spent much more time describing the fact that the coffee houses were large and located in the best parts of town. They were places for news, places to criticize the government with impunity, where innocent games were played and where Dervishes and Mollahs made moral sermons. He also wrote that: They drink nothing for the Generality in Persia but Coffee and Water.55 None of this is remembered. In Chardin coffee houses were described as places of diversion, not as places of perversion as Raynal chose to portray a century later. Moreover, there is nothing in Chardin implying that it was the connement of women and the jealousy of men that had led to the prostitution of Georgian boys. The dancing boys Abbas II forbade erased Chardins vivid descriptions of dervishes delivering sermons against the riches and vanities of the world. Nevertheless Raynal was trying to use Abbas II to make a point about prohibitions against coffee, and he also spoke of prohibitions against coffee in Constantinople. Abb Raynals aim was to give some advice to monarchs. Monarchs, he wrote, should not issue prohibitions that go against the nature of people. Priests could keep their morals; he wanted to be happy. This is a reference to the Meccan prohibition, as no priests had ever condemned coffee. Raynal wrote that the pursuit of happiness was the rst code of law that preceded all legislation. The phrase the pursuit of happiness was going to have a bright political future. Raynal was contrasting the freedom he advocated with the prohibitions in the Orient. Gallands translations of Jaziri lived on. It had a long life in portraying the Islamic world as land of fanaticism and prohibition, but now Raynal was speaking in general terms, which pointed to his own society. The pursuit of happiness was a recipe for revolution. In a strange logic the argument was that to forbid coffee was to impede the pursuit of happiness. Raynal tied coffee to revolution well before Michelets famous contention that without coffee there would have been no French Revolution.

Cafs in the Eighteenth CenturyIn her letters, Madame de Svign also wrote of meeting her friends for coffee after attending daily mass. A breakfast habit was inaugurated that persists today in France. Aristocratic ladies became very prominent in cafs during the day. Women were new to public institutions; the caf was the rst to allow this sociability outside the home. This in itself was a small social revolution.56 Before the caf, the tavern or cabaret was the only public place serving beverages, all of which were alcoholic. The tavern was a strictly a male institution. Women received at home or visited each other in homes. The maison de caf changed habits across Europe, and not only in the fashionable capital of Paris. In Amsterdam or in Vienna one would have seen families in coffee shops. Thus coffee drinking altered social habits in western Europe by creating a public sphere for women of the elite.

A Barbarous Taste 199There are several good sources describing Parisian cafs in the 1720s. Jacques Savary des Brlonss (16571716) Dictionnaire universel de commerce describes cafs as magnicent and luxurious, decorated with marble tables and mirrors.57 Under the word caff, he describes people gathering to listen to news in the evening under the light of crystal chandeliers. The coffee served is never as good as at home, he wrote, but it was sold inside and outside the caf. At the most famous of cafs, ladies of high rank stopped their carriages to request a cup of coffee. One wonders whether there was still some hesitation for women to frequent the cafs per se. In this rst incarnation of the drive-in, coffee was brought to them on a silver saucer at their carriage door.58 The best descriptions of cafs can be found in a travel account that discusses many of them in detail: for the 1720s there were so many that one could nd ten to twelve on a single street, each devoted to a different kind of clientele. Some catered to philosophers, others to ladies, others to chess or card players.59 Cafs were the object of strict laws by this time, mostly legislation prohibiting gambling or concerning their closing hours at night, as many of them stayed open with a lantern glowing over the door to show that they were still in business.60 Long after the Armenians had stopped selling coffee in Paris, coffee was still viewed as oriental, and Armenian costume was worn by servers in Parisian cafs. Even while Armenians still worked in Paris, only a handful of coffee sellers were of Armenian origin. The days of Colberts legislation was their heyday; after 1687 most Armenians left Marseilles and Paris. In the 1696 comedy called La foire de Saint-Germain, one of the characters is Lorange, marchand de caf vtu en Armnien, and in scene ve his lines say that he is an Armenian naturalized three weeks previously.61 A relatively forgotten play by Jean-Baptiste Rousseau (16701740)62 also tied a coffee house to news about the war with the Ottomans. Of all the literary cafs that existed at the turn of the eighteenth century, Laurents is the most famous because it was cited several times by Voltaire (16941778), who met there with Fontenelle, Houdard de la Motte, Danchet, and many other intellectuals. Laurents was at the corner of the rue Dauphine and the rue Christine, and this is where Jean Baptiste Rousseau set his Le Caff, a comedy published in 1694. It opens with a political question: were the Ottomans going to attack Belgrade? Voltaire judged the play to be a total op, and Rousseaus play was badly received. It is well known that after their meeting in 1722, Voltaire and the playwright Jean-Baptiste Rousseau became enemies. Voltaire published anonymously against Rousseau (not Jean-Jacques, but Jean-Baptiste). Voltaire, known for his contes orientales (oriental stories), such as Zadig and Candide, like many of his contemporaries also wrote an obscure and forgotten play about coffee.63 There was a vast amount of literature published about coffee and coffee houses in the eighteenth century and they contributed to the debate on coffees merits. This literature is so vast that it would merit a whole book. Well-known papers like the Mercure galant published long songs about coffee and gave familiar melodies to sing the verses.64

200 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceNicolas Bernier (16641734) wrote a coffee cantata, one far less remembered than the one written later by Johann Sebastian Bach (16851750).65 Berniers music was composed for the verses of playwright Louis Fuzelier (16721752), who wrote lines on the benecial properties of coffee.66 Less laudatory, Bachs cantata illustrates both sides of the controversies over coffee through a father forbidding coffee to his daughter, who absolutely refused to give up her drinking habit. Some resistance to coffee came not from the drink but from the public establishments serving coffee, as they created a new venue for public nightlife in Paris. Although it is well known that under Louis XIV, the police ofcer La Reynie initiated street lights for security reasons, the cafs signicantly contributed to nightlife and street lighting. This phenomenon had happened much earlier in the capital of Istanbul.67 A mid-century writer described the diversity of the public in the cafs: The cafs of today are a tableau of the universe. In them one sees people of all nations. Their character, religion, customs and tastes are at absolute opposites. This creates heated disputes, all of which dissipate in words, never reaching dangerous debates.68 Savary de Brlons, whose work was published posthumously, gave the number of cafs as being 380 before 1723.69 In Sebastien Merciers (17401814) well-known Tableau de Paris, he wrote that one found over 1,800 cafs in Paris in the late 1770s.70 A later work by Louis Marie Prudhomme (17521830) gives only 700 to 800 cafs for the center of Paris at the turn of the nineteenth century after the French Revolution. This discrepancy in numbers is hard to qualify without thinking that Mercier might have also counted taverns. Sufce it to say here that the popularity of cafs in pre-Revolutionary France was unquestionable and universal for most classes except the poor or apprentices, who could not afford the price of a prise de caf. In Paris there was a great effort to imitate the cavhane or cafs turcs as they were called in an eighteenth-century dictionary. In the 1779 Dictionnaire historique de la ville de Paris, it was described that in imitation of the Turkish coffee house, cavhane, the master limonadier paid for musicians and other entertainers such as buffoons, comedians, and acrobats to attract their clients. There was no mention of Persian cafs or Cahue kahne as Chardin had called them.71 The dictionary also described that there were specic cafs for each group, for foreigners, some for Jews, some others for doctors, merchants, or artisans.72 It seems that the Turkish cavhane, as the dictionary called them, brought Paris its institution of caf-concert. As late as 1779 the dictionary and its authors were aware of the Ottoman roots of this now century-old French caf. This form of attraction was no longer a novelty; as discussed previously, the Persian Armenian Gregor made the pioneering effort to bring entertainment to his caf in the 1690s. In another source, Prudhomme relates that a man was paid six francs to impersonate un sauvage in the Caf du Caveau in the Palais Royal, where most of the rst new and fashionable cafs were located. This caf was a combination of a caf and a restaurant. It served as a restaurant until two in the afternoon, serving food at a xed price without wine, then a master limonadier took it over at two to serve coffee,

A Barbarous Taste 201liqueurs and juices. The sauvage played on drums very loudly and made terrifying grimaces and was paid to scare customers and passers-by by pretending to attempt to kill them. He attracted a large crowd of about two hundred people. The caf was nicknamed after this popular incarnation, and rather negative version, of the eighteenth centurys exotic noble savage, Caf du sauvage. Its clientele was comprised of mercers and their families. The mercers were rather wealthy, but the caf was also patronized by domestic servants, tobacco merchants, and their wives. The caf was loud from the discordant noises made by the actor and the beer-induced conversations, but it was not lacking in luxuries. It was large and decorated with tall mirrors, which reected the bust of famous composers like Glck and Philidor.73 On one of the tables there were gold-embossed inscriptions saying that two subscriptions had been made at that table; one of these patrons had raised funds for a new invention, the hot air balloon experiments of the Mongoler brothers.74 There were other cafs at the Palais Royal, next to the Caf du sauvage, including the Caf des Arts, the Caf des Aveugles, and the Caf Mecanique. The rst was frequented by artists, the second had an orchestra of blind men, and the third had table legs with holes where the order arrived on a platter as if by enchantment.75 This was the Parisian version of cafs with entertainment, but there were many that did not offer any form of entertainment aside from the games the customers played, such as chess, cards, or backgammon. In the rue Saint Andr des Arts, an Armenian called Etienne dAlep had opened a caf at the end of the seventeenth century, which was renamed Caf Cuisinier in 1761 after changing hands many times and falling under a master limonadier called Onfroy. As the name of the caf indicates, the owner was a distiller of some renown. Onfroys fame has been preserved through newspaper advertisements in 1761 for the many products he invented and sold to the public the rst of each month. Onfroy was the rst to come up with a form of instant coffee, not in granule form but as a distilled essence. He called it essence de caf: a spoon of it was dissolved in a cup of boiling water or milk, and he promised an instant cup of coffee. He also made a special chocolate that dissolved easily and left no residue. He sold a bottle of his essence de caf for 50 sols. It made twenty cups. He also made toothpaste and other essences to cure toothaches and gum disease.76 The Caf Procope had also changed hands several times, and at the eve of the Revolution it belonged to a certain Zoppi. Most of the Paris literary elite went to the Procope, and even Voltaire has erroneously been said to have been a guest. Voltaire wrote: Je nai jamais frquent aucun caf (I have never frequented any caf).77 In fact there was an incident that proves Voltaires statement, despite many claims made to the contrary by coffee shop owners. There was a famous mistress limonadire, Charlotte Renyer, who had some serious literary pretensions and wrote verses under the title Muse limonadire for her famous clients. Some of her verses were dedicated to Voltaire.78 Irritated, Voltaire wrote: I have no stomach for the Muse limonadire, I would rather give her a carafe worth 60 livres than write to her. The persistent widow limonadire had extracted many expensive gifts from famous men, including

202 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe king of Prussia.79 Voltaire warned that claims that these celebrities frequented her caf were false as she was a clever advertiser. The philosophes were not always simply clients; in a well-documented incident the philosophe became the entertainment, and crowds swarmed to see a celebrity, much as they would today. In 1770, Jean-Jacques Rousseau had walked back from his political exile in Switzerland disguised as an Armenian merchant. Having just shed his disguise, he showed up at his favorite spot, the Caf de la Rgence. The caf was favored by intellectuals and philosophers. Known for its tranquility and its intellectual chess players, it was frequented by the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Sainte Foix, and the brothers Grimm. Rousseaus appearance attracted such a prodigious crowd that he reveled in repeating such appearances several times to wallow in his fame. Afraid for Rousseaus safety, the police forbade him to continue exhibiting himself in the Caf de la Rgence.80 The role of cafs in breaking down social barriers between groups, even if many were specialized, has been well studied.81 The French historian Jules Michelet attributed immense political consequences to such new sociability: nothing less than the French Revolution. The French Revolution is still coupled with coffee in many minds. A popular article recently published by the journal The Economist concludes: It was at the Caf de Foy, eyed by police spies while standing on a table brandishing two pistols, that Camille Desmoulins roused his countrymen with his historic appealAux armes, citoyens!on July 12th 1789.82 The Bastille fell two days later, and the French Revolution had begun. Jules Michelet, the famous nineteenth-century French historian, noted that those who assembled day after day in the Caf de Procope saw, with a penetrating glance, in the depths of their black drink, the illumination of the year of the revolution.83 Cafs created new networks of information, broke down social barriers, and at least in the mind of one great historian, fueled social revolt. Before all that could happen, coffee had to be accessible to most French people and cease to be rare and exotic oriental luxury good meant for the privileged few that the Revolution would target and displace. Most of all, Jules Michelet praised coffee for bringing the French lucidity and sobriety, for dethroning the tavern, for overcoming wine that threw them drunk in the gutter, and for bringing them to view their social reality in a ash of truth.84 How did this general acceptance of coffee happen? Coffee was still not perceived as French decades after the rst cafs opened. Wine was still the beverage of choice. In the early eighteenth century it was still perceived as so extremely rare that when the rst coffee plant reached Paris in 1714, it was put under the supervision of Louis XIVs personal physician. Yet, as is examined in the next chapter, the arrival of this lone plant would nally show the way to enriching the treasury from the prots of coffee, by making coffee into the most important of all French colonial goods. This transformation and the discourse about it deserves some attention. For the French to afford coffee in the many cafs of the capital, coffee had to become cheaper; infusing and diluting it helped but was certainly not enough. Before the

A Barbarous Taste 203French Revolution, France had become the greatest producer and exporter of coffee through the colonizing of Martinique. Paradoxically, the transformation process of coffee from a foreign import to a national good would be similar to that of many other exotic goods. It became a colonial good by traveling to the Americas, being grown in the Caribbean. The fact that other Europeans began to think of coffee as a French drink was because the French were bringing it to Europe via their plantations in the Caribbean. An African plant growing in Martinique, cultivated by African and Caribbean slave labor, was given to the French by the Dutch from their plantations in Java and made coffee a French product. In the next chapter, this transformation is examined. What Michelet did not say is that coffee became a symbol of French oppression and colonialism and that the French Revolution was also brought on by the burning of coffee trees in Saint Domingue by Toussaint LOuverture (17461803) and his followers, who fought to put an end to slavery. As the French naturalized coffee by making it a colonial French good, the silence about slavery continued well into the eighteenth century, as the next chapter makes clear.

This page intentionally left blank

8Domesticating the ExoticImports and Imitation

Before we end, we shall add for the sake of the Curious and Strangers, that M. Jussieu not only takes Pleasure in courteously receiving such [Shrub of Coffee with the Flowers], that he also informs them of Matters after a manner equally solid and agreeable. His Knowledge and Enquiries are not connd to Botany; One sees at his House a large Closet of natural Curiosities, which may be called a complete Abridgement of Nature; and, to return to our Subject, nothing can be more rational than what we heard him speak with regard to Coffee.1 Jean de La Roque

The Domestication of the Coffee Plant and French ColonizationIn 1714 the Dutch sent the French a plant that was ve feet tall. It was formally presented to Louis XIV at the Chateau de Marly on July 28. It arrived caged under glass and kept under the Guard of the Hollander, who has the Tree under his Care, and was come from Marly to the Garden-Royal, with the Servants of Monsieur, the chief Physician.2 Transferred immediately to one of the glass hothouses of the Jardin du Roi, the plant was received by several scientists invited by Antoine de Jussieu, the new director of the royal gardens.3 In every way the arrival of the coffee tree was a public event. La Roque wrote about that exciting Sunday in 1714 when, like many prominent Parisians, he rushed to the Jardin du Roi to see the plant. He wrote:Sunday 29th of July, 1714, M. de Jussieu, Doctor of Physick, of the Academy of Sciences, and royal Botany-Professour, was pleased to bring there M. Galland Professour of Arabick, in the Royal College; and M. Parent of Academy of Sciences, Professour of the Mathematicks, M. Ouange, a learned and very curious Chinese and myself. We only went to see that rst coffee plant.4

It has not been possible to trace the identity of the Chinese scholar.5 He was invited most probably as an orientalist, and like Galland, considered an authority on coffee for his knowledge of things oriental.6 The tree was an object of curiosity for good reason, as it was hoped that its study would allow the French to do what the


206 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceDutch had done before them in Java: turn exotic coffee into their own colonial product. Growing coffee was an important commercial secret. The Dutch had smuggled enough plants to start plantations. Some coffee plants had grown successfully in a hothouse in Amsterdam. All the possible care had been taken to observe its needs in Paris. Antoine de Jussieu recorded the coffee plants progress daily and kept a diary. This diary was read out publicly at the Academy of Sciences on May 4, 1715.7 The coffee bush that Jean de La Roque saw that special Sunday, in the gardens that are today called the Jardin des Plantes, was believed to be the mother tree of most of the coffee planted in the colonies by the French in the New World. Antoine de Jussieu planted some young plants from the coffee grains of that rst tree.8 According to a tale it was that trees direct progeny that sailed the perilous seas on a ship to Martinique in the French Caribbean. The person who carried that rst coffee to the Caribbean in 1723 was sung as a hero in France when he died at the ripe age of 84. His story could be considered apocryphal, as he was the sole source of it, but the fact that he was decorated at court gives it credence. It can be read as a discourse about French colonization. Louis XIVs dream of direct access to coffee, and two expeditions led by La Roque to Yemen, were now vastly surpassed by the creation of coffee plantations in the Caribbean. The tale is told as a heroic tale of conquest. It is a eulogy of a member of the French army. The pamphlet written about coffee in Martinique titled Le capitaine Clieu ou le premier pied de caf aux Antilles contains not a single word about slaves growing it. The captain in Louis XVs army was the single hero of the tale. This silence about Africans echoes the previous silence about the African origins of coffee. According to his own tale, Gabriel de Clieu (16881774) alone had the idea to take a coffee plant to the French island of Martinique, yet he could not obtain permission to get a plant to take to the Antilles. Once he eventually acquired a small coffee plant through the political intervention of a well-connected lady, he embarked with it for the Antilles. He left France from the port of Nantes in 1723. He took the coffee plant protected by a small glass case up to the deck of the ship for sun and shared his water rations with the plant. The long Atlantic journey was complicated by the attacks of a Tunisian corsair who nearly stole the coffee tree.9 His own deprivations, the terrible storm the ship survived, the attack by the evil corsairs, saving the coffee tree from the villains, make this into a colorful and heroic tale with all the common tropes. It was a tale structured much like the many fairy tales popularized by Charles Perrault. When Capitaine de Clieu died in 1774, the plant sent by the Dutch sixty years earlier in 1714 was still alive in Paris and thriving in the Jardin du Roi.10 By then French Martinique was covered by coffee plants. De Clieu wrote back to France that the success of the coffee plant was prodigious and was due in part to the cocoa trees dying. Either because of a volcanic eruption or too much rain, the planters lost all their crop of cocoa and replaced it with coffee plants. De Clieu wrote that: Within three years there were many millions of coffee shrubs on our island, and that all of the ve to

Domesticating the Exotic 207six thousand petits habitans, as the colonists were called, were destitute and that the coffee shrub saved them. They soon cultivated coffee exclusively. On his return to France he was presented to Louis XV, who appointed him governor of Guadeloupe.11 While de Clieus heroic tale may be questionable, coffee was certainly planted in the early 1720s and became the basis of Martiniques economy, as a monoculture that was a feature of early modern colonization. While recounting his funeral, both the Mercure galant and the Anne litraire remembered Capitaine de Clieus service to France and the romantic tale he told about the rst coffee bush to cross the Atlantic, while the real unsung heroes of the coffee miracle in Martinique were the thousands of slaves working on the plantations. This silence about slavery only changed when the political climate in France was transformed in the 1770s. The main text where coffee and other colonial goods and slavery were mentioned together is the remarkable medley attributed to Guillaume-Thomas-Franois Raynal (17131796), known as lAbb Raynal.12 It addressed the issue of slavery head-on, and as such it was an innovative text. The monumental work of over two thousand pages, dated 1770, deserves a whole discussion of its own, but it is worth highlighting the section on coffee. Despite its intention of describing coffee as a colonial good, the 1770 section about coffee in Raynals A philosophical and political history of the settlements and trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies was largely based on old information, translated from the Arabic by Galland in 1699, and some passages from Thvenot. Raynals compendium, which has many other authors, chief among them Denis Diderot, was intended to be the follow-up to the great Diderot and dAlembert Encyclopdie, but for the rest of the world: les deux Indes.13 As such, like most encyclopedias, it contains a summary of preexisting texts. However, it goes far beyond that by decrying several accepted commercial practices, chiey slavery and colonization. It is a strange pastiche of a near fetishist description of colonial goods, next to a condemnation of their mode of production. A decade after its publication, in 1781, this six-volume history of the European colonies in the East Indies and the Americas was condemned by the Parliament of Paris for impiety and its dangerous ideas concerning the peoples right to revolt and to give or withhold consent to taxation, and its novel stance on slavery and colonization. Yet, Raynal discussed coffee as a grain from Persia, an exotic luxury good from Asia, with no heed to the slaves growing it in the French colonies. Even after coffee became a colonial substance it was still described as oriental. This was a general opinion in France. Goods, even when they were colonial, were still presented as oriental, as a matter of commercial marketing.14 The exotic sold well and at higher prices; coffees identity had been Ottoman and Persian and so it stayed for the eighteenth century. Coffee is viewed as a New World product today, but even as it became a colonial product, that view was resisted in Raynal and other writings that treated it as an oriental good. While coffee was being produced in Martinique as a French colonial product, within France it underwent another form of domestication, as did many new exotic

208 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceplants and animals. Like many novelties, it became an object of public spectacle at Versailles. The exotic and the rare was a mark of rank. Lenormand, the head gardener at Versailles, grew several coffee trees that were twelve to fteen feet tall and produced ve to six pounds of ripe coffee each year. Louis XV was the recipient of this harvest, which he roasted and prepared with his own hands in front of guests. Beyond preparing the grain, he liked to make coffee himself and offer it as a special treat to favorite courtesans.15 The appointed jeweler to the king, Lazare Davaux, recorded Louis XVs multiple orders for expensive coffee pots in precious metals in 1754 and 1755. They became a necessity for the elite, but few could afford what the king ordered: four gold ones in the span of a year. In January 1754 the king ordered a gold coffee pot with a capacity of four cups and a gold lamp for wine spirits on a silver tripod at the cost of 2,054 livres. Only three months later, the same order was placed with some modication, as the lamp was to be engraved with branches and a heater to be made of gilded steel, at the cost of 1,950 livres. Less than a month later, on April 16, 1755, that same order was repeated almost verbatim, except with the addition of six gold coffee spoons, described as in the new style, at the cost of 4,476 livres. This reveals the astronomical cost of the gold coffee spoons. Soon afterwards, the king ordered a very luxurious carrying case for the beverage. The case points to the fact that coffee was being taken outdoors or on trips. On December 9 of the same year the king ordered a lacquered case in lacque aventurine and gold and compartments covered in velvet, which contained one coffee pot with a four cup capacity, one lamp, two golden spoons, two cups and plates, a sugar pot, and a teapot in celestial blue Vincennes porcelain, and a steel tripod, for the cost of 4,200 livres.16 The porcelain teapot was one of the many teapots produced by a thriving French porcelain industry that was imitating Chinese porcelain. It was not exceptional that Lenormands Versailles coffee harvest was served in the most luxurious of vessels by the king himself as late as the middle of the century. He was also known to have made chocolate in the same coffee pot in the kitchen of his petits appartements, the most intimate of quarters on the third oor of the palace of Versailles.17 Louiss fondness for making the two beverages denotes that they were a luxury for the elite. France was now an exporter of coffee and on its way to becoming the most important European producer and exporter of coffee.

Substituting the Domestic for the Exotic: The Case of TeaDespite some experiments in Angers and Saumur, French gardeners and scientists could never grow the tea plant. In 1766 the Academy of Sciences reported, the bush whose leaves provide tea is so particular to China that it cannot be grown anywhere else.18 The most famous experiments at taming the exotic were made by Carl Linnaeus (17071778), when he hoped to grow tea in Lapland. Linnaeus had asked a member of the East India Company to bring him a tea plant, but several shipments

Domesticating the Exotic 209had brought him dead plants. In 1763 Linnaeus nally received the rst live tea plant in Sweden. The French Academy was in correspondence with him and took his failed experiments into account for their negative report of 1766. Raynal wrote of a few plants being transferred to England by Linnaeus and surviving there.19 Tea was an even more expensive import than coffee, in France, England, and Sweden, and serious experiments were undertaken by scientists to grow it:Tea is not as common in France as coffee because of its high price the ordinary manner of preparing it is to boil a pint of water in a clean vessel. You have a silver tea pot or one of Chinese earthenware or in faence, you put two pinches of tea in the pot and on it you pour boiling water.20

This recipe in the Cuisinier royal et bourgeois dates to 1715; by 1766 when the French Academy gave up hope of growing tea, it was a common drink in Paris. Valmont de Bomare wrote in his dictionary of natural history that even the common people were boiling tea. The consumption of tea in France for 1766 was estimated at 2,100,000 pounds.21 Well before the 1766 verdict of the Academy that tea could not be tamed to European climes, the will to substitute the domestic for the exotic was clear among physicians and scientists in France. As Antoine de Jussieus attitude to Nicolas lEmpereurs work on Indias plants, and discourse on coffee, made clear, there was resistance in France to accepting that things grown beyond France were useful or healthful. There was an effort to nd substitutes on French soil. Under Louis XIV, Pierre Hunault, a doctor from Angers, expressed the views underlying this practice:The Renown of the greatness of the King published in all the world has so agreeably surprised the peoples of the world that even those who were the furthest away wished to pay him homage as the greatest Prince that ever was, and the most entitled to command all of them. Voyages and our commerce with them have brought us learning of their customs, of which we became quickly very jealous (as there is no nation more susceptible to others as our own) that we abandoned our ways to practice them. To speak navely I do not think we have gained much in this exchange. I am even less assured that for a few concoctions that are more capable of irritating our appetite than of satisfying our delicacy and maintaining our health, we have abandoned the use of things far less equivocal. One must, nevertheless, make an exception for tea and coffee, these liquors are as agreeable as they are useful, one should only beware of too frequent usage.22

So wrote the doctor in his discourse on the marvelous properties of local sage, which he advocates as the best substitute for buying Chinese tea. The dean of the faculty of Paris, Docteur Andry, wrote a eulogy to another plant, which he called Europes tea, veronica. This was a mere translation based on a German work by Johannes Franc.23 It was equally unsuccessful. In 1778, a th nouveau des dames was marketed as a pectoral and was sold as a Swiss remedy to be taken with milk.24 Whether

210 Orientalism in Early Modern Francein France, Germany, or Sweden, there was a form of patriotic resistance to the exotic, as foreign goods were seen as harmful to the economy. The main idea was to use the exotic but not pay the price for it, whether in silver or in Europeans succumbing to the harsh climate of les Indes.

Linnaeus and Chinese Plants in LaplandCarolus Linnaeus is universally remembered for his classication system, based on Joseph Pitton de Tourneforts classication, but his Swedish titles of nobility were received for his economic ideas in service to the commercial goals of Sweden. Economically Linnaeus was cameralist; in an insightful article, Lisbet Koerner has analyzed how Linnaeus considered nothing more important than to close that gate [the China trade], through which all silver of Europe disappears.25 She writes that he was well aware that East India companies made sure that Europes consumers had all sorts of Asian goods, even if it was on the black market.26 Even in the eighteenth century these mercantilist views prevailed, after they had been philosophically attacked both in England and France. His agenda was argued in terms of Europe, not simply Sweden. Cameralists, like mercantilists, had a zero sum view of international economics and viewed trade and nance as largely parasitic on agriculture, and like mercantilists they argued that precious metals ought to be conserved within national borders. Yet, free trade was not among cameralist doctrines; instead they hoped to replace expensive foreign imports with domestic substitutes. This form of economic thinking, agricultural innovation to protect domestic production against imports from the Indies, had a long tradition among French botanists. Linnaeus is the one best remembered for taming the exotic, for acclimatation. The term hides the enormous scale of his ambitions, as he incrementally and slowly adapted plants to new and colder environments, which would allow him, or so he hoped, to plant exotic Chinese tea as far as Lapland. Tea was only the most famous of his many experiments. He is quoted as stating that Nature has arranged itself in such a way that each country produces something especially useful; the task of economics is to collect from other places and cultivate such things that dont want to grow at home and can grow [there].27 Linnaeus had a patriotic naturalism. Koerners article is aptly called National Cultures before Nationalism. The article shows Linnaeuss political afliation to the Hat Party, which was pro-French and anti-Russian, and that his client networks were French or pro-French. There was frequent correspondence between Linnaeus and Antoine de Jussieu. He visited the Jardin du Roi and de Jussieu in 1738.28 Jussieu worked on quassia bark (Cortex Simarub), the rst of which had been sent in 1713 to the Jesuit Father Soleil at Paris from Cayenne. Linnaeus named it after himself as Simaruba Jussii. De Jussieu wrote many papers, among them Descriptio et icon Coffe (coffee) of 1713, which might have been read by Linnaeus. Nevertheless, the

Domesticating the Exotic 211Swedes francophile sentiments failed him when it came to coffee. Linnaeus considered coffee a French national good that was harmful to Swedens economy. By the middle of the eighteenth century France was the major European producer of coffee, thanks to its colonial production. Linnaeus wanted Sweden to nd a substitute for French coffee; in his mind coffee imports were both a moral and a medical hazard to Swedens well-being: There are still living the most trustworthy old people, who assure us that [coffee] was brought into [Sweden] by travelers returning from France, and infecting our people with this, as with other foreign customs.29 The idea that exotic customs and foreign goods were infectuous is a strong idea shared by Antoine de Jussieu. In France Antoine de Jussieus attitude toward Nicolas lEmpereurs aims in India made this clear earlier.30 Linnaeus bemoaned a capital outlay of a thousand Swedish thalers for the drink; he listed the conspicuous consumption brought about by coffee by listing the necessities it engendered: the silver pot, the Chinese porcelain cups, a round table painted and lacquered, a hand-held coffee bean grinder made of steel, silver trays, and linen cloth. This was exactly in the year that Louis XV placed his multiple orders for coffee pots in gold at Versailles. While Linnaeus argued that Europeans, and not simply Swedes, should abandon such immorally wasteful forms of sociability as drinking coffee, Linnaeus and his wife not only owned all of the aforementioned objects for their afternoon coffee parties, but had their own custom-made porcelain service painted with Linnaea borealis.31 The Swedish elite, like many European elites in this period, imitated the French court. Linnaeus saw these habits as French, yet, they were already his own habits. This did not stop him from advocating, presumably for other Swedes, those not in the elite he belonged to, the substitution of cheaper over-burned goods like peas and beechnuts for imported coffee.32 Linnaeus had much in common with his French correspondents. Londa Schiebingers work on bioprospecting in the Atlantic world argues that James McClellan and Franois Regourd have labeled the French system in the seventeenth century the scientico-colonial machine, a system that worked to centralize the botanical specimens in the world in France and draw natural resources from the periphery to the center. Richard Dayton has argued that such a coupling of the crowns patronage and natural historical prospecting did not take place in England until the end of the eighteenth century. Louis XIIIs 1626 Jardin du Roi is given as a date of inception of the bureaucratization in France.33 Yet, as was argued in chapter 4, the model was older than that. Olivier de Serres listed all the simples of the orient et occident for Henri IV at the inception of the second garden of Montpellier in 1593. The rst keepers of the Jardin du Roi were all formed in Montpellier, and they became part of the scientico-colonial machine early, but the attention was on Asia. Bioprospecting had a long history in the Orient. Before Linnaeuss tea plants in Lapland, another Chinese product of considerable economic importance had been the object of French experimentation. Silk had been the main culprit of Europes expenditure in gold and silver. The ideas of Olivier de

212 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceSerres (15391619) on the domestication of the mulberry tree on French territory were pioneering.34 Thierry Mariage has argued that these agricultural successes and commercial views were tied to the political ascendancy of the Protestants in France.35 Olivier de Serres, a Protestant, wrote a book on estate management, Le thatre dagriculture (1600). De Serres argued that land had to be managed and used for the prot of its owners, a sentiment that was not germane to Catholic views of nature. His most ambitious commercial project was growing mulberries in colder climates. Most probably, Linnaeus had known of the French experiments directly in France, but also through a German thinker considered the father of cameralism, Heinrich Gottleib von Justi (17201770), who, like many of his French predecessors, participated in the rve chinois.36 This sinophilia, the view that China was the source all things, far from being a French phenomenon, was a wider European phenomenon, and von Justi wrote a treatise titled Explicit instruction in the cultivation of silkworms and the winning of silk for the Imperial-Royal hereditary lands, encouraging the Austrian emperor to plant mulberry trees for silkworms. It is very likely that von Justi was aware of an earlier French project by Olivier de Serres. De Serress Le theatre dagriculture et le Mesnage des champs (1610) had 45 editions and was translated into many European languages. Within that famous work he had written a much smaller section on growing mulberry trees to produce silk, which was the most translated. Here is what he wrote in the 1607 English translation, The Perfect Use of Silke-Wormes, and Their Benet:For the affection I bear to the public. I have in the beginning of the year a thousand ve hundred eighty nine caused to be printed a particular treatise of this food and nurture entitled The gathering of silke, and addressed it to those in the Common Counsel of the city of Paris, to the end that thereby their people might be sufciently stirred up to draw from the entrails and bowels of their lands, the rich treasure of silke (sic) therein hidden. By this means bringing to light the million of gold enclosed and locked up.37

He began his work on The gathering of silke by describing the origins of silk in a land called Seres and repeats the writings of Pocopius about how two monks brought silkworms from China to Constantinople under Justinian, and how it spread to Europe. In France silk weaving had begun in one factory located in Tours as early as 1480, and around 1520 Francis I brought silkworm eggs from his campaigns in the Milanese region. De Serres named the regions that have mulberry treesProvence, Languedoc, Dauphin, and the city of Avignonand wrote: I sum up the mulberry is held for the most assured penny falling into the purse.38 Olivier de Serres proposed to cultivate mulberry trees and raise silkworms in the city of Paris to preclude importing raw silk by producing it locally. King Henri IV had a Protestant advisor by the name of Barthlemy de Laffemas (15451612) who had articulated an economic mercantilism that advocated French

Domesticating the Exotic 213self-sufciency.39 He promoted Olivier de Serress entrepreneurial proposal to produce silk in France. The king ordered 60,000 mulberry trees imported from the Languedoc to be planted by Parisians in their private estates, in imitation of the royal gardens. Wealthy Parisian gentlemen were urged by the court to improve the Parisian economy by growing mulberry trees on their own estates at their own expense; Olivier de Serres wrote of prot for the city of Paris and the charity it then could bestow on the poor: by dressing of the silk, nourish innite numbers of people of her proper inhabitants and of poor and miserable folks.40 Despite his forwardlooking capitalist agenda for French agriculture, his view of prot remained a deeply Christian view. For his ideas on silk production he had the courts support. The section on mulberry trees and silk within the Le theatre dagriculture was printed separately, and on the kings orders the 16,000 copies were distributed to every parish in his kingdom.41 Olivier de Serres stressed that he did not want to expand on the known example of the orange, citron, and lemon trees already fashionable by the end of the sixteenth century, because he noted that the mulberry was a totally different case, as growing citrus in the north was only for the particular delectation and curiosity of a few.42 De Serres described the garden tours that the king of France, Henri IV, took of the gardens of Provence and then went on to describe his own success at planting between 15,000 and 20,000 mulberries at the kings request in the gardens of the Tuileries, where they have happily sprung up. Olivier de Serress success immediately prompted the king to ask the commissioners of the city to pass contracts with merchants on October 14 and December 3 to procure and plant white and black mulberry trees for the cities of Paris, Orleans, Tours, and Lyon. Additionally Henri IV caused the building of a great house to work the silk worms at the Tuileries.43 De Serres hoped:We must no more doubt, but within a short space, by the continuation of these thrice excellent beginnings, France shall see itself redeemed, from the value of more than four millions of gold that every year goeth out for furniture of stuffs compounded of the substance or of the matter itself, to the end to work it in the kingdom. Behold the beginning of the introduction of silk in the heart of France.44

Despite self-praise, Olivier de Serres knew that silk was not new to France, that as early as 1480 there was a factory in Tours, and that Francis I had brought back silkworm eggs and launched projects for sericulture in the Rhne valley. Yet, Henri IVs initiatives were on a vaster scale. Thierry Mariage has argued in his book on Louis XIVs famous garden designer, Andr Le Ntre, that because Henri IV was initially a Protestant, as were Olivier de Serres and Jacques Boyceau, one of the seminal early thinkers about estate gardening, they were erased from French historiography. Le Ntre and Versailles have taken center stage for innovation.45 French historiography dated all the innovations

214 Orientalism in Early Modern Francein gardening and estate management to Louis XIV.46 Yet, as early as the end of the sixteenth century, the elite grew the orange trees and other exotics that Versailles would be famous for. The ideas implemented by the gardeners of the seventeenth century had eminent pioneers who were relegated to oblivion by historians. In the same way Colbertism and its championing of silk manufacturing and the growing of madder have eclipsed earlier efforts made under the direction of the Protestant Laffemas. To get the right tools for cultivating the new exotic trees, Parisians had to resort to new techniques in estate management. Jack Goody, Thierry Mariage, and others have argued that during this period there was a proliferation of garden books, with an emphasis on estate management, and that gardening manuals came from an urban culture that turned to the countryside. As noblemen grew poorer and sold their estates, the newly rich merchants bought them for their pleasure and built fancy hotels, which now had to be landscaped to stand out in order to assert the social standing of their new owners. Despite the importance of private gardens to new plants and new techniques, in the second half of the seventeenth century, the royal gardens of Versailles were the site of what drove consumption best: expensive novelties.

Trianon de Porcelaine, 16701687Louiss reign was marked by the culture of exotic owers. The system devised during his reign to supply his gardens with rare owers was an elaborate exercise in domesticating the exotic to supply several royal gardens. The most elaborate plantings were the perfumed ower beds of the Trianaon de Porcelaine. The Trianon was conceived as the physical embodiment of earthly pleasures, an oriental seraglio where Louis XIV could, for an afternoon, escape Versailles, like the Mnagerie its counterpart across the Grand Canal, the Trianon de Porcelaine was meant to house the exotic.47 After its construction the Mnagerie housed pigeons, pelicans, ostriches, amingoes, hummingbirds, parrots, cockatoos, birds of paradise, peacocks, rare breeds of chickens, turkeys, swans, herons, ducks, and also large mammals, deer, camels, bears, wolves, gazelles, cows and horses, and even a crocodile and an elephant.48 The exotic animal trade that reached its zenith in eighteenth-century Paris had its inception under Francis I and was well under way under Louis.49 Andrew Zega and Bernd H. Dams go as far as to argue that Louis styled himself as Emperor of the East through the construction of the Trianon as his seraglio. Yet, the seraglio they speak of was not a collection of women, but of exotic owers and shrubs planted by the thousands and changed daily to create an eternal spring. Across the Grand Canal the Mnagerie housed Louiss collection of rare animals, while the Trianon de Porcelaine stood amidst the most splendid garden in all of Europe. Exotic owers and rare species of hyacinth, tuberose, jasmine, and orange blossom miraculously perfumed the air, even in winter, and without a wilted ower ever in sight.

Domesticating the Exotic 215Few buildings have left as many legends behind them as the eeting Trianon de Porcelaine, the orientalist structure that was meant to be a building in the Chinese style, although it did not look anything like a Chinese structure. It preceded any building in the chinoiserie style by half a century. The Trianon was meant as a garden, and it was to replace a garden lost in front of the newly built apartments of the queen. Dedicated to Madame de Montespan, as early as 1670 Louis Le Vau started the building. At his death, he was replaced by Franois dObray, who erected a main pavilion and four secondary pavilions. The walls were covered in blue and white Chinese-style ceramic tiles, leading the building to be called the Porcelain Trianon. The gardens of the Trianon, rich with the scent of oriental bulbs and tuberose, appeared by enchantment one spring, or so claims the verses of the poet Felibien:Ce palais fut regard dabord de tout le monde comme un enchantement, car, nayant t commenc qu la n de lhiver, il se trouva fait au printemps, comme sil fut sorti de terre avec les eurs des jardins.50 [This palace was regarded by all as an enchantment; started at the beginning of winter, it was nished in spring, as if it grew out of the earth with the owers of the garden.]

This enchantment that appeared overnight was meant to be paradise on earth. The ofcial site of the palace of Versailles asserts that in its rst spring, in 1670, there were over 26,000 plants bought for the Trianon alone. Orange trees were planted in the ground, and jasmine covered the bowers. The structure was not meant for overnight visits; the fantasy was dedicated to pleasures of the garden and of the table, and each room in the central pavilion was dedicated to Louis XIVs meals and had a name tied to gastronomy.51 There was a room for appetizers, a room for desserts, a room for soups, another room for the roast, a room for the buffet, another room to prepare fruit, a room to prepare sweets, and two rooms for the tables to seat the guests. The tie between gastronomy and sexuality in intimate settings such as the Trianon in Early Modern French culture is one that is lost on many contemporary readers. The tradition of intimate soupers with his mistress was meant for irtation and serious amorous play as much as for enjoying food. The Trianon was a private quarter, as opposed the public quarters of Versailles, and after Louis started living at Versailles in 1682, he often took refuge at the Trianon. The culture of owers under Louis XIV has been studied by Elizabeth Hyde; without her work it would be difcult to imagine the central importance owers had at Louiss court.52 Louis XIV was not only an avid collector and connoisseur of owers, but took personal interest in the gardens. Flowers were also part of the many festivities that he oversaw. There was no winter in the Trianon; it was meant to be an eternal spring to celebrate Louiss reign as the golden age. Jean Baptiste Colbert made a note to himself to visit the garden often to see to it that Michel de Bouteux, the gardener in charge of the Trianon, had enough owers to cover all of winter and enough young boys to change the thousands of clay pots. The accounts for the Trianon studied by Hyde

216 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceinclude thousands of owers: jasmines, tuberose, tulips and other bulbs, hellebore, and orange trees. Hyde cites 10,000 tuberoses in March of 1672 alone. Le Bouteux found techniques to protect tender plants against the cold and also encouraged bedding out (owers grown to maturity in clay pots then planted in the gardens).53 Purchases for the Trianon in 1686 were: 18,850 renonculi, 10,000 tulips, 915 double peonies, 1,200 jonquils, 850 double narcissi, 8,200 hyacinths, 2,000 orange lilies, 1,765 pots of tuberose, 4,000 cyclamen, and 20,050 double jonquils in addition to 99,850 assorted owering bulbs imported from Toulon.54 The aroma of owers overwhelmed the visitors to the Trianon, yet no garden was as perfumed as Louiss walled private garden of rare owers, off the quarters he shared with his new mistress Madame de Maintenon. Andr Le Ntre explained that Louiss small parterre of owers alone had nearly a million clay pots that needed changing daily so that no spent blossom or leaf was ever to be seen.55 Needless to say, furnishing the royal gardens with enough blooms (the Trianon was one of several royal gardens), was a gigantic undertaking. To avoid buying from the Dutch, who had developed nurseries of renown and dominated the European trade of oriental bulbs, Colberts mercantilism extended to exotic owers. One of the most fascinating aspects of Hydes study is how several gardens were developed to furnish the royal demand, most importantly in Toulon, where bulbs were exported at low cost directly from the Levant markets and North Africa and propagated. The demand for owers from all over the world called for cultivation and propagation on a grand scale, and many private collectors participated in providing rare specimens, but this would have never been enough if Colbert had not set out to create an infrastructure that had the capacity to propagate enough to provide systematic supplies. Bulbs and owers bought in the Americas and in Asia were purchased directly by travelers and collectors and propagated in the garden of Toulon, or at the ppinire created by Colbert. To get rare specimens the king employed euristes and curieux, who were dispatched far away in charge of nding him owers. Hyde cites the case of Sieur Subleau, head treasurer for the kings galleys, who was reimbursed by the king for bringing back books, owers, and other curiosities from the Levant.56 In 1669, in a rst step, Louis XIV considerably enlarged a series of existing nurseries in the Faubourg Saint Honor, where Claude Mollet and his son Andr, gardeners to Henri IV and Louis XII, had rst established them. A British traveler to Paris cited by Hyde described the immensity of the operation at the ppinire du Roule. Seeds, bulbs, and trees were raised to maturity and dispatched to the royal gardens. The Trianon captured the imagination of the fashionable elite, and in 1673 the Mercure galant reported that nearly all of the great seigneurs who have country homes are having [Trianons] built in their park.57 By the eighteenth century the system of cultivating owers domestically was working so well that it could supply demands made by the nobility for their own imitations of the courts devotion to fragrant and exotic shrubs and bulbs.58 The most novel part of this operation imagined by Louis XIV and Colbert was the purchase of a sizable piece of land in the

Domesticating the Exotic 217naval base of Toulon, site of the kings navy and galleys, the center of a network of communications within the Mediterranean area. By 1683 the Intendant de la Marine estimated how many bulbs could be provided by Toulons garden alone to the royal gardens for that year as 65,000.59 After 1682 Toulon would buy directly from markets in North Africa and the Levant and propagate and grow bulbs to maturity in France. Hyde wrote that The Toulon garden bulbs were of a more ephemeral nature than the woven works of Gobelin, or medals struck in honor of the king That Colbert turned his mercantilist principles of managing the national economy to the kings ower beds only emphasizes how important owers were to the glorication of his patron.60 The Trianon was also meant to point to the French kings dominion over the natural world: To furnish the Trianons gardens, narcissus came from Constantinople, chestnut trees from India, jasmine from Spain, limes from the West Indies, tuberose from Mexico, and pomegranates from the Middle-East.61 Chandra Mukerji, in Territorial Ambitions and the Gardens of Versailles, has pointed to the importance of Mediterranean plants in Louiss collections; the gardens had to be as good as Italys.62 The study ties the gardens directly to Louiss territorial and imperial ambitions. The Parterre du Midi in the larger gardens of Versailles is given special emphasis in her analysis for its rare species of palms and tender plants whose exoticism in the climate of Paris signied the far reaches of Louiss territorial ambitions.63 Dominion over the natural world is nowhere clearer than under the pen of the ambitious Donneau de Vis, who soon became the kings royal historian. Hyde showed how the kings penchant for owers was manipulated by Donneau de Vis, known as the author of Les Amour du Soleil and the editor of the famous news and gossips gazette Le Mercure galant.64 A play, Les Amour du Soleil, written in the wake of the construction of the Trianon in 1671, was set in the gardens of the king of Persia. It was performed at the Thetre du Marais, the set overowing with owers. Persia was the mythical site of the garden of paradise itself. The play clearly pointed to how art, science, and nature served Louis XIVs ability to display the greatest oral collection in the world on stage.65 Jean Donneau de Vis obtained the coveted post of royal historian by manipulating the kings love of owers through writing and staging the play: he made an allegory between Louis and the king of Persia and between Louiss garden and the garden of paradise. In 1688, Donneau de Vis pushed the allegories so prized in that period even farther: he presented the king with a history of his reign told by the imaginary voices of rare and exotic owers: Histoire de Louis le Grand Contenes dans les rapports qui se trouvent entre les actions & les qualitis & les vertus des Fleurs & des Plantes.66 Studied by Hyde, the manuscript contained thirty-ve different owers, shrubs, and herbs, beautifully depicted and described. All of the owers and plants spoke of their own practical uses and compared themselves to the accomplishments of the Sun King. Donneau de Vis owers praised the kings ability to conquer and compared it to their own ability to overcome the seasons in order to honor him. Just as it was

218 Orientalism in Early Modern Francetold in the Bible that Jonathan told of trees gathering to elect a king, the owers were paying tribute to the French king: We assemble today not to elect a king, but to work on the history of a Monarch, who should be praised by all that the earth produces, since all the Earth is indebted to him. Although we are from different countries, we are all French by inclination, or rather we are all devoted to you, we are all in accord in praising you.67 The owers had to be naturalized as French to be worth notice. Elizabeth Hyde in her discussion of the play chose a fashionable ower to demonstrate the nature of the discourse held by the owers, the anemone. The anemone boasted, Heaven gave you to France in the time when I was imported [to France] from the Indies, referring to Louiss birth.68 For our purposes it is worth noting that the view expressed was that the ower was also born on the soil of France. The anemone compared the time it took for a Frenchman, Monsieur Bachelier, to perfect her and get her used to the cold, to the period where Mazarin ruled and Louis had not come to his own. The ower continued to tell how Bachelier had sought to keep the rare ower for himself alone, and it was not until curious orists had wrenched the ower away from him that the anemone had its day, in the same way Louis had been revealed after the death of Mazarin. Then the clever author tied the spread of the anemone to the spread of Louiss realm and knowledge of his greatness.69 The following excerpt is telling those [owers] that foreign countries furnished to us, shine today with more brilliance than they ever did in their place of origin from where they are drawn.70 This concept that the anemones as foreign owers were unformed, imperfect before they grew on French soil reects some of the patriotic naturalism expressed in Frances encounter with the exotic. Donneau de Vis was but one of the many engaged in what Peter Burke has aptly coined the fabrication of Louis XIV. This image-building took place in the battleeld, in court, in the world of fashion, and in the gardens.71 As editor of the Mercure galant, Donneau de Vis was key as he reached a vast public though his gazette. Hyde notices the absence of the tulip in the manuscript the royal historian offered the king, despite the presence of the tulip in the royal gardens, and ascribes it to the Dutch wars.72 The absence of the tulip from the manuscript is very telling indeed. There was under Colbert a major effort to avoid foreign and especially Dutch imports and encourage domestic production; northern France had perfected tulips, but much of the tulip trade was now in Dutch hands. Colberts mercantilism extended to exotic owers, and every effort was made to make them a domestic product, to make them French. First brought to Europe from the Ottoman empire in the sixteenth century, in an auction held in Holland in February 1637, 99 lots of tulip bulbs fetched a staggering 90,000 guilders, more than $3.5 million in todays money. Tulips had, in the wake of brief tulipomania on Amsterdam markets, become a major Dutch export to the rest of Europe, and even though in northern France there were some good nurseries, they could not compete and slowly disappeared.73 This omission of the tulip in

Domesticating the Exotic 219the manuscript was important as consuming foreign luxuries could be construed as unpatriotic, given Colberts policies of protecting the domestic economy through royal privileges and subsidies. The debate on luxury will be examined in the last chapter, but it is worth pointing out that in addition to textiles and porcelain, owers were part of the goods that needed domestication to become products of the French terroir (soil). The chief evil under Colbert was to buy from Frances enemy, the Dutch. Andrew Zega and Bernd H. Dams have their own reading of the imperial meaning of the Trianon and closely tie the building itself to Frances commercial ambitions: They wrote that the pavilions nave Orientalism was a metaphorical claim to the riches of the East. Judging by the minor role the Trianons creators accorded to Chinese precedents, attempts to identify them appear misguided, for the compound was foremost an architectural manifesto, signaling Frances intent to overthrow the Netherlands near monopoly over Eastern trade. A list of exotic luxury goods brought to Europe by the Dutch is interchangeable of with the salient features of the Trianon, foremost among them silks, porcelain, and owers.74 Even Colberts systematic organization of the nursery gardens and ppinires to avoid buying owers from the Dutch was ephemeral; by Louis XVs reign the king was buying rare hyacinths, all the rage in the eighteenth century, from Dutch nurseries in Haarlem.75 Dutch trade to France, although strictly forbidden, prevailed and was more than ever dominated by porcelain, despite Colberts attempts. Dutch tiles and porcelain, in imitation of their Chinese antecedents, were invading French markets. Louiss wars against the Dutch provinces had disastrous economic results in France and brought impoverishment rather than the fabled riches of the East that the Dutch continued to enjoy during their golden age. The roof of the Trianon and its decoration with Chinese porcelain vases exposed to the elements has been given as the chief reason for the buildings high maintenance cost and therefore its destruction in 1687, to be replaced by the Marble Trianon, which can still be visited in Versailles. Inside the demolished building, porcelain objects, tiles, and trompe loeil porcelain effects such as were on the roof could be seen in profusion. Ten large mirrors nished in oriental-style lacquer work, called Lachine, or Lachininage, reected the extreme luxury of the interiors. An abundance of Chinese silk brocade completed the orientalist theme. Andrew Zega and Bernd H. Dams argue that the buildings chinoiserie, a baroque riot of blue and white, owed a great debt to the Dutch, who had diffused oriental objects in Europe, chief among them china.76

Porcelain in France: The Rise of the MercersSince Roman times, Chinese silks and spices, ebony and jade, and tea and porcelain had been eagerly sought. The story of how Chinese porcelain was nally imitated by Europe in Meissen, Germany in 1710, after years of trying is well known.77 Even if

220 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethe French Jesuit, Father dEntrecolles, was instrumental in transmitting the secret of porcelain to France through his letters of 1712 and 1722, his transmission of technology was after the success at Meissen and independent of it.78 His letters give us a glimpse of how he gathered his information, some of which he observed himself, but much of what he gathered was through asking questions from the converted Christians working in the porcelain factories. The secret of porcelain had been closely guarded, as it was a major export to the West since antiquity. In France, Chinese porcelain had been collected at court since the reign of Francis I. By Louiss reign the king and especially his brother had gathered priceless collections of Chinese porcelain, as Persian monarchs and Turkish sultans had done before them. The largest gift of porcelain to Louis XIV was made by the Siamese trade delegation during their embassy of 16861687. The Siamese gave the French king gifts of gold, tortoise shell, silk fabrics, carpets, and 1,500 pieces of porcelain.79 Colbert forbade all Dutch imports on the French markets; his policy targeted porcelains from China, but he failed, as these were highly sought after. Worse, Delft, the famous new Dutch manufacturer, was making Dutch copies of Chinese porcelain that were ooding the French market and enriching the Dutch. As early as 1664 Colbert decided to create the royal factory of Saint Cloud, in the same year as the French East India Company; two years later the Academy of Science would also be involved in a triangle that was instrumental in making porcelain in France.80 The rst soft-paste porcelains were made around 1677, but systematic production was not started until the 1690s. During the 1690s, the English scientist Martin Lister visited Saint Cloud in the company of Franois Morin from the Academy of Science and wrote: I confess I could not distinguish betwixt the Pots made there and the nest China Ware I ever saw.81 Colberts edict creating Saint Cloud gives us an idea of how important it was for things manufactured in France to actually look Chinese. In the edict the order is for St. Cloud to imitate porcelains in the Indian style and get a monopoly on the imports of Delft into France.82 The word used by Colbert for imitation is a very strong one in French: contre-faon, which implies that Saint Cloud ware should be passed off as Chinese porcelain.83 Similar to the trajectory of coffee, which remained viewed and sold as oriental long after it was Caribbean, even when porcelain was no longer from China it posed as Chinese to maintain its market value. Saint Cloud was called a manufacture de faience, and in 1673, a patent was also issued for faience to Edme Poterats family in Rouen as he had found the secret of making Chinese porcelain.84 Later on the factories of hard-paste porcelain, Vincennes, Svres, and Meissen, also produced pseudo-Chinese wares, often sold as Chinese or Japanese on the French markets. French merchants were sometimes directly responsible for commissioning porcelain made in Europe but stamped with oriental-looking marks to be sold on French markets as Japanese Kakiemon ware. In the 1720s a French merchant named Lemaire sent white porcelain wares commissioned from Meissen to Holland to be enameled in the gout de lensien Japon.85 From fakes and imitations, there

Domesticating the Exotic 221was also a transitional style in which French porcelain was made in the chinoiserie style, without posing as Chinese. One of the most fascinating processes to follow is the gradual transformation in the representation of the same goods a century later. Someone like Madame de Pompadour dictated taste through her many commissions directly to manufacturers and to importers. In the 1760s Svres ware was looking very French and no longer Chinese despite all its chinoiserie. The chinoiserie was now pure dcor in the ve pieces made for the bedroom of the Marquise de Pompadour, a great patron of the factory of Svres. After 1789 Svres lost much of is chinoiserie style altogether. The demand for exotic imports and their imitations remained high in the aristocracy and the wealthy bourgeoisie of Paris, until the French Revolution disrupted the order of things. They could be found in the most elaborate stores in the city: some of the shops held by the guild of the mercers had orientalist names and decorations themselves. The mercers guild sold oriental goods, and the other channels for exotic goods were the fairs, such as the fair of Saint Germain, where coffee had rst been served in Paris. Carolyn Sargentson has studied the guild of the mercers closely. Some mercers could have acted as whole sellers of porcelain, and some were wealthy enough to buy porcelain in bulk from the East India companies.86 Mercers could alter imported goods for the French market; they mounted porcelain in gold and silver, and they also lacquered furniture in Lachine style. The guild of mercers in Paris was responsible for the sale of oriental goods to the wealthy bourgeoisie and the aristocracy through their shops. Many women kept the stores, especially those selling silk hose and ribbons, and there are many widows as owners of inventories. These were family-owned businesses. The store fronts often carried orientalist names such as La Pagode dOr, La Perle dOrient, and Au Grand Turc. The mercers of Paris also changed imports to adapt them to the taste of their customers; they had the right to modify furniture and goods, and the most important are some examples of Japanese porcelains adapted through commissions to French taste through metal decoration. The mercers sold luxury goods, paintings, furniture, porcelain, textiles, and mirrors. Women played central roles as consumers, patrons, and shopkeepers in this increased consumption of exotic goods, but their pivotal role is often masked, except in moments when criticism makes them scapegoats for the aristocracys excesses. Their customers were mainly women in the elite. Very highly placed women did not use the guild of the mercers as intermediaries; someone like the Marquise de Pompadour put in her orders directly with artisans, manufacturers, and importers. After the reign of Louis XIV, when the king had so closely controlled fashion himself, mercers were in fact dependant on the women at court, often the kings mistresses, for setting fashion trends.87 It was the taste of a few highly placed women and their commissions that helped make fashion. The speed at which fashion changed in this period is startling to the modern reader and marks a clear promotion of consumption and stamps the century as a modern and global one, albeit for the elite alone.88

222 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceOne of the six luxury guilds the mercers and their shops had, as Steven Kaplan demonstrates, climbed to the top of the hierarchy of the guilds through hubris, sheer snobbery, and their pride in selling most everything and manufacturing nothing, which, unlike other guilds, put them above artisans and gave them the status of merchants.89 It could also be rightly argued that their right to sell imported goods gave them the unique power to sell foreign objects against those made by French artisans in other guilds, without the stamp of the guild. In a sense their imports broke the monopoly the guilds each had on their own craft in France, which was true for many things like furniture, fans, porcelain, and jewels. It could be further argued that their rise in power was closely tied to their customers passion for the foreign and exotic and domestic imitations. In the quarrels among guilds, the rise of the mercers was an important phenomenon that changed the social order. Merchants rose through the ranks of society through newly acquired wealth. In turn, as Daniel Roche has long demonstrated, the ancien rgime was a culture of appearance, and that one was what one wore, and rising to the ranks meant increased consumption.90

The Siamoise and the Indiennes, from the Exotic to French Regional GoodsIn 1686, ambassadors from the king of Siam made their debut appearance at Versailles, bringing a magnicent array of exotic luxury goods to Louis XIV. A fashion of parasols, large silk cushions, and elephants was started. Amidst the gifts brought from Siam were silk and cotton ikat textiles. French manufacturers immediately adapted and imitated the ikat technique, in which the yarns are dyed before weaving, to produce what they called toiles ammes, for the ame-like color transitions in the textiles. The use of a local dye, pastel, produced mostly blue cloths. Striped and checked toiles ammes woven primarily in blue and white dyed linens and cottons were known throughout the eighteenth century as siamoises de Rouen, marking their exotic origin but making them a domestic product. Siam and Rouen were both remembered. Savary des Brlonss Dictionnaire universel de commerce, Paris, 1723, tells us that guild rules for production of siamoises were set by an ordinance in 1701 and cites widespread use of siamoises de Rouen for curtains, bed hangings, upholstery fabric, and some articles of clothing, such as skirts and lining for elegant chamber robes.91 Duc de Luynes mentions in his Mmoires that in 1737 Louis XV paid a visit to his ofcers new quarters, all embellished with siamoises.92 The use of this textile for the high ranks of the army did much to popularize its spread among the elite. In the Marly Palace, the new bedchamber of Madame de Pompadour, consort to Louis XV, was decorated in this pattern. The textile in blue and white with added oral bouquets festooned her two beds, her arm chairs, and her chaises as described by the Inventaire des meubles de la Couronne, 1751.

Domesticating the Exotic 223The siamoise were strongly associated with the aristocrats and the monarchy, so this had to cease if Rouen wanted to sell its goods after the French Revolution. Thanks to a shift in political discourse, from the cosmopolitanism of the eighteenth century and its love for the exotic to the post-revolutionary nationalism of the nineteenth century, the fabric rmly represented a region of France, and became known as toiles de Charente. The Siamese origin of the textile was erased, exactly like the exotic provenance of the owers of Donneau de Vis, a textile for citizens had to be the pride of a region. Their production in Rouen was continued after a short gap in production during the Revolution and throughout the nineteenth century. Today, more famous than the toile de charentes are the printed cottons of Provence, ubiquitous today in the tourist trade and an emblem of France and Provence worldwide. The Provenal cotton textile industry has its origins in the imitation of oriental products imported under Louis XIV. European merchants going to India brought back knowledge of Indian chintzes (the word is derived from the Sanskrit chitra, meaning variegated or speckled). Another word for imported printed cottons was calico, derived from the Persian word kalamkari, or qalam-kar, meaning pen-work.93 Calicoes, printed cottons, became fashionable throughout Europe in the late seventeenth century, so much so that Daniel Defoe exclaimed that even the queen of England was wearing the cotton prints that had ordinarily been reserved for bed covers and for children and maids:These peoples obsessions with products from India has now reached the painted calicos, which were formerly used for quilted blankets and the clothing of lower class children. Today they are even used by our ner women. The power of fashion is so great that we see persons of rank wearing Indian cloths even though only the maids were allowed to use them before. The queen herself has been seen in Chinese silk and calico.94

The English East India Company as well as the Dutch VOC imported these through their maritime trade. These calicoes were called indiennes in French, as they were made in India and the Ottoman Empire and were bought by French merchants in the Levant markets of Diarbekir and Aleppo. They were a major French import, which arrived like most oriental goods at the port of Marseilles. Ever since the capitulations were actually applied in 1569, these cloths, which were also called chafarcanis, printed calicoes, or indiennes, were a major trade with Marseilles. The Marseillais merchants were very important on the Levant markets, where they brought silver coined in Provence to purchase cotton cloth and silk. French policy was to create domestic products that imitated the imports. The most difcult part of imitating the indiennes was reproducing the use of the dye madder. Olivier Raveux has studied indienne printing in its most important European center, Marseilles.95 Marseilles was the oldest European center of printed calico manufacture, preceding important centers in London by nearly thirty years. In Paris and Amsterdam indiennes became all the rage. Raveux nds that initially calico printing in Marseilles

224 Orientalism in Early Modern Francegrew from a process of imitation to provide substitutions for imports from the Levant. According to Raveuxs analysis, the success of these imitation cloths was such that it pushed local entrepreneurs to launch themselves into producing them; they began in 1648, but their efforts failed, as they could not match the quality of the imports in their calicos. Since 1660 indiennes from Persia, Diarbekir, and Aleppo were making their way into France via Marseilles on a regular basis. The French imitations made la faon du Levant et de Perse (in the style of Levant and Persia) in Marseilles would not hold their dyes. Their problems were technical; Olivier Raveux has found a fascinating case of oriental transfer of technology to France via the Armenians, encouraged by Colbert:In order to activate the silk trade and allow the creation of manufactories of gured silks with silver and gold, Colbert favoured the installation of Armenians in Marseilles Merchants and printed calico manufacturers beneted from these networks, inviting to Marseilles several Armenian technicians to improve the quality of their products. The rst seem to have been Boudac and Martin who promised, in 1672, to teach Antoine Desuargues and Claude Picard to paint calicoes of the type from the Levant and Persia With the installation of the Armenians, the Marseillais then mastered printing with madder. It was perhaps at the same time that the technique of working with indigo was acquired thanks to the tightening of links with Aleppo, the reference point for the making of blue ajami [Persian] cottons, destined in the main for the dress of ordinary people.96

This foreign group was invited to help the silk industry, and their impact on printing cotton was crucial to creating a local industry. These indienneurs armniens are so well known that they are mentioned in a host of books and museum Web sites, but often without much detail. Olivier Raveuxs recent analysis nds that the Armenians not only transmitted techniques but became associated with local owners and invested in workshops; their arrival marked a turning point in which a high enough quality was achieved for French imitations to compete with real oriental goods. Much like the case of the caf, the Armenians were crucial links as transmitters of techniques and ways of life known to them in Asia. Raveux notes that high-quality products resulted from this collaboration between Armenian master dyers and the Marseillais. Products from Marseilles began to be recognized to the extent that it gave its name to certain products, notably Marseilles quilting (toiles piques de Marseilles, boutis) which had some success in Europeans markets from the middle of the 1680s. This transfer of technology from oriental workshops to those of Marseilles made Marseilles a technical center recognized for this craft within Europe, so much so that in 1678, two merchants from Amsterdam recruited the Armenian Lowijs de Celibi from Marseilles in order to introduce madder dyeing methods into their workshop in Amersfoort. Marseilles also became a point of reference that gave rise to imitations of Marseilles, both in Europe and in the southeast of France.97 There is evidence of the manufacture of printed calicoes

Domesticating the Exotic 225in Avignon from 1677, Nmes in 1678, and Arles from the beginning of 1680. Marseilles was essential to these other locations, as was the founding of workshops for the diffusion of Levantine printing techniques.98 This occurred in the same way as siamoises gave way to siamoisesde Rouen and then came to be called toile de Charente, a regional mark in national products. The printed cottons became part of Frances industry, as Marseillais goods. European artisans were imitating the technique as seen as Marseillais, and no longer Persia or the Levant. The transmission of using madder dye deserves some attention, as the French had factories by the middle of the eighteenth century for reproducing what was known as Turkey red, or Andrinople red, other names for madder. Madder was grown in Europe since antiquity and was grown in France as early as the reign of King Dagobert. By Colberts time it was no longer a French product, as France had to buy it from the Dutch, because it grew either in Flanders or near the Caspian Sea and in the Caucasus and was imported by the Dutch, so Colbert encouraged the development of madder plantations in Languedocs dried marshes. This was around the same year he encouraged the Armenians to come to Marseilles. There is little trace of what happened in madder cultivation until Jean Althen introduced techniques to grow it systematically.99 Olivier de Serres had described its culture as early as the sixteenth century, but by the middle of the eighteenth century madder was a crop in the Vaucluse and the Languedoc. The plant could easily be grown in Europe, but its properties varied with its provenance. Even dyeing with madder was not an oriental secret and was known since antiquity and still well-known to the dyers of Flanders, Florence, and Venice in the sixteenth century, as several famous medieval books on dyeing attest.100 It must have been a well-kept secret. It seems that neither the French nor the English had the knowledge of this technique of true dyes, as in 1569, Morgan Hubblethorn was sent on a mission of industrial espionage: In Persia you shall nd carpets of coarse thrummed wool, the best in the world, and excellent coloured: those cities and towns you must repair to, and you must use means to learn all the order of dying those thrums, which are so dyed that neither raine, wine nor vinegar can stain; a little later in the text he is also asked to look into dyeing silk: For that in Persia they have great colouring of silks it behoves to learn that also. These orders were given by Richard Hakluyt, famous for his compendium of travelers, and many travel accounts were a source of industrial information. English wool cloth was prized on the Levant markets and the term Londra, used by the Italian dyers to describe the cloth since late medieval times, was still used in the eighteenth century. The red wool cloth was initially cochineal dyed, an expensive process, but by the seventeenth century it was cheaper and madder dyeing was known to English artisans. Yorkshire madder dyed cloth was much in demand on the Levant markets; it was used by fez makers in Aleppo and elsewhere in Turkey, and the Venetians also made similar caps from the same cloth for the export markets of Marseilles and Genoa in imitation of those made in Tunis.

226 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceVenices demise as the center of dyeing black cloth in the mid-eighteenth century, in which madder was necessary, was due to local rulings.101 The indiennne fashion had peaked in France in 1685, now a center of European fashions and hit most of Europe.102 Nevertheless, in the wake of Colberts death in 1683, through several misguided scal policies a lot of the industries he had protected or started were destroyed. Such was the case of printed cotton, and, counseled to do so, the king banned the indienne industry in 1686. Olivier Raveux nds that many Marseillais artisans took refuge in Avignon on the papal estate. The aim of these prohibitions was to protect the French industries of wool, silk, and linen from oriental imports and also to avoid the escape of bullion exchanged for cotton cloth and silk.103 The revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 also had a disastrous effect on the industries encouraged by Colbert, as many artisans, including the Armenians, left France for Holland, England, and Switzerland in its wake, or even earlier. The fashion for indiennes did not disappear despite other European prohibitions, in London and in the Dutch Republic, in the early eighteenth century. Robert Chenicer writes that many enterprising men in France and elsewhere tried to penetrate the secret of madder dyeing, and it would have been easier had they read that in their own territorial possessions of Canada there was another way of obtaining red: as early as 1603 Samuel Champlain had praised a brilliant American red dye he called Micmac red. In 1670 Sister Marie de lIncarnation wrote down the simple technique it required. It was equally ignored. In contrast to her less involved method, the techniques used for dyeing with madder could take up to a month or more for one piece of cloth, hence the value and price of these printed cottons. Oriental products were highly prized, and the nuns description of how the Indians painted porcupine quills was once again a case of gathering information on plants, spices, and techniques in les Indes for their utility to France, but to no avail. It was, as was much else that was gathered as information abroad, completely ignored. The problems for the advancement of this proto-industry encouraged by Colbert were not simply technical; by this date the technical problems had been solved through a transfer of technology. A policy of fear destroyed much of the progress. The fear of foreign products, of exotic goods hurting the economy of France, took over after the end of Colberts mitigating inuence to assuage French hostility to foreigner and the foreign. The court began by taxing imported cotton cloth, a measure the Marseillais protested, as they said it restricted French industrys progress. Undyed cotton fabric imported from the Levant was the basis for the fabrication of the indiennes, in its untreated state, and it also went to French markets for clothing made for the artisans and the working class. The prohibitions against the fabrication and imports of indiennes of 1687 were reiterated by Louis XIV in 1688, although the citys government tried to elude it and encourage those continuing local production by proclaiming that Marseilles did not fall under French law because it was a free port. In retaliation, another royal edict was promulgated in 1689, and military forces were

Domesticating the Exotic 227sent to destroy all of the workshops, and even the wooden printing molds used for impressions were shattered to pieces, ruining all of the technological progress made since 1648. As a result of this misguided policy the remaining Marseillais artisans left for Tuscany and elsewhere in Italy. Ironically this created producers abroad that later would be competing with Marseilless production.104 As a consequence of breaks in transmission and the difculty of dyeing with madder, there was not just one moment when there was a transfer of technology, but several. After the departure of the skilled Armenians and Marseillais artisans from Marseilles in 1687, there was a long gap to recuperate lost knowledge, and there were other examples of transference of similar technologies at the height of the fashion for indiennes. A simplied recipe for this oriental technique was reached by J. C. Flacshat after years of study. Just like the young dyer sent to Persia by Hakluyt to bring home techniques in the sixteenth century, Flaschat was sponsored to travel and live in Edirne (Andrianople), a center producing Turkey red in the eighteenth century. Aleppo had long imitated the Indian cottons, and the dyeing was done in Edirne. Flaschat stayed several years to study techniques, commerce, and the arts, and he even took up Ottoman poetry to perfect his language skills. He returned to France and, according to Schaefer, set up a dyeing factory devoted to dyeing with madder in Saint Chamond near Lyons in 1748, exactly a century after the Marseillais had rst tried but failed to copy indiennes. To run the dye factory he brought his entire team with him from the Ottoman empire. He brought two dyers from Andrianople; two tinsmiths (tameurs) from Constantinople, one of whom made high-end coffee pots; a Persian spinner; and from Smyrna a thummer or aronneur who uffed up cotton. An Indian brodeur au tamis was left behind as he refused to come to France, but he taught Flaschat his art of making sieves, and the team was completed with two Armenian vitriol makers from Cyprus.105 Flaschats trip was subsidized by Henri Betrin, minister of nance, as is clear from the preface to his treatise on dyeing, published in 1766 in Lyons.106 Before the French industrial success of the mid-eighteenth century, Marseilless production had picked up, but very slowly after that moment of brutal interruption in 16861689. Before the edicts forbidding the manufacturing of indiennes, Marseilles was known for its local production and had markets for its Marseillais piqu, printed cottons, in Spain, Portugal, and Italy at the value of 150,000 livres tournois.107 These printed cottons were seen as a French good. An edict of 1692, then one of 1703, reversed Louis XIVs orders, but too late, as enormous damage had been done to Colberts policies of growing madder in France, encouraging domestic production to compete with imports, much of which was often in Dutch or English hands, and conserving bullion even when the French bought indiennes directly on the Levant markets. A royal edict of 1704 now allowed the Dutch to bring in their goods, among them several dyes including madder, a measure that would have had Colbert turning in his grave. It read: Arrest du Conseil dEstat du roy qui permet de faire entrer dans le royaume de lazur, de la colle de toutes sortes, des bois de teinture, de la

228 Orientalism in Early Modern Francegarance, & du poil de sanglier sur les vaisseaux hollandois: en faveur desquels il sera expedi des passeports pour venir charger dans les ports de France des vins, des eaux de vie, & autres denres & marchandises du royaume dont la sortie est permise: du 11 octobre 1704.108 [Legislation from the kings state counsel permitting Dutch vessels to bring into the kingdom of France woad, glue of all kinds, wood for dyeing, madder, and boar bristles, against which passports will be issued to charge wines and spirits and other goods that are permitted to exit from France: on October 11 1704.] This was not to Frances advantage, nor would it benet the local Marseillais merchants. Though the process of dyeing with madder had been developed entirely empirically, it was considered a secret process, and great efforts were made in Europe to analyze it scientically to get the recipe right once and for all. This was achieved by Claude Bethollet (17481822).109 The many details of this transfer and the difculties and changes of techniques are the domain of textile historians, many of whom concurred that Europe had turned to Asia to integrate superior manufacturing techniques to set its own technological progress in motion.110 Oriental techniques carried through a series of merchant networks marked the beginning of European industrialization.111 There are many examples to unearth and study closely that resemble the evolution of the siamoises and of the indiennes, oriental goods imitated and later transformed into important domestic products, as silk was very early on. Chardins little questionnaire pales in comparison to what lies unexplored and ready to be studied. There is a 300-page manuscript of a French factor describing piece-good production in 16781680 in Surat, India, in the Bibliothque Nationale.112 These products then come to represent regional specialty goods within France, and French goods abroad. This was not a sudden change, as one can nd traces of this hope and planning in the writings of Laffemas and Olivier de Serres in the sixteenth century. The idea of replacing imported luxury goods with domestic goods was very old in France, and it was part of a protectionist, then later a mercantilist, policy that we examine in chapter 10. It can be argued that fashion for things oriental was the impetus behind these economic transformations in French manufacturing, and that consumer demand for oriental luxury goods drove this transformation. Oriental fashions that in turn brought about their French imitations lay at the heart of this economic change. Scholars have argued that these transfers of technology from Asia to Europe were accelerated at the end of the seventeenth century, to the great prot of Europes economy.113 Domesticating the exotic was good business, and created a proto-industrial revolution in the domains of textiles. How was this craze for things oriental imposed at the end of the seventeenth century? Although many debates about the rise of modern consumption still exist and amend the work of Norbert Elias, one can, despite newer work rightly mitigating the courts sole inuence, still be unhesitant, and as DeJean has argued,

Domesticating the Exotic 229turn to the court of Louis XIV as a center of diffusion for certain high fashions.114 Yet, the role of merchants and mercers was key. The cargoes of ships arriving with oriental wares from the Levant, Persia, India, China, and Japan were mainly Englands and the Dutch Republics in the seventeenth century. To shrink the growing decit of the French company, Louis XIV did what he had done with coffee: farm out the debt of state monopoly to a private person. The Compagnie Royale des Indes Orientales, whose rst decit had been alleviated by the merchants of Saint Malo, leased its monopoly in 1698 to a privateer, Sieur Jourdan de Groue. De Groue founded the Socit de la Chine or Socit Jourdan de Groue. It is worth reiterating that China had been an old dream and that the rst French traveler to China, Henry de Feynes, left for Canton through the land route in 1606, arriving there three years later in 1609, before Henri IV died in 1610.115 Ninety years later, de Groue bought the rst royal ship, Amphitrite, from Louis XIV and sent it to China from La Rochelle in June 1698. It nally reached France directly from China in the 1680s. The Amphitrite returned to Port-Louis, France, in August 1700 with 167 crates of porcelain, which were sold at auction in Nantes after being publicized in Le Mercure Galant. Yet, the mission of the Amphitrite was not simply commercial; its purpose, however protable, was not to bring back porcelains. In 1698 it also took ve more Jesuit mathematicians and scientic instruments to China. Proselytism was not its sole mission either, as science and mapmaking was also one of its aims. Several maps were commissioned by the court.116 Thus as was common in the ancien rgime travel, religion, science, and commerce were all one. The auction in Nantes, where the cargo of the Amphitrite was sold, was very successful. In France, Marseilles, Lorient, Bordeaux, Nantes, and Lyon were thriving centers for oriental goods, but nothing could compare with Paris and Parisian stores. Oriental wares became a stimulus for the development of chinoiserie styles in Europe, and several types of oriental porcelain and lacquer became part of the French canon of good design and craftsmanship. The demands of the luxury market played a large role in expanding foreign trade: Jacques Savary de Brlons wrote that the guild of the mercers was responsible for expanding the French trade to the Indies. It was the mercers who were retailing oriental goods on the domestic markets.117 Demand drove the need for overseas trade. Jacques Savary de Brlonss argument that the mercers were in no small part responsible for the rise of the consumption of luxury goods successfully counters Eliass argument that the court drove fashions and demand. The bourgeois-versus-aristocratic origins of modern consumption was also a classic debate between Werner Sombart and Max Weber.118 The bourgeois-versus-aristocratic origins of modern consumption also remains a debate, but it may be a false one in France, as the lines between a wealthy bourgeois, such as Colbert and his descendants, and the aristocracy in France, had been slowly blurred since Richelieu. Here it is argued that Louis XIV expanded on some of the habits of collecting and domesticating the exotic that were prevalent in France

230 Orientalism in Early Modern Francesince Henri IV and in some cases Francis I, giving credence to an earlier rise of the consumption of luxury goods in the Renaissance in France, before his reign.119 Above and beyond the debates about when the consumption of luxury goods began in France, there is no question that the French courts affection for the oriental luxury goods, from diamonds to owers to expensive textiles, porcelain, and Arabian horses, was at its height under Louis XIV.

9The Politics of PleasureFrench Imitations of Oriental Sartorial Splendor and the Royal Carrousels

On choisit pour corps le soleil, qui, dans les rgles de cet art, est le plus noble de tous, et qui, par la qualit dunique, par lclat qui lenvironne, par la lumire quil communique aux autres astres qui lui composent comme une espace de cour ... par son mouvement sans relche, oh il parait nanmoins toujours tranquille, par cette course constante et invariable, dont il ne scarte et ne se dtourne jamais, est assurment la plus vive et la plus belle image dun grand monarque.1 Louis XIV2

In 1653 Louis, at age 15, danced dressed as the sun in the Ballet de la nuit. In the dcor of night made for the ballet, the adolescent king shone with clat. Brilliance is a poor translation for the term clat, but it is the word used in the original French by Peter Burke to characterize Louiss reign after 1661 and his skill at image building.3 The year 1662 marks the point when the king formally chose the sun to represent his own body.4 The carrousel of 1662 was held to celebrate the birth of Louiss son and heir. As in the quotation that opens this chapter, he wanted to be the source of all light in the court.5 He used clat, representations of the sun, in games and ballets to enhance his own glory and to endear himself to the people he ruled. Games, masked balls, operas, and ballets were the political tools of choice for Louis XIVs domestic and foreign propaganda. The carrousel of 1662, a major tournament on horseback, involved the highest nobility. It was an occasion to highlight the renement of the French court to the rest of the world. In the memoirs for the dauphin, Louis wrote:Honest pleasures have not been given to us by nature without reason; they dissipate the fatigue of work, give one new strength to go back to it; they are at the service of health, calm the troubled soul and the worries of the passions, inspire humanity, polish the mind ... and take away from virtue the bitter edge which would make it at times less sociable and less useful.

He wrote further that festivities were part of a tradition of the peoples free access to their king, of public service: It is an equality of justice between him [the king] and them, that keeps them within a just and honest society, disregarding the near innite


232 Orientalism in Early Modern Francedifference of birth and rank and power.6 His reign was marked by memorable ballets, elaborate waterworks, masked balls, splendid operas, and reworks, attended by a large public. The lavishness of his festivities remained unmatched, even later in the frivolous eighteenth century. Louis is best remembered dancing in a ballet as the incarnation of the sun, dressed as Apollo, the Greek sun god. The sun would mark his reign as it had that of ancient Persian monarchs before him.7 The sun and the color red were the main themes in Louiss representations and self-representations for a good part of his reign.8 Becoming the celestial body around which all else revolved, Louis was the center of the world as its ruler. Since they rst took place in France, tournaments held at such carrousels were strictly reserved to gentlemen of high rank who rode on horseback for a lady of their choice, who gave the prize to the winner. The spectacular festivities held during Louiss rule invariably revolved around the king or the dauphin. The carrousel of June 5 and 6, 1662, was no exception; it was one of the most lavish public festivities ever built around the monarch, who was both represented as the sun and disguised as a Roman emperor. This carrousel was a series of horse races unprecedented in scale. The participants and their horses wore disguises that represented the nations of the world. The most important noblemen of France were organized in ve quadrilles, a group of horse-mounted men. Each quadrille was led by a major political gure, the rst quadrille by the King himself. The men in the quadrille led by Louis were dressed as the Romans, the horsemen led by his brother, Monsieur, were dressed as Persians, and the Turks were led by the highest prince of the blood after the kings brother, the Prince de Cond. Conds son, the Duc dEnghien, was le Roy des Indes. The Duc de Guise represented le Roy dAmrique, and his quadrille of horsemen were the sauvages dAmrique. Africa was notable for its absence, although the French established a commercial counter in Senegal in the same year the carrousel took place in 1662. All the nations important in Frances vision of the world paid homage to Louis XIV, who raced for two days. This carrousel of 1662 was unprecedented in the number of participants; there were 1,299 participants, ten times the number of people usually involved in a carrousel. Louis demanded the participation of all the major noblemen of his kingdom. One can still count them in the seven magnicent paintings made by Franois Chauveau (16131676) and Isral Sylvestre (16211691), who were commissioned by the court to commemorate this event, although the paintings were not done immediately.9 Princes, pages, slaves, and exotic animals can be seen in the xed hierarchical order that Louis imagined for them. The imagery of slaves following their masters has inspired Festa Lynn, who asserts that there could not be a single thing in heaven and earth, other than Louiss order, which served to domesticate the world through the grotesque juxtaposition of prince and slave:The slaves that follow in the princes steps both are and are not out of place: simultaneously excluded and always already incorporated into the place attributed to them, the

The Politics of Pleasure 233alien participants in the procession are inserted into a signifying chain that reproduces their identity, rewrites it, and disguises the violence of wrenching people and objects from their original contexts and inserting them in a new and totalized order.10

The order of the carrousel was planned by Louis himself. It celebrated the birth of his heir to the throne of France, the dauphin. The iconography of the sun, the gathering of all the noblemen in France around him, had great domestic signicance after the civil war that had nearly dethroned his father. Louis was the center of the carrousel, dressed as the Roman emperor, and the nobles of France were not only recognizing his rule but the succession of his son to the throne of France. While this carrousel was one of the most magnicent of all such horse races, it was not the rst. The description that follows is based on Stephane Castellucios work on carrousels. Carrousels had a long-established tradition in France. In seventeenth-century France carrousels were erroneously believed to date back to Rome. The ideas of sixteenth-century travelers and humanists that Greece and Rome were Frances past were generally accepted. The Roman garb chosen by Louis to race against the rest of the world was an expression of his imperial aims. Yet, the carrousel was oriental in origin. Carrousels, which meant tournaments, games, and races on horseback, were part of a long Arabic tradition of horse games. They had reached Europe through the Moors of Spain and had come to France via Italy. The rst was held in France upon the return of the armies of Charles VIII from his Italian campaigns.11 Antoine Furetires 1690 dictionary denes the carrousel as a magnicent feast given by lords and princes for public rejoicing on occasions such as marriages, royal parades, etc.12 The carrousel in the seventeenth century consisted of races and games, and not of tournaments between knights. The most popular exercise in French carrousels, the course des bagues, was a race run to lift off a metallic ring with a lance. In the carrousel of 1662 a new game was added, the course de tte, the race for heads. In this race of 1662, the horsemen had to aim at two heads with their lances, the rst being a large cardboard head in the shape of a Turks head, une teste de gros carton peinte (sic) et de la forme de celle dun Turc. The second head had the color and shape of a Moors, according to Claude Franois Mnestrier.13 Author of an important 1669 treatise on tournaments, jousts, and carrousels, Mnestrier afrms that this new game of heads came to France from Germany. The wars of the Hapsburgs in Central Europe with the Ottomans must have been at the source of this novel representation of the Turks and the Moors as target heads in the French carrousel. In France, as the French were the traditional allies of the Ottomans since 1535, the Turks had traditionally been represented by the princes of the blood who donned their dress. They were represented by the noble participants in carrousels and were never before set out as lowly cardboard targets. This was a novel representation in the wake of Louiss marriage to Marie Thrse of Spain in 1660. Frances on-again off-again allegiance to the Hapsburgs in the

234 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceseventeenth century often strained its relations to its allies the Ottomans. Louis XIV, like Louis XIII before him, married a Hapsburg to consolidate Frances ties with Spain and the empire. The couple rst met at the midpoint between Paris and the Spanish border.14 In an important gesture, Marie Thrse changed from her Spanish fashions into French clothes.15 The recent marriage explained this double discourse in the carrousel; the Turks, allied to Louis, were both represented by the highest noble Prince de Cond; and as enemies of Spain, they were represented by the cardboard target. This form of target was adopted from the games played by the Hapsburgs in their German domains closer to the front where the Ottomans seriously threatened Europes borders. Yet, the Prince de Cond was in Turkish garb, a costume that had previously been worn by kings. The rst instance of such aristocratic representation of the Turk in France was in the carrousel of 1559, when Henri II himself had dressed as a Turk to lead princes, who were also dressed in Turkish garb. They raced against princes disguised as Moors.16 Henri Sauval was commissioned by the court to write about the event and noted without much detail that the participants in the carrousel wore white silk garments as did the Levantines. Despite a long tradition, carrousels there came to an abrupt end at court after a major accident. After the peace of Coteau Cambraisi between France and the Spanish Hapsburgs, Henri II held a magnicent carrousel for the marriage of his daughter Elizabeth to Philip II of Spain. During these races, Henri II was wounded by a lance in the eye and died of his wound. His death prompted the ban of tournaments in the French court. No major carrousels were held until the double marriages of Anne of Austria to Louis XIII and the marriage of Elizabeth of France to Philip IV of Spain in April of 1612. These celebrations of French allegiance with Spain were held in the newly nished Place Royale in Paris, today called Place des Vosges.

The Carrousel of 1662When Louis XIV rst thought of organizing the 1662 event, he only had the model of the 1612 carrousel. Due to the troubles of the Fronde, for half a century no carrousels had taken place in the capital of Paris, save a small one in 1656, while Rouen and Bordeaux had witnessed some magnicent events. This was signicant, because it pointed to the power attained by provincial noblemen in this period and to the weakness of the royal court. The Fronde, a civil war that nearly ended the monarchy in favor of the French nobility, had marked Louiss childhood. When the princes of the blood were in revolt against his father, Louiss hurried ight with his mother to Saint Germain was not forgotten by the king. Sleeping on straw while the noblemen took over the palace of the Louvre, and the attempts to oust his father in favor of his brother Gaston, were bitter childhood memories. The carrousel of 1662 was the

The Politics of Pleasure 235occasion to symbolically mark Louis XIVs power over the princes of the blood and their descendants, and to afrm his dominion over France. The Prince de Cond, once a leader of the Fronde, and his son the Duc dEnghien, were the leaders of two quadrilles that paid homage to the Roman emperor, Louis. The Prince de Cond had sought Spanish help against Mazarin. Louis offered him an opportunity to pay homage. As the people of France watched, the king imposed an elaborate costumed game of submission on the noblesse of France. Disguised as the rulers of the Turks, the Persians, the Americans, and the Indies, the main noblemen of France bowed to Louiss will and paid for the cost of their outrageously expensive disguises. When some inched at the cost and tried to bow out of their participation in this huge expense, Louiss response was radical: they would lose their formal court appointments, which meant they would lose their income from the king.17 Each participant was chosen by Louis XIV and had to pay for his costumes and the costumes of his horses, which were dressed just as expensively. The cost of jewels, brocades in gold and silver, and ostrich plumes inconvenienced more than one nobleman. It was seen as a heavy obligation. To show his newly acquired fortune after Mazarins death and Fouquets arrest, Louis paid for all of their suites, that is, the costumes of their multitude of pages, their trumpet players and drummers, and their horse-grooms.18 The costumes were made by Henri Gissey (16211673), who was inspired by the engravings in travel accounts. He had rst made the costumes for a modest carrousel race that was run in 1656 in the gardens of the Palais Royal, then called PalaisCardinal, as it was named for Mazarin. In this race, which everyone knew was for the heart of the young Marie Mancini, Mazarins niece and Louiss rst love, Gissey had all three quadrilles of eight horsemen dressed in Roman style. While the carrousel was minor, the costumes of 1656 were elaborate, although nothing in his fteen years experience at court matched what Gissey and his workshop had to accomplish to create the multitude of costumes for the great carrousel of 1662. The Place Royale was no longer deemed suitable, and Louis ordered modications to the gardens of the royal palace of the Tuileries for the games. Symbolic of Louiss new ascent, from then on carrousels were only held in royal palaces. From the carrousel of 1662 onwards, these equestrian games became royal games overseen by the king himself and entirely organized by the monarch, who decided every detail. Louis used the carrousel of 1662 as a political tool to demonstrate his will. The symbolism of the costumes he chose for the four quadrilles and the burden of the high expenditure imposed on each of the aristocratic participants showed everyone their rightful rank in the courts new hierarchy. The carrousel was more than a show; it dictated a new political map of France. The emperor of the Romans was Louiss choice again in 1662: le Roy tait vtu la Romaine, dun corps de brocat dargent rebrod dor, wrote Charles Perrault in his commentary on the paintings that illustrate his retelling of the event.19 Perrault was appointed by Colbert and Louis XIV to record the event. He was also in charge

236 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceof collecting treasures for the Cabinet du Roi. Charles Perrault is best known today for his compendium of French fairytales, for collecting tales like Cinderella and Puss in Boots, oral tales commissioned to be recorded by Louis XIV to celebrate French folklore and immortalize it. Perrault was ideal for the carrousel, a political fairytale Louis was fabricating about his new power. This tale was for the consumption of the world at large. Perraults account of 1662, luxuriously illustrated, became part of the collection of the Cabinet du roi. A stunning album with images entitled Course de testes et de bagues faies par le Roy et par les princes et seigneurs de la Cour en lanne M.DC.LXII was printed as a potent tool of international and domestic propaganda to enhance Louiss power in the eyes of Europes nobility and of several foreign monarchs.20

The Five Quadrilles and Their Political SignicanceCharles Perraults description may seem a precursor of the modern reporter on the scene. Perrault wrote a full description of the exotic oriental costumes worn by the high nobility. However, the tone lets no one forget that it was an ofcially commissioned eulogy. Perrault was a humble scribe at the service of power, and he never alluded to the political signicance of the event. The depiction of people dressed in characteristic attire and holding signicant attributes representing different regions of the world was a very popular theme in Early Modern art. Maps and tapestries were a favorite medium for this form of representation, in which Europe, or in this case France, was always shown as the dominant power. Sometimes the regions of the world, represented by people, were integrated within a larger cosmological frame in which universal domination was Europes attribute. These cosmographies, or imagines mundi, were a favored theme in the seventeenth century, and it is interesting to note that just as Europe achieved an empire in the late eighteenth century this theme virtually disappeared from European art.21 Like most of the imperial discourse we have examined since Francis I, it was compensation for not having an empire beyond France. Along with Perraults narrative, two painters, Franois Chauveau (16131676) and Isral Sylvestre (16211691), were commissioned to illustrate this story, as images of the carrousel were perhaps even more important than the text, especially for foreign courts. Dreams of empire were only recently successful, as Louis XIVs predecessors had only established a few footholds beyond Europe. Louis styled himself as a Roman emperor in the carrousel of 1662 to run against the quatre nations, four nations. Of the four nations represented, three were from Asia: the Persians, the Turks, and the Indians. Along with the fourth, the Americans, all four belonged to the Indes orientales, which in this period still included the Americas. Louiss vision of a Gallia orientalis included all of these regions under the inuence of France and Catholicism, but the only colonial holdings were American.

The Politics of Pleasure 237Assigned roles in the carrousel reected not only ones rank but ones relationship to the monarchy in the aftermath of the civil war. Most important was the public homage paid to Louis by his own brother, as the Fronde had been instigated by the ambitions of Louis XIIIs brother. In the carrousel the Persians were considered next in rank to the Romans, as is clearly expressed by the choice of their leadership. Louis chose all the participants personally. He gave the role of the king of Persia to his brother, Monsieur, Philippe dOrleans (16401701). The kings brother was the most important political gure to participate in the games. Monsieur was styled Roy de Perse and dressed in Persian garb as imagined by the French. Persia was the traditional enemy of Greece and Rome. In the wake of the Fronde, Philippes role as the Persian king and Louiss as Roman emperor were fraught with political signicance, as Philippe was the strongest potential enemy. The danger of a similar revolt against Louis XIV had long been a preoccupation for Mazarin. He had strived to keep the same pattern of rivalry from developing and had given special attention to Monsieurs upbringing. According to certain authors, he made sure Monsieur grew up effeminate, and actively encouraged Philippe dOrleanss homosexuality and his rened tastes for oriental china and jewels.22 Mazarin had succeeded in keeping Philippe away from politics and cultivated his taste for leisure, pleasure, and collecting. Monsieur was an avid collector of exotic rarities. Monsieurs character was also reected in the carrousel through his incarnation as the king of Persia, who was traditionally seen as decadent and avid of luxury by the Greek and Roman authors that the court read. As the Persians were said to love excess, Philippes silver and red costume embroidered with pearls and rubies was by far the most lavish of the carrousel. Monsieurs high rank and love of luxury were well expressed in this most sumptuous disguise. The quadrilles were differentiated by the colors of their costumes and their mottoes. Monsieurs motto was UNO SOLE MINOR, only the sun is larger than I am. His brothers symbol was the sun, Monsieurs was the moon, thus Monsieurs universal submission to his brother through their mutual planetary incarnations. Gissey had made a cape mante la persane, to distinguish Monsieur as a Persian. It fell in festooned waves of gold ribbons that ew behind him as he rode. While the hat was called a bonnet la persane, it had little to do with anything ever worn in Persia. It was surmounted by a slew of red and white ostrich plumes. Several rosettes of large rubies served as clasps on the costume. Persia was Greeces and Romes traditional enemy. The views held about the Persians were negative. Some contemporary French views of the Persians held that despite the fact that Persians had many wives, they were prone to the shameful vice of homosexuality.23 This was certainly not a disturbing attribute for the kings brother, who lived openly as a homosexual.24 Jean Loret, a contemporary observer, described the Persian character not only as debauched, but also as devious. He wrote that the Persians were not great lovers of the truth, as they did not consider it prudent to speak the truth. To convey this negativity, in contrast to his brothers symbolism of light, Monsieur mounted a black horse. Many of his

238 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceinsignia symbolized the night. Moon crescents and the moon were powerful reminders that Monsieur was a small planet, whose light depended on his brother, the sun. The contrast with Louis XIV was complete. In the rst quadrille, Louis was dressed in re-red and gold colors on a golden-hued horse. Everything in his costume reected light. The kings shield, carried by a page, was painted with the sun, while Monsieurs had the full moon on a black background. Louis wore gold and diamonds with bright red ostrich plumes, the color of re, mounted on a Roman helmet. His motto was UT VIDI VICI, what I saw, I conquered. He was dressed in what the French imagined was a Roman costume. The Romans would have had a difcult time recognizing the multitude of ribbons, jewels, and plumes favored by the French court. The royal Roman quadrille piled these ornaments higher on their costumes than all other participants; the ashiest was of course the king himself. Louiss belt was made of rows upon rows of diamonds. These were made from rock crystal; imitation was a big industry and these were very expensive fake Indian diamonds made in Paris. He wore re-red silk stockings, and his boots were of silver brocade embroidered over with gold ribbon. These silver and gold boots were then decorated with many additional gold ribbons and studded with rivulets of rock crystal diamonds that ew in the wind during the horse race. The Prince de Cond led the quadrille of the Turks, the next in rank to the Persians. Frances long-standing diplomatic relations with the Ottomans were not at their best in 1662 and were completely severed by the Ottomans in 1671. The Turkish disguise had traditionally been reserved for the monarch and his family; Henri II was dressed as a sultan in 1559. The royal family chose to be seen in Turkish garb under Louiss reign. The Gazette recorded that ve years after the carrousel, in 1667 when the king decided to continue the festivities of the carnival at Versailles, he held games across from the newly constructed Orangerie. For this occasion, Mademoiselle was magniquement habille la Turque, as was the kings brother Monsieur.25 In the 1662 carrousel the Turkish costume was worn by the Prince de Cond, the highest military gure of the court. It was to honor the warring talents of the Ottomans, to honor his power as a military general and paradoxically mark a potentially dangerous enemy. Cond had led the civil war. Indeed, the Prince de Cond was far more dangerous than Louiss brother. Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Cond, called le Grand Cond (16211686), was a cousin of Louis XIII who won the battle of Rocroi against the Spanish when Louis XIV was a mere child. His victory and the glory he earned from it made him a threat to the monarchy, as he supported the kings brother, Gaston. The Grand Cond had only just submitted to Louis XIV in January 1660. France was once again an ally of Spain through Louiss own marriage to Marie Thrse. Conds role as the Grand Turk in the carrousel came two years after his submission and marked a second, and very public, declaration of allegiance to the king from the strongest enemy Louis could have had. Cond was representing the worlds most powerful empire, the Ottomans.

The Politics of Pleasure 239Le Grand Cond sported a large fake mustache, inevitably associated with the Turks, for the carrousel of 1662. His costume, like the kings and Monsieurs, reected his high dignity in its magnicence. It was in a harmony of silver, blue, and black. He wore a crimson vest studded with diamonds and turquoises. The pages and grooms in his suite had crescents, a symbol for the Ottomans, scattered across their costumes. The Grand Cond had the most ornate headdress of all, a large turban in silver cloth embroidered with gold, ornamented with brocade, diamonds, and turquoise stones. The turban was topped, unlike anything a Sultan would wear, by four bouquets of ostrich plumes in silver, blue, and black, and each had a tall aigrette. Nevertheless, unlike the other headdresses worn by princes in the race, the Turkish-style turban was at least somewhat reminiscent of the turban worn by the Ottomans. Both the Persians and the Ottomans, although exotic, were better known to the French than were the Indians and the Americans. The two last quadrilles, which represented these lesser-known places, were the most imaginative of all. Conds son, Henri Jules de Boubon, the Duc DEnghien (16431709), represented le Roy des Indes. Gissey surpassed himself in making this quadrille colorful and spectacular, and what it lacked in accuracy it gained in imagination. One of the musicians was crowned with a large parrot on his head, while two green birds were perched on his shoulders. Despite the parrot, the duc dEnghien had a headdress that was supposed to be Indian in style; it was made of brocade that represented gold and silver feathers, which were surmounted by yellow, black, and white ostrich feathers and four herons, as Perrault called the tall aigrettes that nished the headdress. His horses bridle was covered with diamond rosettes to symbolize the riches of India, but the gems were also fakes made in France. Indias riches were also represented by the profuse use of gold in all the costumes of this splendidly dressed quadrille. The colors of this quadrille were black, brown, and yellow, but it was one of the most multicolored of the groups. Many participants had tall multicolored headdresses. The brown color of the costume was used to symbolize naked esh, as the Indians were supposed to be partially nude, but it was not acceptable to see real esh in this formal context. The most imaginative and creative of all the quadrilles was the fth, the Americans. For the quadrille of the Americans, Henri II de Lorraine, duc de Guise, was le Roy dAmrique, and his quadrille were the sauvages dAmrique. His family had a history of tense, chaotic, and unpredictable relations with the monarchy. Among the four possible powerful enemies representing the four nations submitting to Louis, he was the wild card. Although France had no footholds in Asia, it now had several on the North American continent: Annapolis in the Chesapeake Bay since 1603, Quebec in 1608, and later Louisiana beginning in 1682, which became Frances most important prize. The duc de Guises role was a tting choice made, like all others, by the monarch himself. Gissey produced some of the most poetic and outlandish costumes for this group. Views of the Americans were rather negative.

240 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceIn Louis Moreris opinion of the Americans in his Grand dictionaire historique he wrote: The peoples of the Americas were savage and cruel, their courage was low, their inclinations vile. The most civilized were the Incas. One nds there several anthropophages or man eaters. He believed there were giants in Patagonia who drank a bucket of wine as if it were a thimble.26 The fabulous nature of these views of the Americans as savages was expressed in Gisseys animalistic costumes through the extravagant display of skins and feathers. Perraults descriptions and the illustrations show that most of the members of these American groups were themselves represented as animals or as sh and shellsh. The trumpet players were disguised as coquilles St Jacques, scallop shells the French knew from their own Atlantic shores, but ornamented with tiger skin to mark their exotic provenance. Some musicians wore green sh costumes with large silver scales and crowns of exotic seashells and coral. There were men wearing bear costumes to symbolize the forest. White noblemen wearing brown face and body makeup represented naked black Moorish slaves. Even disguised as slaves, the noblemen marked their rank by wearing precious short ermine fur skirts. They carried real monkeys on their shoulders. Having monkeys and small dogs was all the rage for aristocrats. Many men and horses had fake dead animals or snakes hanging loosely from them. Some were hung inside out, the color of blood, in order to showcase the savageness of the Americans. The importance of the colonial fur trade of the time was also reected in this parade of dead animals and blood, which was to honor of the kings power over the natural world. The duc de Guises horse as roi amricain was covered with several dragon heads that spat out a multitude of snakes hanging off its ank. His white horse was dressed as a unicorn. Of all the costumes of the 1662 carrousel, the one worn by the duc de Guise as king of the Americans was by far the most fabulous. He was represented as magical; he symbolized a mythical king with supernatural powers represented by the reptiles on the horses bridle and mane, and most prominently by the dragon on the headdress. The golden dragon he wore on his head spat out three different levels of ostrich plumes in green and white, topped by three aigrettes. This was the largest headdress, measuring four feet (1.3 m). Many of his accessories were Chinese in style, and the chinoiserie style of his costume was further amplied by several dragon heads and by a mass of dangling dragon tails. His bodice was a multitude of dragon eyes, making him look supernatural, but yet distinctly Chinese. Once again, centuries after Columbus, China and America were read as one.

The Carrousel as PropagandaThe homage paid to all things Chinese was perhaps not only orientalist in the Sadian sense of the word, but instrumental; it had political aims. Louis had great admiration for the emperor of China. His celebrations were political statements.27 He wrote to

The Politics of Pleasure 241the dauphin: As for foreigners, in a well-organized state that they see ourishing elsewhere, what is consumed for what may seem to be superuous expenses makes a very advantageous impression of magnicence and power, of wealth and grandeur.28 He would make this superuous consumption court policy. The luxurious horse races of the carrousel were not only a means of domestic propaganda, but also a representation of the world as imagined by Louis. The image conveyed was his domination over the rest of the world. Ofcially commissioned writers and painters recorded the carrousel to send luxurious bound copies of its account to other rulers all the way to East Asia. Unfortunately nothing has remained of Gisseys luxurious oriental costumes. LInventaire gnrale du mobilier de la couronne preserves a seven-foot ten-inchlong lance with an ivory handle used by Louis XIV for equestrian games. All we have other than the paintings is Charles Perraults vivid description of this event, nished eight years after 1662 and published by the Imprimerie Royale in 1670 for the Cabinet du roi. It has a list of the winners. One nds that Louis won as many as sixteen of the races but would not accept prizes and had them rerun.29 Perraults eyewitness account was completed in four years in 1666, but Colbert also wanted a Latin translation for a vaster diffusion of the account of the carrousel in the courts of Europe.30 He wanted it known that the celebrations of the carrousel of 1662 were a marker of the monarchys stability, power, and continuity. Four more years were necessary to illustrate and engrave the magnicent volumes. In 1678 the Latin version was sold for 18 livres and the French for 15 in the city of Paris. Beyond the capital of France the volume served to spread the glory of the French king. Foreign ambassadors were regularly offered the publications made for the Cabinet du roi, and this was the most magnicent of the gifts. Some copies left for Poland and Sweden, but most notably the Jesuits were placed in charge of taking a copy of the description of the carrousel of 1662 to the emperor of China.31 The celebrations of the birth of the dauphin, heir to the throne of the Bourbons, were produced in part for the eyes of the emperor of China.32

Imago MundiThe carrousel reected how the world was perceived. The four continents were often represented in European iconography. The fth, Australia, although it was known, was only represented after Captains Cooks voyage in 1770, a couple of decades before the fashion of allegorically representing the continents as nations died out in France. Therefore its representations in French iconography are rather rare. The absence of Africa is more notable because there certainly was knowledge of Africa in France. When Africa was represented, it was only by naked human beings and by servitude or slavery. In the ve quadrilles of the carrousel, two of the four were given animals as their attributes: the Indians and the Americans, which

242 Orientalism in Early Modern Francesymbolized that the French viewed these societies as savage and primitive. The positive ideal of the noble savage was in the making in the early part of the eighteenth century, but savageness in 1662 did not have any redeeming quality, even though it was clearly seen as distinct from the civilized nations represented here by Rome, Persia, and the Ottomans. However, even the primitives of America and India were deemed worthy of nobility in the French imagination, as they were represented by princes of the blood. None of the seventeenth-century European iconography of Africa ever depicted a prince or a king. In eighteenth-century French paintings, most Africans were depicted serving coffee or tea, as servants or slaves. Sometimes they had no real function except to stand next to the person being portrayed to represent the power of that person, such as in a portrait of the traveler Jean Chardin.33 In this portrait a young African boy held a map of the world behind the famous traveler. The concept of the world itself was inherited from the Greeks. The concept of continents as nations, les quatre nations in French thought, melded together as an indistinguishable unit a land mass, a climate, its natural products, and its inhabitants. The four nations were often represented with two inhabitants, one male one female, and their paraphernalia, most often in the corner or the borders of maps or on frescoes. This continental representation of the world is a very old concept dating back at least to the rst millennium B.C., originating in the eastern Mediterranean. Biblical, Phoenician, and Greek geography knew a tripartition of the oikoumne corresponding to what lay south, north, and west of the Mediterranean. The Greeks had mythologized it with three well-known allegorical gures: Europe, Asia, and Libye, the latter called Africa by the Romans.34 Seventeenth-century frontispieces continued this tripartite division of the world: the sultan is Asia in the east, the emperor is Europe in the west, and the Atlas-like gure of the slave supporting the world in the south represents Libya, Africa.35 Within this tripartite division of the world for historical justications, Eurasia is articially divided into two continents. Europe articially distinguished itself from Asia on the basis of a common Greek-RomanChristian heritage. With European expansion, rst America and later Australia were added to this continental representation of the whole world. Within European iconographyin travel accounts, on tapestries, and in paintingsthey were placed on the same footing as Asia and Africa. Africa, because of its early association with slavery in the Age of Discovery, was always represented the least often. If it was, it occupied either a lower position on the page or was substituted by animals or paraphernalia. In this iconography the relationship between the continents was contrastive, and Europe was always given the advantageous position on the page, the dominant role. Just as the iconography made familiar by travel accounts and their distorted maps, Louis XIV as Roman emperor represented the superiority of Europe over the other nations represented by the princes of the blood. Africas absence from this power game speaks for itself.

The Politics of Pleasure 243In this allegorical view of the world, in which nature was assimilated with culture, things existed not only as themselves but carried symbolic meaning. The assimilation of nature to culture on each continent carried with it the theory of climates, inherited from Greek Galenic medicine. Much of Gisseys inspiration came from illustrations in travel accounts. This habit of copying earlier sources carried over to iconography, and the costumes that served as inspiration in travel accounts were often anachronistic or even completely erroneous.36

The First Great Event at Versailles: Le Carrousel des Galants Maures, 1685This rst horse races at Versailles were organized by Louis XIVs heir, the dauphin, at Versailles in 1685. A description sent to the court of Savoy on the day of the event reports on the prodigious number of precious stones observed on the costumes, even on the horses. The observer noted that it was as if the Indes orientales had vomited all of its riches on that day at Versailles.37 This disgusting metaphor successfully conveys the excess thought to signify oriental luxury. In a multitude of travel accounts, the Orient was the site of luxury. Material luxury and riches were from the Indes orientales and were being deluged upon Versailles. In more than one way, with its owers, its orangerie, its mnagerie full of exotic animals, and its curies with its precious Arabian horses, Versailles was the site of unprecedented luxury. What better way to showcase the glory of Versailles than with another orientalist carrousel? Jean Brain (16401711) had designed the costumes, and he had been much inspired by Gisseys exotic costumes of 1662, but his far surpassed their splendor. The prizes to be won were swords, in solid gold covered with diamonds and other precious stones, valued at 1,000 golden louis. The second-place prize was a slightly smaller sword worth 800 louis.38 The carrousel of 1685 was recorded in many journals, memoirs, and archives as an event so well attended that the city of Paris was deserted. All the best carriages had taken the bumpy ride to Versailles.39 At Versailles and in Paris bookshops a brochure was ready and sold on the day of the event. It was titled: Brillante Journe, ou le Carrousel des gallants maures, entrepris par Monseigneur le dauphin avec la compares, les courses et les madriguax sur les devises. According to the Marquis de Souches, the cost of the event to Louis XIV was 100,000 louis, and that only covered the costumes of the suite to the princes; those worn by the pages, slaves, and horses. The cost of their own highly ornate costumes had to be covered by the princes and was about twice as much.40

Propaganda and Self-ImageAt the Carrousel des galants maures of 1685 many European ambassadors were invited for the purpose of self-aggrandizement and propaganda. This time it was the

244 Orientalism in Early Modern Francedauphin being showcased through the event. As Peter Burke has stressed, the term propaganda in the modern sense can only be traced back to the French Revolution, but it does not mean that the elites of the seventeenth century were unaware of attempts of persuasion or of techniques of advertisement and manipulation. Burke has studied Louiss skill at using images. If the word propaganda is used as meaning the attempt to transmit social and political values, the term can be used for the seventeenth century without committing an anachronism or evoking todays imagemaking. It was common in seventeenth-century France, particularly under Louiss guidance, to believe that magnicence had a political function, and it was impressive in the literal sense of leaving the viewer with a lasting impression.41 Although the account of the events was sent to the emperor of China, whom Louis grandly called his cousin, his political aims of impressing were chiey domestic. France in the second half of the seventeenth century constantly represented the rest of the world in text, in architecture, and in the plastic arts, as well as through disguise. Festivities often included costumes and decors at court of les nations. Carlo Ginzberg has argued that one can only represent what is not there, and that the representation is the presence of an absence.42 In the absence of empire, of control over the world, this discourse was about control over the French nation, the creation of an absolutist state with the subjugation of the nobility who were dressed as the enemy. Edward Sad had stated that Europe dened itself in opposition to its own representations of the other. Louis XIV forged concepts of the French nation in part by describing the rest of the world through games and other forms of representation. Perhaps Sads oppositional stance is modied here by the new scholarship on hybridity, and by other conceptual ideas, such as contact zones that permit an exchange between different societies. French appropriation of the rest of the world was an expression of its own aristocratic culture, and the elite reading texts about the world produced by an eliteFrance, that is, about ve hundred families dened by Schwab as the literate elite, was reading the world. To give political meaning to these spaces of representation, such as major court festivities in oriental costume, another idea can be been borrowed from Michel Foucaults rich toolbox, the concept of heteropia. As opposed to utopia, heteropia denotes alternative real spaces created within a given society. They are the imaginary counter-sites of everyday reality. They serve the function of creating a space of illusion. The festivities at Versailles and the Tuileries could well been seen in this light, with their elaborate decors and the many disguises of the French nobility as others denoting an alternative reality. Foucault has argued that the colonies established by the Jesuits in the New World were created as a compensatory heteropia to French reality, evoking spaces more ordered and arranged more perfectly than reality was in Europe.43 It can be argued that the carrousels or festivities held on horseback in oriental costume were heteropia. The mighty Turk became a benign cardboard head to be aimed at, the Persian king was the kings own brother, and the American Indians were French aristocrats.

The Politics of Pleasure 245Louiss control over this illusory world was complete. The powerful French nobility were subdued and order was restored within France. The quadrilles on horseback in oriental costume were substitutes for an imperfect and chaotic reality in which Louis had to struggle to gain control of the aristocrats and his relative inability to carve out his piece of the world, outside of Europe. As France achieved imperial power in the eighteenth century, these forms of representations, cosmographies, or imagines mundi of the four nations in costume disappeared from French art.44 Magnicent illusions ceased to be a necessity.

Les Nations Represented: Henri Gissey and Jean BrainJean Brain (16401711) designed the costumes for the dauphins carrousel held at Versailles in 1685. He was trained under Charles Le Brun (16191690). In 1674 he helped Le Brun prepare several important royal festivities. The same year, he was appointed chief designer to the court, dessinateur du cabinet du roi, a post previously held by Henri Gissey. Brain designed tapestries, accessories, furniture, costumes, gardens, and elaborate stage settings for operas and extravagant theatrical productions indoors and out; these were typically lled with fantastic and exotic iconography. After he ravished the audience with two splendid carrousels in 1685 designed for Monseigneur, the dauphin, Brain received many orders from princes and aristocrats wanting to replicate the splendor of the court. He worked for the house of Cond as well as the kings, and later designed the Prince de Conds obsequies. The Marquis de Seigneley commissioned Brain to design illuminations for his chteau in Sceaux. Night illuminations were new and much prized in the capital. Jean Brains rst such work was the illumination of Louis XIVs equestrian statue at Place des Victoires.45 The night lighting in the city of Paris was an important step for security, but it also amplied the splendor of Paris, its monuments, and its luxury shops and extended the shopping day.46 The orientalist costumes of Henri Gissey and Jean Brain clearly had their inspiration in the oriental costumes in travel accounts and the many costume books circulating in Italy and France since the Renaissance.47 New World and Old World alike were often represented through fantasy as much as through accurate accounts. The conquest of Mexico by Cortez was only known in France in 1533, ten years after the fact, through the publication of an account by Peter Martyr, in which Peter wrote about the nobles of Yucatan that they begin by putting on their shoes of gold, leggings of gold, their breast plate of gold, and in this way the description of each item in solid gold continued down to every piece of armament. This fantasy vision of El Dorado did little to compete with the discourse about nudity and its savage decorations in Andr Thvet or Jean de Lry.48 Whether it was the famous engravings of Thodore de Bry or the contents of Columbuss text, both illustrations and text were interpreted rst hand as true reections of reality.

246 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceThe semi-nudity of the followers of the roi dAmriques quadrille as designed by Brain was inspired by views about the inhabitants of the Americas under the pens of Montaigne and Ronsard.49 As for oriental fashions, they were known not only through the many costume books but through the person of the returning travelers themselves, some of whom even chose to stay in oriental dress in Europe, as Tavernier and Chardin did in their later years. European observers also had access to items of clothing travelers brought back. Since the sixteenth century the wealthy held some costumes, armament, and headdresses in their curiosity cabinets. Drer had not only admired golden artifacts and arms from Mexico brought to Bruxelles, but a headdress and all sorts of bizarre costumes. The brothers Ango in Dieppe held an extraordinary collection of objects brought back from Canada and Brazil. Andr Thvet, who was the keeper of the cabinet du roi, had brought back feathered items and presented them to the king. Among his gifts were a hat made of toucan feathers, feather costumes, tapestries, and headdresses. In his text Thvet had also marveled at the tapestries made with bird feathers that served as shrouds, and had brought some back to show the king.50 Even as late as the end of the seventeenth century, American costumes were a curiosity; two out of the sixteen cabinets of curiosity recorded in Paris had among their collections feather clothing used by the savages of America. The cabinet de curiosit of the Jardin du Roi assembled by Pitton de Tournefort had a great number of shoes of all nations of the Levant of very different forms.51 Beyond iconography there were concrete examples of clothing and headdress in Parisian collections that Henri Gissey and Jean Brain could reinterpret. Feathers gured prominently in the carrousel costumes of the Americans designed by Brain, but they were prominent for the three other nations as well. It is of note that the American king wore the tallest ostrich feathers, an import from the Barbary coast. As in the cabinets of curiosities, the costumes showed no differentiation between Old World and New World. The familiarity with oriental dress was very old, as the early carrousels prove; given their Arabic origins, maybe it had been natural to conduct them in oriental dress. There were also several paintings representing oriental garb. Like Jean-Baptiste Tavernier in his portrait by Laguillre, there were several famous French travelers painted in oriental dress. In this portrait Tavernier is wearing the luxurious Persian robes presented to him in Persia by Shah Abbas II. This fancy attire is certainly not the one he traveled in; this was a robe of honor. Tavernier, like many before and after him, had to wear oriental dress to travel in Asia.When you go from Constantinople, Smyrna or Aleppo with the Caravan, it behoves all people to carry themselves according to the mode of the country; in Turkie like a Turk, in Persia as a Persian; else would they be accounted ridiculous, nay sometimes they would hardly be permitted to pass in some places.52

Travelers, travel illustrations, costume books, collections of objects and headdresses, and their French reinterpretations by designers for carrousels, masquerades,

The Politics of Pleasure 247court operas, and ballets helped inuence the use of oriental fabrics and the cut of civil aristocratic costume that went far beyond disguise. As is well known, Louis XIV himself inuenced the spread of the courts fashion beyond the court, as a commercial policy. This was in great part to boost consumption, as many of the oriental imports were now being imitated in France through the factories instituted by Colbert. French industries, like the silk manufacturers of Lyons, were to gain from Louiss inception of oriental style, his sartorial clat at court. Louiss court designer was to play no small part in popularizing fashion beyond the court. Jean Brain became a famous fashion designer when Donneau de Vis published the rst fashion plates in the Mercure galant during the 1670s.53 Imitations of oriental dress were present beyond the court. In 1685 Brain, who copied many of Gisseys costumes for the carrousel of 1662, had to shorten the coat worn by the Turks in 1662, because a coat inspired by the Janissaries had become fashionable. It was called the Brandenburg, and it was worn shorter. To conform to his fashionable audiences expectations, Jean Brain shortened the oriental coat.54

Oriental Fashions and Their Inuence on European DressThe earliest examples of orientalist fashion are in European religious paintings. Turbans were worn in biblical paintings, illuminations, and sculptures. In a fascinating article called Jesus Did Not Wear a Turban, Ian Davidson Kalmar starts with the works of Rembrandt van Rijn. In his David and Uriah, both men are depicted with Ottoman turbans on their heads. Kalmar traces the turban to several earlier works in Italy, Flanders, and France. Other signs of Orientalism are traced to the Persian hat and the curved sword as he found them depicted for an emperor on a folio of the Trs riches heures du Duc de Berry (14121416), inspired by Michael II Paleologuss visit to Rome, Paris, and London after the Crusades, from 13991402. Paleologus had vainly sought help against the invading Ottomans.55 Kalmer nds a hierarchy in which Jesus was occidentalized and never wore a turban in Western art, while the Jews were depicted as Muslims in a turban or head-scarf. The article builds this argument on the fact that Nabil Mattar has demonstrated that the turban eclipsed the crescent and the simitar in importance in European iconography and stood as a symbol of Islam in the Renaissance.56 These arguments both stand, yet there is another element to the depictions of turbans and orientalist dress. Turbans symbolized wisdom and social rank, as they were donned by painters and scholars for their portraits. One of the earliest examples is Flemish: Man in a Turban, by Jan van Eyck, 1432, held in the National Gallery, London. This painting is regarded by most as a self-portrait of the artist. According to Hans Belting, the gaze of the man in the portrait is self-assured and haughty: Van Eycks headwear, a bulky red turban, denotes the vanity of the artist in relation to his self-portrayal.57 The painter is portrayed as a proud and fullled artist, part of a class whose standing

248 Orientalism in Early Modern Francehad just risen. Hans Belting sees the red turban as a marker of the painter showing off his new rank. Travelers and scientists wore turbans and orientalist dress or even authentic Ottoman and Persian costumes to denote their knowledge of the East and their high rank as merchants, scientists, and scholars. Tied to biblical knowledge, this was no small token; beyond pilgrimage or going to the Holy Land, it meant belonging to a network of informed curieux. The height of this orientalist representation would be reached in the eighteenth century both in France and England.58 The Chinese costume was chosen by Linnaeus; because of his rve chinois, in his portrait the Swede is depicted in Chinese dress to show his learning.59 Perhaps the most famous portrait of all is Lady Mary Montagues dressed in her Turkish habit, painted by Jonathan Richardson around 1726. This is one of her many portraits in Turkish dress. Her enthusiastic admiration for the dresses of the women she met in the harem is the most famous case of European admiration for Ottoman dress. She lauded the uidity of the robes, the freedom from corseting, the freedom to eat, and the bejeweled splendor in the harem.60 Other eighteenth-century representations of Turkish dress are found in the paintings of Jean-Baptiste Vermour, Charles Jervas, Godfrey Kneller, and Carl Vanloo. In the late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century depictions of splendid costumes, the Ottoman style began to see some competition from Persian and Chinese dress. Tavernier was painted dressed in Persian garb, as were the Shirley brothers painted in England; these portraits showed off not only pilgrimage, but knowledge of their craft. The connotations of oriental dress and the turban were not always as negative as in Kalmars analysis of biblical paintings, in which occidental meant best. Thomas Kaiser has shown that in the eighteenth century the French aristocracy delighted in posing as Turks, in Ottoman costume.61 As we saw, this went well beyond a few portraits; the carrousels and masquerades at the French court were occasions for the court to pose in oriental disguise at such important moments as the birth of the dauphin. Oriental dress was far more sumptuous, especially the khalat, the robes of honor such as those received by Tavernier, with their splendid silks. Oriental sartorial splendor was known since medieval times, as Marco Polo opened his book of travels with the luxuries of the Orient and spoke of silk before he even described the journey. The case we examined earlier for imitating textiles is better known; less noticed is the borrowing from actual designs in clothing. Charlotte Jirousek has studied the inuence of Ottoman and Persian fashions on European dress.62 She describes that wearing many layers of silks or cotton always had been a characteristic of Ottoman ceremonial or festive dress as a sign of wealth and status, and that layering several coats of different length was a particular characteristic of Turkish dress. The layers signied luxurious dress and brought modesty and bulk. Because the textiles were so sumptuous, the layers were arranged so as to reveal the beautiful materials. Layering, she argues, became a feature of style in Europe in the late seventeenth century. Most importantly, perhaps, is the inuence of what was called the Persian vest on

The Politics of Pleasure 249the modern male suit. The Persian vest was imposed by Louiss cousin, Charles II in England:After the plague and re of London in 166566 it was widely felt that the licentiousness of the court (including dress) had brought down Gods wrath. Charles did announce a reform, which was to be a vest a term usually associated with eastern garments, and therefore presumably improper attire for a Christian gentleman In the new ensemble proposed by the King, the exotic vest was to be worn buttoned over the shirt as a more modest covering to that controversial inner garment, but under the coat that had come into fashion, with both being the same length. The entire ensemble was to be made in one fabric, in a sober solid color. A neck cloth, or cravat, was added to the ensemble; an item purported to have been introduced from the costume of Croatian soldiers. The vest soon became a fancier fabric, however. Thus all the components of the modern suit came together.63

The inuence of oriental fabrics and designs has been very important in Europe since the Renaissance, but it is clearer in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.64 Beyond the vest, an oriental outer coat for layering was also an inuence. In an illustration showing a coffee shop there is a representation of a masked arlequin putting his arms through what was called an Armenian coat by the seventeenth-century engraver.65 In the Paris cafs both the owners and the servers had worn long coats. This was not so much an Armenian overcoat as the general top layer worn throughout Mughal India, the Ottoman empire, and Persia, where Parisian Armenian coffee shop owners had come from. That overcoat would become a form of robe for European men called the banyan or banian.66 Noting the popularity of the banian, Jirousek notes that diarist Samuel Pepys bought Indian gowns and posed for a portrait in one, and also that Pepys visited Sir Phillip Howard dressed in a gown and turban like a Turk; these gowns were widely imitated by English tailors. There is also a mention of a rare collection of Chinese vests, admired by Evelyn.67 In the eighteenth century everything English was in fashion in France, and these oriental vests for men came to France as English fashions. Even earlier when Charles II came to France, he brought some English customs to court, as he had taken refuge with his relative Louis XIV against the revolution in England, and the English vest was adopted in France. For women the mantua was a fashion that came via Italy, as the name indicates, and later became the French word manteau, for coat. It was a new fashion in the 1680s and remained popular until the 1750s. Instead of the traditional short French bodice with a big dcollet and skirt cut separately and sewn at the waist, the mantua hung straight in one piece from the shoulders, covering them, and had a long train. The train was often looped back or tucked back to show the layering of clothing underneath. It was worn over everything else and draped up over a contrasting petticoat and a stomacher, creating layers.

250 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceJoan DeJean has looked into guild conicts to explain the sudden popularity of the mantua. The guild of the couturiers was created in 1675, but they could not make dresses, which was reserved for the craft of the tailors (tailleurs); yet, as a new imported fashion the mantua did not fall under any guild jurisdiction, so it became the domain of the couturiers.68 The new look was less bare than the previous French fashions, as it covered the shoulders and most of the chest; this modesty was also a feature of oriental clothing, where all parts of the body were covered both for males and females. It had elbow-length sleeves cut kimono-style and was reminiscent of a robe. The mantua was made from a single length of fabric pleated to t with a long train, which was ideal for showing the designs of the new elaborately patterned cottons and silks. It was considered more relaxed, as it was not tted, but it was not a deshabill (leisure-wear) robe, as the banian was for men. The banian was an inuence from India, as its name indicates, and was worn in England and in its American colonies in the middle of the eighteenth century.69 The preferred fabrics for the mantua were calicoes, known as indiennes in French; initially worn at home as a robe, the mantua became more formal at the end of the seventeenth century.70 In the domains of uniforms and headgear, the Ottomans set an example that was eagerly copied and became national icons. The Ottoman army coat had a vast impact in Europe. In the 1660s there had been a revolt against French fashions in England. John Evelyn in his treatise, Tyrannus or the Mode, complained to King Charles: Would the Great persons of England but own their nations and assert themselves as they ought to, by making choice of some Virile, comely Fashion twould prove of innitely more reputation to us, than now there is.71 Charles II and his queen decided in 1665 to forgo the silk and lace that Louis XIV had made part of the French court habit. They wore English textiles and employed English tailors, who made two changes, a long vest and Spanish breeches. The long vest was copied from the Prussian army, and it was called a Brandenburg in the Prussian uniform, but it had been inspired by the Ottoman Janissaries. Louis retaliated by wearing the vest and integrating it as the justecorps, or habit in male court costume. As Jennifer Jones has shown, in 1664 Louis had ofcially created French court dress. He created a justecorps brevet, which was a brocade outer vest, light blue on the outside, lined with scarlet, and embroidered with gold and silver, and it guaranteed the wearer some privileges, such as following the king in Saint Germain or Versailles. This was done to consolidate court hierarchy and unity. It became hereditary, as the vest was handed down after death, and it brought the heir the privileges associated with it. Female court dress, a grand habit of silk, was also imposed at a later date, in 1670. By Louiss orders it had to be worn no matter what the constraints were; it was a reaction to the mantua, and to the casual attire it brought.72 In the costumes that Jean Brain made for the carrousel, ostrich plumes and feathers were a main marker of rank in the costumes of the exotic kings. The higher in the hierarchy, the higher the plumes of the racers in the carrousel. The Roi dAmerique, who represented a continent where France had colonies, had the highest plumes.

The Politics of Pleasure 251Iconography shows that ostrich plumes became a common addition to male headgear everywhere in Europe in the late fteenth century. Jirousek notes that in contact with their enemy the Ottomans and in imitation of their army, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria oversaw and organized a military class known as the Grenzer or Uskok and uniformed them. They paralleled the Ottoman sipahis cavalrymen. The idea of a military uniform was new to Europe. In northern Europe, in imitation of the Austrian uniform copied from the Ottoman model, the wild plumes of the Landesknecht and his lady can be best compared to the display worn by the deli kanl as depicted in Nicolas de Nicolay and elsewhere. Plumes, although less outrageous in size, became a common addition to male headgear everywhere in Europe from the 1490s onwards.73 The dress he chose resembled that of the sipahi and included plumes. In France uniforms were not created until the latter part of Louis XIVs reign. Feathers also served as much prized accessories at court. Louis XIVs army of 100,000 could swell to 400,000 and was hard to clothe with a uniform, but by 1690 the task was accomplished; Le Tellier and Louvois helped devise a consistent uniform iconic of royal authority and the rigorous discipline of the absolutist gaze.74

Oriental Sartorial Splendor and Its Imitations: Fans, Umbrellas, and DiamondsThe fashion system devised by Louis was helped by his court historian Donneau de Vis, and de Viss gazette, the Mercure Galant, which, using mannequins and portraits dressed like the king and queen, helped diffuse court dress in the French elite and beyond France.75 Among the oriental accessories that became part of French dress codes in the seventeenth century, fans had a place of honor at the court of Louis XIV. Fans of feather, silk, wood, or straw mounted on a handle were known since antiquity. The folding fan, on the other hand, is widely considered a Japanese invention that came to China, although the Chinese also claim its invention.76 An important and beautiful subsection of the folding fan, called che shan, or hu shan, or what was known in France as the bris fan, was the most fashionable fan under Louis XIV. The translation of hu shan is rigid folding fan. Hu were ivory writing tablets, pierced at the base and suspended from the waist by a silk cord. If fans were not hand-held they were suspended from the waist by silk cords. Of all of the Chinese fans made for export to Europe via the East India Companies, the hu shan has the longest history. The earliest examples of hu shan made especially for export date from 1690 to 1730 in colors made familiar in Europe through Chinese porcelain.77 The Portuguese are universally credited with importing the rst Chinese and Japanese fans into Europe in the early sixteenth century. The Dutch and the English East India Companies participated in this trade in the seventeenth century. In the year 1699 alone, the English East India Company recorded the importation of 20,000 of the nest and richest fannes and an order for 90,000 more: three quarters to

252 Orientalism in Early Modern Francebe on white paper, a quarter on coloured and all to be well painted with gures on one side and owers upon the other; the sticks to be lacquered black and inlaid with mother-of-pearl.78 By this time, England had a long-established craft of fan-making, as a 1695 document opposing the companys trade in fans attests.79 By all accounts the British fan-makers had proted from the arrival of Huguenots from France after 1685, as France had succeeded Italy as the center of fan-making in Europe. The traveler Thomas Coryat (15771617) wrote of the widespread use of the fan in Europe at the turn of the seventeenth century, where he found both men and women carrying fans.80 A special corporation of fan-makers was instituted in Paris in 1676, and by 1770 the city of Paris alone had 150 fan-making workshops, employing 6,000 workers.81 Some works speak of a corporation of fan-makers already well organized under Henri IV in 1564.82 Yet, Thomas Coryat wrote around 1600 that the French had no industry and imported their fans from Italy and Spain. Catherine de Medici is widely accredited with introducing the folding fan to the French court. Chinese folding fans, besides taking the same leap as the indiennes and becoming local industries, went further still in their adaptation to French customs. Beyond the fashion for the vantail bris, which was a noblewomans accessory, a number of fan designs were overseen by Louis XIV himself and have been published by Pamela Cowen.83 The fan became a formal medium to celebrate court events. Cowen has studied about forty fan leaves painted with designs to commemorate events, just as did tapestries and paintings. Cowen believes they were made by the Atelier des Vlins du Roi in Les Invalides on the kings orders.84 In 1700, sometime after the return of the ship Amphirite, its cargo from China was celebrated by balls and festivities evoking the French China trade; it took a hundred pages in the Mercure galant to describe the festivities celebrating Frances success. In addition to the many caskets of porcelains, according to the Mercure galant in the ships cargo there were seventeen chests of lacquered furniture, each holding another four chests, each containing three varnished caskets and a writing desk with golden owers designed in relief. Twenty-one additional crates each held very nely varnished lacquer cabinets. In addition to this furniture there was a huge cargo of damasks and silks, some 8,000 pieces in all.85 A fan also commemorates the event. At one ball given by Monsieur, the Princess Adelaide was dressed as a sultana and Jean Berain had designed a Chinese buffet. The Ponchartins gave a ball for the Princess Adelaide in a room orne la chinoise with the Rulers of the Orient as a theme. It is possibly such an event that a fan held at the Greenwich Museum commemorates. The fan displays a number of items of lacquered furniture, porcelains, silks, and Indian cottons, all items brought back by the Amphirite. The fan illustrates a man dressed as a Persian displaying cottons, and a lady dressed la Turque buying a Chinese fan. Chinese men have black lacquer boxes spread before them. Two men who look Indian carry exotic goods; one has a large porcelain vase on his head and the other is draped in a cotton cloth.

The Politics of Pleasure 253Throughout Europe porcelain was still often called Indian, even by its most avid collectors. The commemorative fan also shows a lady in oriental dress with a basket of owers, another oriental import, but one that was not actually recorded for the cargo of the Amphirite. Black lacquer chests were among the rst items imported from Japan. On the fan, two were depicted as tables to hold fans, and there are porcelain bowls in blue and white on the other.86 There was certainly no better medium to celebrate the China trade than the semicircular fan leaf commemorating Frances bounty of exotica. Just as tall fans on handles held by servants and followers had long been a sign of honor since the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, the parasol on a tall handle served the same function. It was a status symbol used by European elite since the late sixteenth century as sun protection. Paper parasols came in the cargos of ships returning to China. John Evelyn recalled buying himself a paper parasol in Marseille in 1644.87 Imitations of the oriental ones were made in Europe as early as the end of the sixteenth century. Joan DeJean tells the tale of the metamorphosis of the parasol into the umbrella. The creation of waterproof textiles was a major scientic innovation that had to be tested.In the summer of 1677, two men jumped into Pariss Seine river. One of them was nude and was carrying his clothes in a backpack made from waterproof leather. The other wore what could be called the original wet suit, waterproof pants, over his street clothes. A delegation from the Royal Academy of Science (still another institution founded by Louis XIV) had gathered on the river bank to observe the experiment: the academicians were thus able to certify that both men walked away from the dunking with their outts dry. This was such big news that John Locke recorded it in his journal of September 16 1677.88

DeJean goes on to describe the rst experiments to create a parapluie (umbrella), and to tell of its patenting by a man called Jean Marius, who was a matre boursier, specialized in making purses. His knowledge of the closing mechanism in purses helped him make the rst portable umbrella. Louis XIV was so impressed that he issued Marius a royal privilege. Jean Donneau de Vis weighed in with a piece in the Mercure galant, advertising that he already owned one. The Academy of Science showered some free publicity on Marius. In 1715 with the permission of the Marquis dArgenson, chief of police, Marius had a poster plastered all over Paris advertising umbrellas and parasols to carry in ones pocket. DeJean nds the invention of the umbrella to be of great importance to extending shopping days in Paris, and as a boon to the new luxury commerce of the city. The commercialization of the folding umbrella itself certainly had many modern aspects, especially in the rst use of a billboard.89 This was a new stride in publicity and an innovation. DeJeans work puts the emphasis on Louis XIV as the driver of fashions, while many studies have gotten away from this model dear to Elias and argue for the strength of fashion

254 Orientalism in Early Modern Francemarkets, giving more weight to merchant culture. Yet, even in a study preoccupied by merchant culture, there is no need to deny the central role played by the king in driving fashion and consumption. At the carrousel of 1662, Louis wore re red, gold, and diamonds with bright red ostrich plumes, the color of re. The same colors, the plumes, and the diamonds were adopted for his court dress. The central role played by the king in imposing a new dress code of vivid colors against the fashion for dark Spanish colors has been well studied by Jennifer Jones. Like the Persian king or the Ottoman sultan who gave ceremonial robes (khalat) to worthy ambassadors and courtiers, Louis bestowed a brocade vest to male courtiers as a mark of privilege; only those bestowed the vest could be in his presence.90 Joan DeJean has convincingly argued that after 1669 Louis XIV set out to imitate Eastern monarchs in their sartorial splendor, and she has looked into Louiss splendid diamond collection, which she argues was used specically for this effect. In 1691 Montarsy and Louis Alvarez, who were diamond merchants and polishers, drew up an inventory of the crown jewels at Louiss request. This inventory shows that before the visit of the Turkish ambassador, whom as we saw Louis sought to impress, the king spent 1,500,000 livres ($75 million) on diamonds alone; 900,000 went to Tavernier, who had just returned from buying them in India, and the rest to another merchant named Bazu. At the time of Louiss death they were worth 12 million livres.91 Alas, the Turkish ambassador had been unimpressed in 1669 and afrmed that the sultans horse wore more than the king of France, but Louis was even more splendid in 1715.On February 19, 1715, at the last court function he was able to carry off before his death later that year, the reception for the Persian ambassador Mehmet Reza Beg, the king demonstrated just how far he had taken the art of diamond in the years since 1669 and proved to the entire world that no one would be more successful at playing the role of The King. He appeared with the Blue Diamond hanging around his neck; elsewhere on his person he displayed virtually the entire collection of crown jewels all 12 million livres worth. The outt was so heavy that royal chroniclers reported the king had to rush away immediately after dinner to take it off.92

The Persian embassy produced a profusion of descriptions. The crowd was so dense in the Galerie des Glaces that even the king was uncomfortable passing through, and as he brushed against the princes to his apartments his costume lost one of its biggest and most precious pearls, later found by a courtier. No one could bend to look for it immediately as the crowd was terribly dense. Provision was made for the ladies to see, and four tiers of seats were constructed for the princesses and the ladies. To solve the problem of the ladies being seated in the presence of the king, which was against protocol, they were told not to wear court dress but the rather orientalist deshabill dress, much like an Ottoman morning dress, which was the rule at Chteau de Marly, where the king relaxed and rules were less rigid. The king had ordered them to wear all their gems in their hair. The dauphin next to the king was covered

The Politics of Pleasure 255in diamonds as was his father; he had solid diamond buttons like his father, although not as many as the 125 Louis wore. The Duc dOrleans also had diamond buttons and double rows of precious stones in his blue velvet habit. Saint Simon describes this habit as winning the prize for bon got (good taste).93 The glitter of the ceremony reected in the Hall of Mirrors must have been intense and had tremendous effect. The fashion for diamonds had been adopted by the Parisian elite and most courtesans were wearing gems. The Persian ambassador, standing in his plain dress, said that he was arrested by such a brilliant display and that it even surpassed Louiss reputation as the greatest of emperors.94 Clearly Louis had outdone his imitation of an eastern potentate, not that the Persian ambassador had actually ever seen one. The rst man to have entered the Hall of Mirrors preceding the ambassador was an Armenian named Agopjan, who had helped the embassy and had been in charge of hiding the letter and the presents sent by Shah Hussein in his bales of silk. The presents from the Persian king had been paraded in the city of Marseilles. Once on French soil the Persian ambassador had slept with his presents in his room and had made a great case of them. Much was expected of these gifts when at last the trunk containing them, covered in gold cloth, was opened for Louis to behold. It contained exactly 106 very small pearls, 280 turquoises, and two gold boxes full of momie, a very precious unguent collected drop by drop from a specic rock and considered a cure-all in Persia. It stupeed the audience and disappointed Louis XIV to such an extent that it was believed from that moment on that the embassy was inauthentic. As Maurice Herbette, who wrote a book about the Persian embassy, puts it: the ambassador had committed an unforgivable mistake, he had let down the expectations long created in the French imagination by the word Persia, king of kings and grand sophy. 95 Madame dOrlans was astonished that people would not once and for all agree he was a hoax.96 The Duc de Saint Simon, the most famous chronicler of Louiss reign, wrote that the Persian embassy was more than equivocal. More famously perhaps, Montesquieu accused the ambassador of being a fraud in the Lettres Persanes (1721), when Usbek warns Rustan not to take news of this fraud to Isfahan, lest the ambassador lose his head.97 There is no question that Mehmet Reza Beg was a minor character who had been the kalantar of the province of Erivan, an Armenian province under Persian rule, which is an ofcer in charge of collecting taxes and keeping order. Without the help of the network of Armenian merchants within the Ottoman empire, even this indirect envoy would not have reached France.98 Yet, it was his presents that made the French court regret the huge expenditure for the rst envoy to France of the fabled shahs. Persia was the land of luxury and gold, as recounted many times since the Greeks; Persia could not have been represented by such avarice. The ambassadors personal avarice, thievery, and temper while in Paris did not help his cause, nor did the fact that he never wanted to go back and seemed to think life more comfortable in France. He was nevertheless an object of great curiosity; engravings were made

256 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceand distributed to show him lying in the bathtub he had demanded. Louis XIV had obliged and constructed the tub to the ambassadors specications. In eighteenthcentury France, Mehmet Rezas daily baths were much discussed, as were his exotic eating habits, but these were not enough to prove anything except that he was from elsewhere. Throngs of people had received him, but six months later everything short of brutality was done to make him leave France. Mehmet Reza Beg did not match what his French hosts imagined Persia or the Persian monarchy to be. By this time Louis XIV was carrying 15,000 carats of diamonds on his day wear; he wore diamonds even on the buckles of his shoes and on his garters.99 The huge pearl he lost during the reception and recovered through a well-rewarded courtier must have seemed even bigger in the light of the small pearls thrown in front of him by the Persian ambassador. In more than one way Louis had succeeded in posing as an oriental monarch. In several sources his mistresses were called sultanas. The Comte de Bussy called both Madame de Montespan and Mademoiselle de Fontages les deux Sultanes.100 Author of Histoire amoureuse des Gaules, the Compte de Bussy had been disgraced by the king for having harmed his brothers wife, Madames, reputation in this work, but de Bussy had good reason to be critical. There are other instances of courtiers using the term: the Marquis de la Fare called Madame de Montespan the Sultana Queen.101 Louis XIV was being noticed both for material and sexual excess; since he could not be criticized openly, the sultanas took the brunt of it. France had a long history of legislating luxury, and in many ways by adopting what was imagined to be oriental sartorial style, Louis made conspicuous, even excessive, consumption the style of the French court. By imposing oriental excess he had gone against some very deeply rooted ideas about luxury that had been prevalent in France for many centuries. If the dress makes the man, in the eyes of his critics, the king of France had styled himself into an oriental despot.

10Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury

To have told Abelard that a war with the Dutch was necessary because they were selling their manufactures into France, and because they were carrying French goods on the sea would have amazed and amused him. Yet by the seventeenth century this stance seemed natural and right to many intelligent men. This change was made possible with the increasing identication of economic life with national politics and with patriotic interests. From one point of view mercantilism was the economic phase of nascent nationalism, and it was in part on the economic solidarity fostered by mercantilism that nationalism was to build in the future.1 Charles W. Cole

In the last part of the seventeenth century very few porcelains sold in France marked made in China were actually Chinese; Dutch imitations marked as Chinese were ooding the French markets. The search for authenticity and exoticism took a greater turn. Nothing was as authentic as genuine visitors from Asia. Despite Louiss dreams of grandeur and his gifts to the Chinese emperor, China never sent envoys to France.2 Aside from a few translators trailing the Jesuits, no one from China formally set foot on French soil, despite Louiss discourse about the emperor being his cousin. The arrival of the Siamese created what one scholar has called an exotic fever at the court of Louis XIV.3 According to a Siamese account, when the rst ambassadors of Siam arrived in Paris in 1686, they demonstrated their superiority through their magic. At Versailles, the Siamese demanded that 500 gunmen shoot them in the chest while they stood still in the marble court. When the 500 guns were red, not a single bullet scratched their bodies. They were received by the king of France in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles. The Siamese envoys recorded that when they rst set eyes upon the French king, they witnessed a supernatural light shining on Louis XIV. He was seated on a gem-studded throne surrounded by a multicolored light. Diamonds and rubies threw res that were reected in the mirrors of the Galerie des Glaces (Hall of Mirrors), throwing a halo of re around the monarch.4 Yet in a French almanac illustrating the same 1686 embassy, none of this glittering luxury was apparent. The king was seated on a throne adorned only with textiles, not depicted on a jeweled throne, nor was he wearing any jewels.5 No dazzling lights are to be seen anywhere on the almanacs rendition of the court. Since only that single Siamese account of the 1686 embassy was known to us,


258 Orientalism in Early Modern Francescholars have naturally treated the Siamese travel account as fabulous.6 Certainly a good part of it was, such as the immunity to gunshots. The French wrote profusely about this spectacular Siamese visit. As we have discussed, Europeans wrote prolically about Asia, while there were very few accounts by visitors to Europe. European interest was in good part due to the riches of Asia, the gemstones, the silks and porcelains, which were only recently part of European luxuries. Asias natural resources surpassed Europes. Economically Asia was not interested in Europe; at the time its manufactures were far ahead and were poorly imitated in Europe. Eurasian trade was dependant on gold and silver until the end of the seventeenth century. The Siamese were the rst to order the new French luxury goods. The gems imported from Asia were certainly more familiar to the Siamese embassy than the mirrors reecting the gems. The enormous new mirrors at Versailles were, save for woolens, one of the rare items manufactured in Europe that were of any interest on Asias markets. The Galrie des Glaces was new and dazzling to all visitors at Versailles. On the occasion of the embassy, the Siamese ambassador was given a large mirror as a gift. It was a promotional gift, as the king hoped that the Siamese would purchase French mirrors. Indeed, the Siamese put in an order to purchase thousands of them.7 The many items that were included in the order were diverse; the 160 French cannons were predictable, as were the telescopes and glasses and clocks, but more interesting were a list of luxuries: a number of ceremonial velvet and gold masks for the beloved elephants of the palace, elephant harnesses made of red cloth lined with leather decorated with copper stars, and two thousand crystal ornaments to decorate two animals, a male and female elephant. The ambassadors also ordered two globes, one terrestrial and one celestial with inscriptions giving the correct information transcribed in Siamese letters, which must have been a feat for French artisans. The Siamese also ordered seven very large rugs from the rug factory of the Savonnerie. The rugs were often the best diplomatic gift offered by France, and the Siamese order was proof that the factory established by Louis XIII to make carpets la faon de Turquie in 1627 had gained an international reputation as a French luxury. The largest order was for the manufacture of mirrors, obtained by Colbert from Saint Gobain, which received an order for 4,264 mirrors.8 This was a rst. Traditionally luxuries traveled to France from the Orient, not from France to the Orient. As we have seen, European courts and grandees were avid collectors and consumers of Asian goods, creating a very unbalanced trade situation. Versailles itself was a display of luxury. Louis had amassed the best gemstone collection in Europe thanks to Tavernier.9 With the 1686 embassy came several important gifts that would further contribute to the palaces oriental splendor: gold, tortoiseshells, fabrics, carpets, over 1,500 pieces of porcelain, and many pieces of lacquer furniture.10 Parisians waited for hours in the streets to catch a glimpse of the Siamese visitors, a scene that was repeated for the Ottoman and Persian embassies. The curiosity of many was never satised, as the Siamese envoys, unlike their Ottoman and Persian counterparts, refused to receive anyone or accept any invitations, which made

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 259one of their French chaperones exclaim: I am tired of their bizzareries . . . they are suited to the profession of sloth.11 The nobleman guiding them had to nd ruses to explain their total disinterest in their French hosts, which was passed off as a form of exotic expression of enthusiasm to avoid diplomatic incidents. The Siamese were very busy, the Nouveau Mercure galant reported, so that every evening they locked themselves in to record everything they saw. French curiosity about the Siamese visitors was so high that Dirk Van der Cruysse tells us that Donneau de Vis, the director of the Mercure, produced a Siamese frenzy, with over two thousand pages about the visitors.12 There were several French accounts of the Siamese visit, and three entire volumes of the news gazette Mercure de France were exclusively devoted to the exotic dress, mores, and moods of the Siamese visitors in France.13 At least ve almanacsa new tool of propaganda for the courtwere also printed to commemorate the event with images. This propaganda literature, controlled by the court, was so well circulated that it sparked Parisians interest in Siamese fashions, some promptly adopted by the aristocracy. The Siamese, on the other hand, were awed by the luxury in France and were busy recording it; Kosapan, the ambassador, spent an entire page describing his French bed in innite detail. He described its height, its width, the curtains of luxurious crimson silk, the gold tassels, and the precious wood.14 Despite Frances successful production of luxury goods, attitudes toward luxury remained complicated and conicted. Not one of the formal French accounts echoes the Siamese account of gems at court. Not only do they, as one logically expects, fail to mention the magical survival from the shooting of the Siamese ambassadors, but there was no depiction of any of the jewels shining on the king in the almanacs. In French travel accounts about Persia, India, and China, the oriental courts are seen as the locus of luxury, in contrast to the French almanacs that depicted the court at Versailles as sober. Where did the truth lie? When the Siamese saw the French court aglow with gems and light, it was not a fantasy. Despite the almanac, there were French sources that attest to these luxurious surroundings. Among others some were French descriptions of Versailless Hall of Mirrors in newspapers and gazettes. The 1682 inauguration of the mirrors at Versailles was described in the Mercure galant as a dazzling mass of riches and lights, duplicated a thousand times over in just as many mirrors, creating views more brilliant than re and where a thousand things more sparkling came into play. Add to that the splendor [of] the courts nery and the gleam of their precious jewelry.15 This Parisian newspaper report echoes that of the Siamese viewers, dazzled by light and jewels; and furthermore, an earlier testimony by Olivier dOrmesson conrms that, as discussed, Louis wore gems to receive ambassadors. In 1669, for the Ottoman visit, Louis was wearing an especially tailored vest studded with diamonds whose value dOrmesson estimated at 14 million livres.16 He was even richer in stones by the Siamese visit. Yet, the court seemed intent on depicting itself as more austere than it really was. The Siamese depicted themselves as invulnerable to European guns, an event never found in French

260 Orientalism in Early Modern Francesources, while the French court depicted itself as indifferent to the temptations of exotic gems and oriental luxuries. The conicting views held about luxury in the late seventeenth century were central to such a double discourse. Views about luxury were fast changing but still deeply marked by the negative attitude of the Catholic Church. The positive views of opulence put forth by the gazettes speak of a new desire for unrestrained consumption at Versailles, a feature that was by all accounts a turning point in Louis XIVs image building.17 By the end of his reign, Paris had a worldwide reputation for luxury, not only for the grand scale of consumption at Versailles, but for the luxury goods in Parisian shops and markets. Joan DeJean has argued and demonstrated that the consumption of luxury itself was invented under Louiss reign.18 Yet, the inuence of the Church had not disappeared, and in fact the French church was becoming more intransigent in its views of trade, luxury, and money. Sumptuary legislation controlled the consumption of luxury goods and largely restricted them to the nobility until the laws disappeared under Louis XV. Despite the fact that the laws were broken, gems, silk, and gold were still identied with the nobility, and as such were markers of class. There was good reason to depict oneself as frugal, as there was a long tradition of negative views about luxury in France. The construction of Versailles itself is enough to demonstrate the kings love of luxury, but to appear ostentatious was another issue. Many of these debates within France about luxury, consumption, and overproduction in France were older. They stemmed from views about the New World, Hapsburg gold, colonization, and French trade with Asia. The consumption of luxury goods was the concern of successive governments, which dealt with sumptuary laws, and of philosophers, concerned about theory. Mercantilism was an old view, whose zero-sum view of the economy was to protect France against foreign imports and to conserve bullion, and this had been a trade policy since the end of fteenth century.19 Thus, Charles W. Cole was right to argue that French economic theory contained within it the kernel of the patriotism and nationalism that would become so loud and clear before the French Revolution. The negative discourse on luxury was present since ancient and medieval times within the Church, but the conversation over luxury and its consumption became a roaring debate a century later in the years preceding the French Revolution.20 Throughout this period serious economic theories and writings were inspired by the East India trade, China, Persia, and the Levant. To a large degree the New World was also an inuence because of the shadow of Spains success and later its bankruptcy, and Frances longing for hoarding gold and silver. Oriental luxury goods and their European imitations played a central role, both in the debates on luxury in France and in the formation of French economic thought and policy. Domestic production to counter foreign imports also fell into the debate about the need for colonies, which were more often than not seen as harmful to the French economic health. The Church also had economic theories of its own.

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 261

Economic Theories and the Birth of MercantilismThe Church was deeply involved in commercial issues in France even late into the seventeenth century. When in 1671 Louiss advisors were working on a new formulation of commercial laws under Colbert, they grappled with the kings right to x the rate of interest, which had informally been 5 percent under his father, Louis XIII. It was Louis XIV himself, as a good Catholic, who decided that the doctors of the Sorbonne needed to be consulted, and a few were called; far from simply approving it, they made a fuss. They thought this was too important to just approve and called upon the entire faculty of the Sorbonne to see if it would be acceptable for Louis XIV to keep the customary rate of 5 percent. The dean of the faculty, M. Moret, was called upon to speak rst. His conclusion was very conservative indeed: money was sterile by nature and could bring no prot that was not deemed usury by the Church. If one had proted from usury in good faith in the past it should be restituted, but it was forbidden to take more in the future under pain of mortal sin. So much for the future of French commerce. Even what had been previously allowed was now forbidden by the theologians of the Sorbonne.21 As early as the fteenth century the notion that money was sterile had been abandoned in France. Bullionism, as in conserving gold and silver in Frances borders and preventing their escape, and a growing esteem for gold and silver became acceptable to the French Church, especially after both Catholic Spain and Italy had reached such amboyant commercial successes. The clergy had long ago, albeit reluctantly, accepted the importance of foreign trade as the only way to enrich France since it had no mines of gold and silver.22 The ban by law of the use of luxury, sumptuary legislation, was the most common measure used in France to conserve gold and silver. Luxury and bullionism were closely associated in early economic thought. Commercial success and abstaining from luxury, especially foreign imports that bled bullion from France, were directly correlated. Therefore, most commercial legislative efforts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directed against importing foreign luxury goods, especially fabrics.23 The kings of France, as early as the rst Valois, were the ones traditionally lending or giving subsidies to enterprising individuals to start factories for domestic production of silk or woolens, in order to prevent foreign imports. For the Church to make such efforts by monarchs and merchants protless by claiming that money was sterile was tantamount to a ban on French progress in manufacturing and in foreign trade. As always, just as Asian merchants found their way around the Islamic ideas about usury, Catholic France found its own ways to ignore the doctors of the Sorbonne, and France certainly prospered commercially under Colbert, as is well demonstrated by the great specialist of Colbertisme, Charles W. Cole. Early modern France is known as the land of mercantilism. Jean Bodin can be seen as a pioneer, as the rst in France to formulate the quantity theory of money and convey that it was a crime for kings to tamper with its value. It is not surprising that

262 Orientalism in Early Modern Francemoney was a philosophical and theoretical preoccupation since Bodins Six Books on the Republic, when France had to change its account money from the livres tournois into the cu in 1577.24 The crisis was due not to penury but to an unusual overabundance of gold and silver within France that led to devaluation.25 Bodin reiterated many of the ideas of his century on the necessity for the self-sufciency of France, as formulated by some important Protestant writers before him. In turn, some Protestant reformers would be inspired by Bodins work on economy. Some have been discussed before, such as Barthlemy de Laffemas.26 Yet, unlike Laffemas after him, Bodins patriotism was mitigated by a strong cosmopolitanism, as he stated that international trade was ordained by God and remained adamant that France was at its heart: It is incredible but true that, since 1533 ... a hundred million in gold and twice as much in silver has come from Peru, only to argue that the Spanish had no choice than to spend that money buying things produced in France.27 He cites the Italians, the English, the Scots, the Norwegians, and the Swedes as having to bring gold and silver from the mines to buy our wines, our safrans, our prunes, our pastel (woad), and all our salt, which he called manna from heaven.28 To Bodin this was foreign trade, others buying from France, and certainly not France buying from abroad. For centuries to come this ideal of France as the worlds breadbasket dominated French economic thought. Bodins ideas about Europe being fed by France will be found in French economic writing all the way to the eighteenth century. France as the land of plenty was a theme that was not only going to become lyrical in great literary works, such as those of Rabelais, but it was recurrent under the pen of its most prominent economists and politicians. The Levant trade was seen as benecial by Jean Bodin. In his Discours de Jean Bodin sur le rehaussement et diminution tant dor que dargent, he argued that the Levant trade was a cause of French enrichment, that the friendship between the royal houses of France and those of the Ottomans was good. He wrote that French merchants held boutiques in Alexandria, Cairo, Beirut, and Tripoli, and had as much credit as Venice and Genoa in Fez and Morocco. Another cause of enrichment Bodin cited was the opening of the new bank of Lyons, which attracted bankers from Switzerland, Italy, and Germany. Bodin noted that Francis I took money from it at 8 percent, his successor started borrowing at 10 percent, then 16 percent and even 20 percent. Foreign bankers therefore brought quantities of gold and silver to France.29 As we know from earlier passages in this book, Bodin was not positive about the debts incurred by the French monarchy, yet he was thrilled by the gold and silver that the bank of the Lyons brought into the borders of France. Berthlemy de Laffemas, inspired by Bodins patriotism, waxed lyrical about the produce of French soil, yet he had less faith that international trafc meant wealth. He formulated the protectionist view that France had to be protected from foreign trade and from foreigners and must become entirely self-sufcient. Laffemas argued that attraction to exotic foreign goods would be the ruin of France. In an earlier chapter we examined his experiments in making France a silk-producing country;

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 263he also formulated theoretical ideas that stemmed from the expenditures of France on foreign silk and other luxury goods. Aside from theory and advice to Sully and Henri IV, Laffemas also propagated his ample disdain for the inhabitants of France, whom he deemed too lazy and careless to appreciate its bounty and beauty. His views were to be picked up in many French writings about French merchants, and, as we will see, up through the eighteenth century one can nd in Voltaire the same view that the French were poor contenders in international commerce because they were spoiled in their land of plenty. Laffemas was convinced that in former times France had been a great commercial nation but now it was ruined by the sloth of the French. Businessmen in particular were an object of disgust, as God when He caused them to be born in so rich and beautiful a country, with such mild skies and such fertile and smiling lands that it can bear and furnish even metals, raw materials, fruits and the like, of which we do not know how to make good use; a fact that has tended to draw off the money of our kingdom. The bounty of France prevented success in international commerce, as was sung in his poem in the writings of one of the Parmentier brothers about the spices they sought in vain. In Laffemass mind gold and silver were the sinews of states and monarchies.30 Their escape had to be prevented even if it meant no foreign goods coming into France, or no foreign trade at all. The word tranger is a litany in his writing and stands as a symbol of all that is destructive to the economy of France. Barthlmy de Laffemass ideas made a mark on French economic thinking. All three of the ideas stated previously would be found in Richelieus Testament politique.31 Bullionism, protectionism, and the control of commerce by the king were the policies Laffemas advocated. The monarch had a duty to encourage and to build French manufactures in order to prot from the raw materials that were the bounty of France. In 1601, Henry IV passed a law because of Laffemass views: he hoped to exploit mines in France. Efforts were made to locate French mines. A very interesting individual by the name of Jean Chastelet got involved. He had been to the mines of Potos in Peru, and his knowledge of gold and silver had earned him the title of Baron dOffenbach after he directed work in the silver mines of Bavaria. For six years, from 1604 to 1610, he scouted out mines for the king, and after Henry IVs death in 1610, he continued to do so under Richelieu, but he ended his days in jail. He was thrown into the Bastille by the Cardinal de Mazarin on a charge of sorcery by the Church. He claimed that he and his wife had discovered more than a hundred silver and gold mines in the territory of France.32 Henry IV passed many laws under Laffemass inuence to stop foreign imports. The repression of luxury was seen as the sole solution to this escape of bullion. As a frugal Protestant, Laffemas fretted over every bourgeoise now wanting to wear pearls; the ban of luxury in his view was every mans duty. Pearls were still an oriental import in the late seventeenth century. The Parisian art of making fake pearls using the shine from sh scales had not yet been invented. He advocated the kings

264 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceban on all imports into France, except gold and silver, to save France from ruin. He believed that French merchants should be forced by the monarch to exchange their goods against cash and bring cash back into France. Works of art and books made after the rule of Francis I were excluded from this general ban on foreign imports. This form of exception was strictly reserved to the noblesse. Laffemas also wanted to ban the export of all French raw materials abroad, giving the example of how Italian weavers gained wealth through Frances raw materials.33 France should build factories of its own. During his efforts in silk production within France, Laffemas argued that China had shown that silk was more protable than wheat or wine, and he hoped that France would produce ten to forty million livres of raw silk a year. Taken as a whole, Henry IVs reign was one of great economic efforts, activity, and prosperity, but perhaps he was not ready to apply the mercantilist doctrines of Laffemas. Charles Woosley Cole has written that Laffemass writings were a summary of the mercantilists ideas that had prevailed in France, and that Henry IVs practical efforts to be a mercantilist monarch were a brief rehearsal for the great epoch of Colbert.34 Indeed, a period of stagnation and political troubles was to follow. However, there were some seminal thinkers such as Antoine de Montchrtien, who not only rened the doctrines of mercantilism but invented the term political economy in the title of his work dedicated to Louis XIII: Traict de oeconomie politique. He was Norman, but unlike his countrymen who had explored the world, he held that France was a world and if one had seen her, there was no need to see the rest of the world. He borrowed a gure of speech from Bodin and wrote that wheat, wine, salt, linens, and woolens were the ve inexhaustible fountains of French riches. All France lacked, he argued, were spices. He pleaded in his Traict that the French should follow the example of the thriving Dutch and eradicate idleness from France. He pointed out that France was stricken by a plague of idleness. He wrote that the happiness of man ... consists chiey in wealth, and wealth in work. A good ruler was not one who punished criminals, but one who gave employment to all, and he exhorted Louis XIII to copy the Dutch and provide workhouses for the poor and work schools for children.35 He was killed after participating in a Protestant uprising; many of his views on work and his admiration for the Dutch reect his religious leanings. His advocacy for the spice trade should not mask his profound mistrust of things foreign. De Monchrtiens views of foreigners and foreign goods were even more strident than Laffemass. Foreigners at fairs were spies, and France carried her hospitality too far. They evaded customs, faked bankruptcies, and were sharp money-changers that left the French in the dust. He advocated that all foreigners be put under severe restrictions in France. Had his opinions prevailed, most probably the rst cafs would never have opened in France. He understood why foreigners wanted to be in his beloved France: It is for the Scythians to come to the Greeks. Honor, courtesy, and industry have chosen to make their home with us. They will be glad to stay here always if we ourselves do not drive them away.36 There was a paradox in his thinking, as he

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 265advocated that the French throw themselves madly into the Eastern trade. He wrote that sea-power was not a royal toy but the way to greatness. He argued for a merchant marine, not a surprising turn for a Norman, despite his views that France was the world. He envisioned a future with ships going east and west to bring wealth to France. Most importantly, for the rst time, in de Montchrtien one nds a clear advocacy for colonization, once again, not surprising for a Norman, as they would settle much of the New World. The only positive example he gave for colonies was Jean Bodins citation on Roman colonies. Bodin wrote that the Romans conquered colonies and through this method got rid of their poor, their dissidents, and the lazy.37 De Montchrtien also saw colonization as a way to employ the poor and get rid of undesirables. De Montchrtien believed that the colonization of Canada had not been given proper attention by the king, and indeed he was right; the court did not really support explorers or French settlers properly, and most of the early nancing came from merchants from Dieppe, like Jehan Ango. He bemoaned the wealth that France would get from America and Africa should the king do what was right. The Dutch were the model for work and commerce, and for conquest, and his model was Spain. De Montchrtien warned that French colonization in the New World should not be an altruistic work of Christianization, as it had been conducted in Canada, but should be for prot alone. Once colonized, France could get products from its American colonies and avoid paying high prices for oriental goods in the Levant, China, or even for goods from Russia, Sweden, or Denmark:[By buying] from our own people what we buy at such high prices from foreigners; silks; cottons; raisins; essences; gums; medicinal and aromatic woods; gaiac: sasparilla; sassafras (called in Florida pavagne and in Virginia vuinank); sweet costus; bitter costus; white sandalwood; lemon-colored sandalwood; yellow sandalwood; china root; casai stula; cassia lignea; long pepper and a number of spices; a number of trees like cahninca root, a specic for poisons, haneda, excellent against scurvy and painful swelling of the limbs; mechoacan; and possibly rhubarb, since similar roots with same purgative effects are found there; clay for painting or medicine, so carefully guarded in the Levant.38

In addition to getting these materials from the colonies, after a few years one could plant important French products in the colonies like olive oil and woad, that once acclimated would yield great prots. French control of the colonies would supplement French sufciency, while regulation and state control exercised by Louis XIII would bring prosperity.39 This was prescient, as it was written about a century before France had any successful plantations. France continued with its old way, and stricter sumptuary law was supposed to keep money in its borders. A year before Montchrtiens work appeared in 1615 there was a meeting of minds between the clergy and the Third Estate on strictly banning luxury. They asked the king to repress luxury and to reduce the incredible quantity of money that was drawn from the kingdom to pay for foreign fabrics,

266 Orientalism in Early Modern Francejewels, and ornaments. The Third Estate went further, demanding national customs unity for control, and a national policy in commerce on exports and imports under the kings control, something that regional France would not know until well after the Revolution.40 According to Cole, around the same time that the Third Estate met in 1614 a large number of anonymous pamphlets appeared, urging the prohibition of all kinds of foreign things, foreign goods, or even travel to certain foreign lands: banning pilgrimage to Spain to avoid money going to Spain, evicting Jewish merchants, no longer hiring foreign Swiss guards. If the last measure may seem unrelated, the tie was not simply that they were foreignthe Swiss guards were paid from trade prots. Most interesting for our purposes is an anonymous pamphlet Avis au roy en loccurrence des tats gnraux, that advocated severing all relations with Turkey and revoking the capitulation, to provoke the immediate cessation of French trade in the Levant. The pamphlet advocated a complete ban on the resulting luxury from the Levant trade and the construction of French manufactures to prevent ve of the seven million cus in gold exported yearly to Ottoman markets. Radically shutting down the Levant trade would cut luxury in France, and also the friendly relations established by Francis I should be revoked, and war should be started with various parts of the Turkish empire. The pamphlet warned that seven million cus were exported yearly out of Marseilles alone. Severing relations with Turkey, as it was referred to in the pamphlet, would strengthen France and weaken Turkey and Italy. The pamphlet advocated that once the Levant trade was stopped, France would be so sound that only minor, solvable, problems would remain: civil war in France. The solution to this so-called minor glitch was to ght the Turks instead, as France had an overpopulation of men. The pamphlet argued that since the nobles would be winning great wars against the Turks, France would be at peace. Only the trade of the city of Marseilles would suffer, but that was a minor consideration as the greater good of the nation was at stake.41 The pamphlet only amplied what most mercantilists believed: that the Levant trade took money out of France and was therefore harmful except to the merchants of Marseilles, who were seen as rapacious. It also coincided with the crusading views held by dvots, who opposed the Levant trade. As such the pamphlet represented the views of a large part of the elite at court under Louis XIII. Richelieus ideas on the Levant trade are often cited as a turning point. Charles W. Cole argues that it had erroneously been believed that Richelieu strongly advocated the Levant trade because he was the rst not to be a mercantilist. Cole offers several quotations from Richelieus political testament that demonstrate that Richelieu remained a staunch traditional mercantilist despite his aims to build up a navy for trade. Cole argues that Richelieu advocated the Levant trade only because he was certain, or at least pretended to be, that it did not drain money out of France. Richelieu wrote that the money that went to the Levant was Spanish, not French. He argued, like Bodin, that the wealth of France was in what she produced, her salt, her oil, her wine, her wheat, her prunes; and her wealth did not consist solely in bullion.

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 267That the money draining was Spanish was a technicality, as he certainly would have known that it transited through Provence and was recoined for the Levant market.42 In Richelieus Testament politique, he makes it clear that the sole riches of Spain consisted of the gold they got from the Indies. For Richelieu, hoarding bullion within the borders of France to imitate Spain was not prosperity; metal was not sufcient to build a countrys wealth.43 One of the most important elements of wealth was trade, and trading goods and raw materials from France to other countries was best. As for importing, he preferred the fur trade in Canada as it functioned on bartering goods. Trade was even possible, he argued, without having raw materials and goods produced within the nation. He gave the example of Holland, of a people crammed on a corner of land where there was once only water and sand; the Dutch, said Richelieu, only got butter and cheese from their land, yet they supplied the rest of the world with necessities and luxuries.44 He contrasted this to the wealth of France. Yet, Richelieu argued, like many before him, that Frances wealth was precisely why she had not gone out to trade like the Dutch. In his view, it was a necessity to avoid buying luxuries from her neighbors, but buying exotic luxury goods directly on Asian markets was less detrimental. Richelieu saw no reasons for avoiding oriental luxuries if they were bought by French merchants. What was novel in this stance was that he saw that the problem was not the trade with the Levant per se, but the European intermediaries. He encouraged French trade in the East Indies, but he was not optimistic about French merchants:Voyages of long duration are inappropriate to their natures. None the less since there comes a great quantities of silks and rugs from Persia, many curiosities from China, and all sorts of spices from that part of the world, which are of great utility to us, this trade should not be neglected.45

As for the use of these goods in France, Richelieu approved previous sumptuary legislation and reinforced it further. He suggested that the nes be four times the value of the illegal neries worn. Embroideries were forbidden to all, as they were mostly from other European countries, especially the Flanders and Italy. As for oriental goods, precious gems, silks, and satins were forbidden to all but the nobles. Carriages, introduced to France by Marie de Medici from Italy and still largely imported, were banned to the bourgeoisie. Gilded articles were reserved to the royal family alone.46 Fur was also restricted. The list was clearly a ban on anyone but the nobility wearing or using imports. This meant a status quo. The use of foreign exotic goods was the prerogative of the aristocracy and became synonymous with it. Sumptuary law, already found in Greek cities and Rome, was very old in France, emerging in the thirteenth century in 1279 and 1294.47 The last efforts to enforce it strictly were under Colbert. As was the case with most legislation that went against human impulses, sumptuary law was constantly broken, and this was also the case under Louis XIV. Both in the 1660s and 1670s, Colbert attempted to enforce sumptuary laws that prohibited foreign goods in

268 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceorder to encourage local silk, linen, and lace-making industries.48 These efforts, even more so than previously, were far from successful.

The Debates about Luxury and ConsumptionColberts organization of both West and East India Companies, the Compagnie du Nord, the Levant Company, and all the measures taken to create a luxury industry to prevent importing from European neighbors were instrumental to a period of prosperity under Louis XIV. This prosperity was constantly broken by the costly demands of war. Colberts 1660 ban on many oriental imports, as well as the increased consumption of Asian luxury products in spite of the ban, gave rise to a renewed debate about the role of luxury in Frances political economy. Joyce Appleby has demonstrated how a political struggle in England over the imports of cotton textiles by the East India Company triggered the debate on luxury in the late seventeenth century. The defenders of the company had to attack the balance of trade doctrines, giving rise to a vigorous theoretical debate about the role of luxury in the economic growth of a nation.49 The situation was similar in France, although the opposition was stronger than in England. The debate was on two fronts in the eighteenth century; one debate was about luxury and sumptuary legislation and the effects of foreign imports on the economy, and the other took place theoretically in economic writings. For a long time they were one and the same; economic thinking was about luxury and foreign trade and legislation. Only in the eighteenth century did the two debates take some distance from each other thanks to the physiocrats and their focus on agriculture, but it was not much of a distance. The recent proliferation of books on fashion and consumerism proves the importance of the subject for understanding French economy and politics under the ancien rgime. Daniel Roches pioneering work already pointed to the eighteenth century as a turning point for consumption and clothing.50 The education of merchants and their social rise also led to their public participation in economic debates.51 The rise of consumption in eighteenth-century Paris, the feminization of fashion and culture, the breaking of class and gender barriers, the rise of the crafts related to fashion, the extinction of sumptuary laws, and the excesses of Marie Antoinette and their surprising ties to subsequent Revolutionary dress codes have been brilliantly studied in some recent works.52 The creation of a fashion press also contributed to this debate.53 Caroline Webers seminal study of Marie Antoinettes frenetic consumption and its social consequences highlights the importance of the sartorial regulations upheld by the sumptuary laws of the ancien rgime and the consequences, as well as the political meaning, of defying traditional sumptuary convention. Jennifer Jones and Joan DeJean have both demonstrated that Louis XIV was arbiter of fashion and taste for Europe. DeJean has devoted an entire book to demonstrating that luxury itself was Louiss creation. The French court sought to extend control over the fashions

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 269it had created, as after Louis XIVs reign, la mode was a major French export. In France mercantilism was a theoretical model and not a reality. Jones explores the royal creation of a Parisian tradition of coiffeurs and coutouriers, who for the next century dictated much of Europes fashion. Jones has showed how Louis exerted domestic political control over his courtiers through dictating sartorial fashion:Louis XIV devoted much of his long reign (16541715) to harnessing the artice, the inconstancy, and the Frenchness of la mode as he strove to extend his powerpolitically, economically, and culturallythroughout France and across Europe. He did so by asserting a distinctively French style, by deploying the artice of fashion for the purpose of court spectacles, and by disciplining ckle fashion to the theater of absolutism.54

One of the most interesting parts of Joness argument for the rise of fashion and its gendering is the shift that occurred in the eighteenth century, when consumption was no longer the privilege of the nobility. The wealthy bourgeoisie and many groups below them successfully escaped the exceptions made for the nobility through sumptuary laws. Jones successfully demonstrates that The wardrobes of virtually all Parisians, from manual workers to aristocrats, had increased signicantly in value, in number of garments, and in varieties of clothing. In a gendered analysis of fashion, she also shows that womens wardrobes became exponentially larger than those of their husbands; at times their holdings were ten times larger. Fashion was feminized and luxury had become the domain of women in the eighteenth century. Yet to enforce this Frenchness in fashions, Louis had used foreign goods, worn his famous diamonds, covered his hats and helmets with North African red ostrich plumes, worn brocade, and pushed the use of ribbons and lace. If the last were successfully manufactured in France under Colbert, much of what was consumed for Frenchness was still a foreign import in the eighteenth century. The new category of Frenchness crafted by Louis extended across classes and was a unifying gesture in which clothing marked participation in the nation. The groups enjoying other exotic goods also were well beyond the bourgeoisie.55 Carolyn Sargentsons work on the mercers and their shops has shown that as they had the privilege to sell oriental wares or luxuries, such as paintings and mirrors, they became a powerful guild. She has demonstrated the steady socioeconomic rise of the mercers during this period. This is the same period when one also found not only prosperous merchants but also artisans enjoying some leisure in theater or the fancy cafs of the Palais Royal. Webers discussion of Marie Antoinettes dressmaker and hairdresser and their privileged access to court point to the same social mobility.56 The second debate was not about consumption and luxury and who was allowed to wear what, but about economics. Just the fact that the two debates were no longer one and the same is a notable difference from the past, when regulated consumption in the form of sumptuary laws and bullionism and the avoidance of foreign imports formed the bulk of concerns in economic writing. Regulation and legislation were

270 Orientalism in Early Modern Francenow questioned as a path to wealth. Under the pen of the physiocrats, the usual protectionism and bullionism tied to mercantilism would transform slowly into the ideas on free trade that became important in the late eighteenth century. The French debates were an inspiration to Adam Smith, who conceded that he borrowed many of his economic ideas from the French physiocrats.57 The fact that the term laissez-faire itself is French speaks to the importance of this economic debate in France and its French origin. Vincent de Gournay (17121759) was a precursor to the physiocrats and one of the main thinkers who inspired Adam Smith. A wealthy merchant, Vincent de Gournay, was the intendant de commerce at the French court from 1751 to 1758. He was one of the leaders of a powerful group of thinkers interested in reforming the French economy by abolishing any trade restrictions on foreign imports. His favorite phrase was Laissez faire, laissez passer, and he is credited with being the originator of the term laissez-faire. Unlike the French physiocrats who argued for the importance of agriculture, de Gournay regarded the progress of industry and commerce as well as agriculture to all be sources of wealth for the nation. Adam Smith wanted to dedicate The Wealth of Nations to the famous French economist, Franois Quesnay (16941774), a physiocrat who stressed the central importance of agriculture for the economic growth of nations. After losing the Seven Years War to England, a humiliated France sought ways to regain its stature. Quesnay, a court physician to Louis XV, turned to studying economic ideas to contribute to the glory of France. He was inspired by the Chinese agricultural policies he read through travelers and missionaries. As a consequence of his admiration for China, Quesnay was nicknamed the Confucius of Europe. He published his economic ideas in Le Despotisme de la Chine in 1767. Chinas agricultural policies were to serve as a model to France. He argued that a nation was made of three forms of citizens: a productive class, a class of landowners, and what he called la classe sterile. This sterile class was comprised of anyone who was not occupied by anything related to agriculture and was supported by the two other classes. Merchants, artisans, and administrators were part of this sterile group, but he was mostly thinking of speculators and nanciers.58 Advocates of free trade, the physiocrats and their followers, would naturally argue for breaking the monopoly of the companies, which had enriched speculators. The Asian trade and the East India Company would become a central issue and came under re in the late years of Louis XV. The debate came to a head during the reign of Louis XVI. Raising money for the court and especially for its war in North America became urgent. Against the abolition of monopolies of commerce and the East India Company stood a coalition of bankers and nanciers led by the Geneva banker Jacques Necker (17321804).59 Necker became minister of nance despite his Protestant religion, and while his opposition to raising new taxes made him popular, his policies of borrowing instead of collecting money from taxes led to attacks against him before the Revolution. The attacks pointed to his policy as cause of the decit and Frances bankruptcy.60 Popular because of his no-taxation policies, he was called

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 271back during the crisis of the Revolution to solve the decit, only to be disgraced. The fact that he was a Swiss banker, a foreigner who supported foreign trade, played a large role in the attack against him. Before Quesnays ideas on agriculture, despite the lyrical praise of the produce of the French soil, trade was seen as the only possible source of acquiring more wealth. Avoiding imports, as many were exotic luxuries, was central to discussions of a healthy economy for France. Yet, ironically it was in importing an exotic, oriental model that economic arguments broke way from resistance to exotic imports. The Chinese model of organizing an economy around agriculture was what Quesnay advocated for France, and foreign trade was no longer seen as instrumental to either the wealth or the bankruptcy. With this new focus on agriculture, which in fact Olivier de Serres had hoped for long ago and Laffemas advocated by planting mulberry trees in the palace of the Tuileries, French discussions among specialists would break lose from the concepts inherent to French mercantilism. This intellectual distance happened in conjunction with a sharp rise in the consumption of foreign and domestic luxury goods and a disregard for old sumptuary legislation under Louis XV. There was also a new social model advocated by Quesnay for France in his Le Despotisme de la Chine, a move away from the traditional hereditary privileges safeguarded by sumptuary laws: Quesnay advocated rising through merit, and as in China at the prerogative of the emperor alone. Quesnay admired the way scholars were given power in China; as in Platos Republic, in China philosophers became kings, mandarins had power. The idea that there was no hereditary nobility in China fascinated Quesnay, as he was a working-class boy who was self-made. His rise, like that of many others before him, proves that the French social system was not as rigid as its administrative records might reect. He did not know how to read until age eleven. Quesnay became a prominent intellectual, part of the Academy of Sciences in Paris. Quesnay, like the Chinese, believed that trade was sterile and only land could bring wealth to the nation. Quesnays admiration for the system of China, as he interpreted it, was the basis on which the physiocrat Vincent de Gourney coined the phrase laissez-faire.61 Quesnays theories can still be read as a more sophisticated way of celebrating the French terroir, the land of plenty. Despite Quesnay and his friends the physiocrats, luxury remained a key debate during the eighteenth century in many social groups, even more so than it had been previously.62 Discussion about the consumption of the court and nobility became a focus for a much larger public, perhaps because the consumption of luxuries went far beyond the nobility. The new ideas about agriculture did not distract much from the views that luxury was the source of evil for the nation in pamphlets. If the increased consumption of exotic and domestic luxuries challenged the Catholic belief that luxury was a sin, the erce political debates they sparked were about the effects on France of an even higher inux of foreign luxury goods. This opened debates on colonization, on the slave trade, and on the legislation about manufacturing of imitations domestically.

272 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceIt has been argued by John Shovlin that middling elites were concerned about their rank and place and that this new competition for the consumption of luxuries was an element in creating the debate that led to the Revolution. There were no less than 2,869 titles appearing between 1750 and 1789 about economic subjects. Jean Claude Perrolt has argued that this was a higher production than any form of literature including novels.63 The peak of this production was in 1789 with 804 titles, yet as Shovlin puts it, these debates have attracted surprisingly little notice.64 The Catholic debate about sin and luxury receded to some degree and gave way to a concern for the national good rather than concern for ones soul. In this moral and patriotic debate about national wealth, the consumer of foreign luxury came under re. One such notorious instance is an ironic moment of history, when Marie Antoinette, the queen of France, aimed for more simplicity and economy, created a garment called the gaulle, a light frilly white muslin dress tied by a simple ribbon. Her portrait painted in 1783 dressed in a gaulle, holding a pink rose, was exhibited at the Salon by her portraitist Elizabeth Vig-Lebrun. The reaction was immediate and terrible. Elizabeth Weber has an entire chapter devoted the domestic consequences of this vestimentary faux pas. The queen had been painted in her underwear, was one contention, and the other was that this was a foreign outt on a foreigner. Most paradoxically, she had shed her diamonds, feathers, and brocades, which were required by French court dress since Louis XIV. Marie Antoinette was accused of wasting money on foreign imports. The only measure taken to appease the wild rumors about her was to ban imports of muslin from England and the Levant trade.65 Weber shows how after a certain date Marie Antoinette could do no right; even if stimulating domestic industry was patriotic, seen as part of augmenting the wealth of the nation, previously her huge orders of silk from the Lyon silk industry were only interpreted as laying waste to a French industry, since she capriciously required new colors.66 As exotic imported luxuries, or their more affordable French copies, became part of more households, a philosophical debate arose about class, hierarchy, and government. The debate in France had some similarities to the ones taking place in England and in the prosperous Dutch Republic.67 In Europe, and also in colonial North America, the debates about luxury were dominant ones in foreign policy as well as in the domestic sphere. Yet, the philosophical and religious difference between a Catholic society and a Protestant one comes through in subtle ways in the ideas of many of the philosophes writing before the French Revolution.68 Most strikingly, monarchy was central to the debates on luxury taking place in France; the Dutch concentrated on the health of the republic and the need for moderation and simplicity. As is well known, many French thinkers had much in common with their peers across the English Channel, not least of all Montesquieu, whose views on the social utility of commerce, commerce as a civic virtue, were not far from the arguments of those supporting the Hanoverian regime in England.69 Debates on luxury and commerce either questioned or justied the political status quo. Luxury, argued Montesquieu, was necessary for monarchies to prosper.

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 273

Montesquieu and the Debate on Luxury and DespotismThe debate on despotism in France long predated Quesnays work on China. Before China, the models examined by philosophers through travel accounts were Persia, the Ottoman empire, and India under the Mughals. The French precedents for researching Asia were not quite as laudatory as Quesnays. For Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brde et de Montesquieu (16891755), oriental despotism as found in Persia and the Ottoman empire was a corruptive danger. He argued that despotism could best be prevented by a system that was governed by strict laws. Laws would have to oversee and regulate several different bodies, which in turn exercised different forms of power: legislative, executive, and judicial. As examined in a previous chapter, despotism was already central to Jean Bodins political ideas about republics and monarchies. Jean Bodin had already formulated the idea that despotism was oriental and not acceptable in Europe. On luxury and monarchy Mostesquieu wrote:As wealth is unequally divided in accord with the constitution of monarchies, there must be luxury. If wealthy men do not spend much, the poor will die of hunger. There rich must indeed spend in proportion to the inequality of fortunes, and, as we have said, luxury must increase in this proportion. Individual wealth has increased only because it has removed physical necessities from a part of the citizens; these must, therefore, be returned to them. Thus, for the monarchical state to sustain itself, luxury has to increase from the laborer to the artisan, to the merchant, to the nobles, to the magistrates, to the great lords, to the principle revenue ofcers, to the princes; otherwise all would be lost.70

Wealth and moral goodness in politics were equated. Montesquieu argued that the consumption of luxury goods was a necessity for the preservation of the monarchical state.71 One cannot miss however, that Montesquieu saw luxury as automatically depriving other people, which was part of his argument for restitution. Montesquieu wrote positively about egalitarian consumption on moral grounds: If wealth is equally divided in a state, there will be no luxury, for luxury is founded only on the comforts that one can give oneself from the work of others.72 Montesquieu has a clear sense that the lavish lifestyle of the rich is only possible by depriving the poor: Luxury is founded only on the comforts that one can give oneself from the work of others.73 He stressed that what has been taken should be restored to the poor, as only justly distributed luxury is benecial to society. This ideal of material justice as important to the health of a nation made its way into the writings of Karl Marx. For Montesquieu, a nobleman from Bordeaux, his ancien rgime sense of hierarchy seemed to fail him when he wrote quite democratically about some distribution of wealth. For the monarchical state to sustain itself, luxury has to increase from the laborer to the artisan, to the merchant, to the nobles, to the magistrates, to the great lords, to the principal revenue ofcers, to the princes; otherwise all would be lost.74 The inclusion of the laborer in the distribution of luxury should not be taken for granted, as sumptuary

274 Orientalism in Early Modern Francelegislation was still the order of the day. It is perhaps one of the earliest writings on consumption as civic duty for the preservation of the social order; even the poor had a duty to consume for the good of the nation. It reversed the earlier mercantilist views that abstinence from luxury was the formula for the wealth of the nation. It is certainly historically too early to speak of a citizen-consumer as long as there was a monarchy, but Montesquieu argued that the monarchs subjects had a civic duty to increase their consumption of luxury for the good of the monarchy.75 Montesquieus political analysis of societies aimed to isolate characteristics of each kind of government, and luxury is clearly the mark of monarchy in the system he devised. Luxury was a social necessity in monarchy, because it was a clear marker of the proper socioeconomic order, but, on the other hand, Montesquieu wrote that luxury was a sign of social corruption in a republic. He rmly believed that poverty, which he dened as a lack of luxury, ended monarchies, while on the contrary, republics were brought to an end by the corruption created by luxury.76 If Montesquieu believed in upholding monarchies, these positive attitudes toward luxury in his writings would have been a striking contrast from previous views held by the Church and by mercantilists, but they were not, as Montesquieu was a proponent of republics, not monarchies. Their ideas were still close to the Churchs in more than one way. In Christian thought, luxury was tied to both greed and lust. Luxury was closely associated with connotations of sexual depravity. The French term luxe is sometimes coupled by another name in France, luxure, a term from a classical root luxus, meaning excess, indulgence, luxury, and debauchery. Luxus is one of the seven sins. The sin of luxure is depicted as sensual indulgence in French iconography and closely associated with luxuria, meaning excess or riot. Since medieval times, many of the cathedrals in France depicted vice and virtue, which traditionally appeared paired in iconography, just as luxury and chastity were depicted together. The word luxure and the association it had with luxe implied that the consumption of luxury goods and fornication were closely associated in Catholic France. A 1694 dictionary entry makes this clear:LUXE. s. m. Somptuosit excessive, soit dans les habits, soit dans les meubles, soit dans la table. Le luxe est plus grand que jamais. le luxe des habits. cest un homme qui aime le luxe. [excessively sumptuous] Luxure. s. f. Incontinence, lubricit. Le pech de luxure. la luxure est un des sept pechez mortels. Ce mot na guere dusage dans le discours ordinaire. [lubricity] Luxurieux, [luxuri]euse. adj. Lubrique, incontinent. LApostre dit que les luxurieux nauront point de part au Royaume de Dieu. Il na guere dusage dans le discours ordinaire. (Dictionnaire de lAcadmie franaise, 1st ed. (1694); LUXE (Page 672))

On the rose window of Notre Dame, luxury is represented by a woman titivating herself; grooming, overdressing, and excessive consumption stood for self-love, and

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 275it was seen as contrary to the love of God. Many scholars have shown how Marie Antoinette came under such criticism before the revolution, as the kings mistresses had been for two generations.77 In a Catholic context, luxury was certainly not seen as a social necessity for the good of the nation, but as a factor of corruption. Montesquieu and the philosophes maintained this association between excessive consumption and unbridled female sexuality in their writing. For instance, he examined both of them together in book seven of The Spirit of the Laws under: Consequences of the different principles of the three governments in relation to sumptuary laws, luxury, and the condition of women. In this association of luxury and women we nd a third powerful association linked to luxury and women: the East as the locus of luxury. Book seven discusses the consequences of luxury in China, and while examining Montesquieus views about the Orient one also nds many of his ideas on the role of women in different societies. Travel accounts gave Montesquieu sources to develop the comparative work on political economy and law. In The Spirit of the Laws, the abundant comparisons to China, Persia, and the Ottoman empire are not passing references or mere representations, but essential components of his arguments about justice and government.

Luxury and Oriental DespotismMontesquieu argued that luxury was a necessity for monarchy and for the good of the nation when he spoke of Europe, yet in stark contrast he argued that in China and Persia it was a destructive social force. Climate theory justied the difference as the idea that the temperament of peoples was at the root of forms of government. Views about Turkish despotism in France have been the object of Chapter 2 here, but Persia, India, and even China also loomed large in discussions of both despotism and luxury.78 Since antiquity there has been a ubiquitous association between oriental monarchs and their love of luxury and their corruption. Greek and Roman writers, much quoted in the Renaissance and the seventeenth century, brought the image of the Persian kings, Xerxess, love of excess and gold back into literary fashion. A long passage in Spirit of the Laws is devoted to China and luxury, for which Montesquieu used classical sources as well as travel accounts. Montesquieu quoted the traveler Father Jean Baptiste du Halde (16741743) and his writing, Description de lEmpire de la Chine, with the line attributed to the emperor of China: Our luxury is so great, said the Emperor Kia-y that the people embroider the shoes of the boys and girls they are obliged to sell. 79 The slavery of the ruled people and luxury were seen as one, and luxury and submission were associated even in governments that grew weak under its inuence. The chapter that follows this passage from du Halde in the Spirit of the Laws was aptly titled: On the fatal consequence of luxury in China. The French philosopher wrote that after three of four virtuous princes, their successors were mastered

276 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceby corruption, laziness, and luxury. Similar descriptions were also given for many oriental monarchs: They shut themselves in the palace, their spirits grow weak, their lives are short, the family declines, the important men rise up, the eunuchs gain credit, children only are put on the throne; the palace becomes the enemy of the empire ... the emperor is killed by a usurper.80 Montesquieu then saw the same cycle of decline occur anew within the successful usurpers family. In seventeenthcentury travel accounts these sins of luxus and luxuria were also attributed to the Orient, and even directly to Islam by French travelers, yet most of these ideas were inherited by the French travelers from the Greeks and the Romans. Jean Chardins passage on luxury reads as follows: A man would be strangely surprised in Persia who went thither prepossessed with the ideas given of it by ancient authors, particularly Arian, and Quintus Curtius, for to read their accounts of the luxury, effeminacy, delicacy and treasures of the Persians, one would imagine twas a country made up of gold.81 Absurdly, Chardin then went on to write that before Islam, Persia had not succumbed to this destructive corruption of gold and effeminacy. It is startling to read this, as he knew his Greek texts and cited Herodotus on a constant basis, yet he pretended to ignore the many Greek descriptions of Persian effeminacy and luxury dating back to the Greek wars with the Persians, long before the birth of Islam. Despite the fact that Chardin had a rather level-headed and positive description of Islam in his Voyages, Islam was nevertheless seen by Chardin as the cause of Persian luxury and decadence. Both Persia and Chardins work on Safavid Persia were of special inspiration to Montesquieu. Many scholars have analyzed his ctional Persians visiting Paris in the Lettre persanes. Lisa Lowe interpreted the womens revolt and the eunuchs loyalty in the Lettre persanes as the class struggle that the Revolution would be, with the women representing the peasants who deed patriarchy and the eunuch being the nobility who had to guard them for the despotic master.82 It still remains important to trace Montesquieus sources: among his books and sources were the Espion Turc, in a late 1717 edition, the travels of Pitton de Tournefort as they appeared in 1717, and the travels of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier in a rare Rouen edition of 1713. A year after the Lettres persanes appeared, the critics Camusat and Bruzen accused it of copying the LEspion Turc.83 The references to Chardin are Montesquieus most substantial; there were two copies of Jean Chardins Voyages; one was the partial edition of 1687, and he only bought the 1711 edition in 1720.84 Montesquieus use of Chardin as a source is not unique. Jean-Jacques Rousseau referred to Chardin within the text of his Origine de lingalit, and used him as a source, as did Voltaire. Rousseau wrote that Chardin had left nothing more to say about Persia.85 Chardins travels and descriptions of Persia served as a source for social critique and revolutionary ideas against French absolutism. A careful reading of the only uncensored 1735 edition of Chardin reveals that perhaps Chardin himself was not devoid of political criticism toward Louis XIV and

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 277absolutism in France. His contemporaries were probably very aware of this, while scholars of Chardin have not really emphasized this aspect. Jean Chardins travel account of Persia was entirely written and published outside of France, in London and Amsterdam, with the sole exception of a partial Lyon edition of 1687, which is truncated at the point when he reaches Isfahan.86 The only other work he published in France was Le Couronnement de Solemaan Troisime Roi de Perse, published in 1671.87 This work with its prerequisite attering preface to the Sun King conformed to the political expectations of the time. It received royal privilege, a sine qua non for publication in France. As was well known during the ancien rgime, publication of works in the French language in Amsterdam or London signaled possible radicalism and criticism of the monarchy.88 As Jonathan Israel has recently demonstrated in Radical Enlightenment, the proximity of Holland and its printing presses, as well as international universities like Leiden, were instrumental in spreading not only Spinozas ideas but also those of Descartes, who was banned in his native France.89 The inuence of England has been clear for years. The Lettres persanes, as well as many of the works by Diderot and Voltaire, later shared the fate of Chardins accounts. They were also printed in Amsterdam and reached French thinkers and radicals through Holland or England. These were forbidden works; the 1735 Chardin book was full of criticisms of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic faith in general. Louis XIV had made himself a personication of this faith and turned it into a state religion, banning criticism. Any criticism of Catholicism was punished by brutal methods such as the piercing of tongues, and all criticism of the monarchy was seen as high treason. Montesquieu and Voltaire never signed their names to the oriental tales that disguised criticism of their monarchy. As for Chardin, he prudently never published a complete edition until others did it for him after his death in 1712. The two other most inuential texts that served as Persian sources to the philosophers of the Enlightenment who wrote on despotism were translations of ction. A Thousand and One Nights, by Galland, who had obtained a manuscript in Syria, was translated from Arabic into French in 1704. However, it was often erroneously perceived as a tale of Persian origin, born in ancient Iran or having Indian origins, and most thought of it as a general oriental tale.90 Shaharazade, the narrator of now familiar tales such as Aladdin and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, made Galland a household name in France. He never nished his translation. That task fell to Franois Petis de la Croix (16531713), the younger de la Croix, who succeeded his father as an appointed secretary and translator to Louis XIV. In the century and a half that separates Franois Petis de la Croix from Guillaume Postel, French Orientalism had been concentrating on translations and compendiums; very few works in Arabic, Turkish, or Persian were ever printed in France. The younger Petis nished the translation of A Thousand and One Nights between 1710 and 1712, as Galland had passed away, and translated another work, A Thousand and One Days, which is a central book for depictions of Persia and was equally famous.

278 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceGallands Nights and Petis de la Croixs Days have identical structures. Less popular than A Thousand and One Nights, A Thousand and One Days was published only nine times during the eighteenth century and fteen times during the nineteenth century. They were translated into English, Dutch, German, Danish, Spanish, and Italian, and A Thousand and One Days was adapted for the theater by Lesage, Gozzi, and Schiller. So why have they disappeared when Voltaire attested that it was one of the most popular works of his time across Europe? As Voltaire began Zadig he wrote: In the times when the Arabs and Persians were beginning to write the Thousand and One Nights and The Thousand and One Days, Ouloug Beg preferred to read Zadig.91 In the nineteenth century, the Austrian orientalist Joseph von Hammer searched for the original Persian manuscript attributed to a certain dervish Mokhles from Isfahan.92 A Thousand and One Days was declared a fake, as he failed to nd it. This was to be the precursor of a long tradition of fake texts and imitations passed off as a Persian texts, or portraying a Persian context, such as the Lettres persanes. As mentioned, Montesquieu wrote but failed to sign his name to the most famous and politically important of all these fakes. The chief character in Montesquieus Lettres persanes, named Uzbek, was based on a character in A Thousand and One Days, who travels from Isfahan to Paris. Montesquieu had read Jean Chardin, and he reversed the travelers itinerary to Persia and brought the imaginary Isfahani, Uzbek, to Paris. Uzbek wrote letters home addressed to his wives eunuchs in the harem. They were the vehicle of a thorough social critique, not of oriental despotism, but of French society and of despotism and absolutism in general. The Lettres persanes, well known and well studied today, was rst published in 1721 and became a bestselling work with thirty editions. Several European stories and plays (mainly Italian and French) employed the ruse of an oriental observer of European customs in order to criticize their own society, oppose absolutism, and escape royal censorship. The Orient played a large role in these criticisms. That the harem was used as a symbol for the state was made clear by Montesquieu himself:In despotic states princes have always abused marriage. They usually take several wives, especially in that part of the world, Asia, where despotism is, so to speak, naturalized. They have so many children that they can scarcely have any affection for them, nor can the children have any for their brothers. The reigning family resembles the state; it is too weak, and its leader is too strong; it seems extensive, and it amounts to nothing. Artaxerxes had all his children murdered for having plotted against him. It is not credible that fty children would conspire against their father, and still less that they would conspire because he had refused to yield his concubine to his eldest son. It is simpler to believe that this was some intrigue in those seraglios of the East, those places where artice, wickedness, and deceit reign in silence.93

Montesquieus Roxanne, Uzbeks wife in the Lettres persanes, revolted against the rules imposed on her by her master Uzbek and his eunuchs, destroying the whole social order, and thus the state, symbolized by the harem, in her wake. The gure

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 279of the oriental despot, familiar through texts from Bodin to Chardin and glanced at in the Lettres persanes, took formal shape in French political discourse through Montesquieus Spirit of the Laws, quoted earlier. First published in 1748, Book III, Of the Principles of the Three Kinds of Government, used Safavid Persia as the example of despotic government.Difference of Obedience in Moderate and Despotic Governments. In despotic states, the nature of government requires the most passive obedience; and when once the princes will is made known, it ought infallibly to produce its effect ... In Persia, when the king has condemned a person, it is no longer lawful to mention his name, or to intercede in his favour. Even if the prince were intoxicated, or non compos, the decree must be executed; otherwise he would contradict himself, and the law admits of no contradiction. This has been the way of thinking in that country in all ages.

The footnote to this passage in Thomas Nugents 1758 English translation says, see Jean Chardin.94 Other, less overt, passages continued the oriental disguise. A relatively forgotten work, Bijoux indiscrets, studied by Madeleine Dobie, was printed in Amsterdam with no names given either for the publisher or author; nevertheless it sent Diderot to the dungeon of Vincennes where he was imprisoned and interrogated in 1749. The jewels in this orientalist work represent the sexual organs of women in Sultan Mangogols harem. In this surrealist text the sex organs (jewels) are capable of speech, as words uttered through the womens mouths are not deemed truthful. In contrast to their habitual lies, the jewels confessed overtly to their indelity. Sultan Mangogol and his consort, Mirzoza, are the central characters in an obscene discourse held by the jewels in several imaginary languages. Robert Darnton has demonstrated that many politically subversive texts were erotic texts, something that astonishes the modern reader today. He goes on to argue that they were not seen as pornography in the eighteenth century because erotic literature and philosophy were seen as one in this period.95 In this erotic literature that precedes the Revolution, the harem and other elements of Orientalism were an important component of many texts. In hot climates, where despotism usually reigns, passions make themselves felt earlier and as deadened sooner.96 The views on climate held by all of the French seventeenth-century travelers going to Asia such as Thvenot and Chardin, argued, among other things, that the warm climate of Persia encouraged sensual desire. The Orient had become not only the locus of despotism and luxury, but of sensual decadence, based on the views of oriental courts held by many travelers. Sensual decadence was itself coupled with greed, vanity, and the love of luxuryall sins in the Catholic world. These sins rst attributed to the other (i.e., the Persians), were soon to be reected on the new political other inside France: the hated aristocracy. The court aristocrats were dressed in oriental garb in many politically radical texts. This literary mimicry was reminiscent of the celebrations of the carrousel at Versailles and the Tuileries when Louis XIV and the aristocrats were dressed as

280 Orientalism in Early Modern FrancePersians, Turks, and Americans. Choosing oriental disguise for the aristocracy was natural, as nobles had often chosen it for themselves on important occasions. Their unique legislated prerogative to consume exotic imports was a way of showing rank, and in doing so they were orientalized. The fact that the birth of the heir to the French throne was celebrated through horse races by teams representing the Turks, the Persians, and the Americans alone demonstrates the importance of Orientalism and its imagined sartorial splendor in French political discourse. The dauphins carrousel of 1685 was a display of the riches of the Indies. It should therefore come as no surprise that the philosophers chose oriental garb as a disguise for the nobility and the monarchy when they wrote covertly in seemingly long-winded oriental tales against both absolutism and the rule of the aristocracy. For the reign of Louis XV, Thomas Kaiser has argued that after a political rapprochement in 1756 with the Ottomans, the vogue for Turqerie was strong and the aristocracy was avid to portray itself as Turks, and to have portraits in Turkish garb, and cites the portraits of Madame de Pompadour as sultana.97 In this excellent article he also analyzes how views on Turkish despotism shifted with the political needs of France. In an article written about the Revolution, which takes Frances European foreign policy into account, Thomas Kaiser aptly argues that in the wake of Jansenism, which played an energizing role in the resistance to Parliament doing the crowns bidding, there emerged an ideological construct in France, widely diffused, to bring down the ancien rgime on the grounds that it resembled the standard Turkish model. He also points to the fact that, with much encouragement in the Paris cafs of rumors started by the Prussian ambassador, despotism shifted with the political wind and was also applied to Austria after the partition of Poland in 1772. With the new work done on Marie Antoinette and the British practicing blackmail and propagating pornography and pamphlets about the foreign Austrian queen, Kaisers observation that Austria was seen as despotic in the same period takes on even more importance.98 Marie Antoinette arrived in France in 1770 in a politically charged climate against Austria.99 Orientalist garb and disguise in the political criticism in the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Diderot, among others, clearly belongs to mounting political tensions of the pre-Revolutionary period, and as overt social criticism became the norm such a disguise was not needed. Despotism in French discourse was no longer reserved to the Persians as in Montesquieus The Spirit of the Laws. In 1789, to quote Patrice Higonnet: All patriots understood that absolutism was really despotism and that privilege was unnatural.100 The political thought against this form of oriental government, which dated to Jean Bodin, took real agency during the Revolution. The tradition of writing against oriental despotism was established and common enough so that royal censors were not fooled by the disguise of the oriental harem in the Bijoux indiscrets, nor were they taken aback by Diderots talking sex organs, but immediately recognized them as references to a French harem. Madame de Pompadour herself was accused of purveying such a harem for Louis XV, the famous parc aux

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 281cerfs, where barely pubescent girls were sent and imprisoned for the kings pleasure. If Sultan Mangogol was Louis XV, Mirzoza was the Pompadour.101 The harem was no longer the device used to describe those ruled by an oriental despot elsewhere. It has been analyzed at length how and why the harem became a symbol of the repression of the French monarchy against its people.102 Louis XIV created a new police force and the rst prison for women at the Salptrire, where women guilty of adultery or guilty of not attending mass were incarcerated.103 The repression of women, who were the rst targets of this new police, equated female indelity with political treason. In these fake oriental tales, it is female indelity that destroys order in the harem, as presented by Diderot and Montesquieu. In the Lettres persanes, Roxannes indelity and her treason destroyed the sociopolitical order imposed by the oriental despot who ruled the harem and the world outside its walls.104 Revolution inside brought revolution outside as the ruler is rendered impotent. Aside from all of the many uses of Persia by the French philosophers in their political criticism of absolutism, one event surpasses all others in importance. That event is the fall of the Safavids from power in 1722, an event perceived as a revolution and described as such by several French works. It produced a profound effect on the political discourse about the idea of revolution, a few decades before the French Revolution. Many works, among them those of Pre Raynal and Father Krusinski in his Histoire de la Dernire Rvolution de Perse (The History of the Last Revolution of Persia), described not only the Afghan invasion but also the love of Shah Husein for his harem, his love of luxury, and revolts against him in the provinces. The words revolution and revolt came up again and again as the self-indulgent king was contrasted to his starving people who longed to replace him with his brother. As a historian of the Safavids, Laurence Lockhardt was inspired by a long tradition of European writing that concentrated on the fall of the Safavid Shah. In fact, one of the appendixes in Lockhardts book abounds with references to the absurd stories and plays describing the fall of the Safavids from power, such as The Persian Cromwell and Tahmasp II, written in Paris in 1758.105 The Safavids were once again a model for Montesquieu. In another passage in The Spirit of the Laws he wrote of the fragility of oriental despotism for the Safavids in particular:As each prince of the royal family is equally entitled to be elected, it happens that the one who ascends to the throne immediately has his brothers strangled, as in Turkey; or blinded, as in Persia; or driven mad, as with the Monguls; and, if there precautions are not taken, as in Morocco, each time the throne is vacated a horrible civil war follows.106

He went on to say that: We cannot mention these monstrous governments without horror. The Sophi of Persia, dethroned in our days by Mahomet, the son of Myrrweis, saw the constitution subverted before this resolution, because he had been too sparing of blood.107 This last comment about the sparing of blood shows that

282 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceMontesquieu had read Jan Tadeusz Krusinkis account of the peoples support of the Shahs brother, whom he had failed to kill. The fall of the Safavids was not seen simply seen as an Afghan invasion, but as a consequence of decadence, drunkenness, sexual excess, and luxury, and of a weak king. These images of material and sexual debauchery are the very same as those that were soon applied to the French court itself. A few decades before the French Revolution, when one spoke of revolution in Paris one spoke of Safavid Persia. Yet, as always there were several intellectuals who saw things differentlythey were monarchists. Their discourse is far less noticed.

The Royalist: Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron and the Phantom of DespotismNot all orientalists believed in the actual existence of oriental despots. Royalist voices were raised against Montesquieu by some French intellectuals of the next generation. Anquetil-Duperron (17311805) was considered to be the rst orientalist in some traditions. Raymond Schwab presents this contention in his Oriental Renaissance, where he argues for the birth of Orientalism in the eighteenth century with the French in India, and Sad has argued this in his wake.108 Anquetil-Duperrons work needs serious study, as neither author noticed Duperrons politics and his purpose as an orientalist. Anquetil-Duperron railed against Montesquieu in a forgotten work called Dignit du Commerce et lEtat de commerant.109 In this work signed AnquetilDuperron Voyageur, he insisted that only the traveler could judge nations and what is good for nations. In other words, Montesquieu was an armchair traveler who used the work of other travelers, and this was not good enough. Most of the work is devoted to the views the French held about merchants and the examinations of edicts passed under Louis XIV to permit noblemen to trade on a large scale or overseas without losing their rank within the nobility. His prose is full of contempt for Montesquieu, who Anquetil-Duperron contended was preoccupied only by revolution and not deep or honest enough to examine how things really were in France. Anquetil-Duperron was especially cruel to Montesquieus contention that what was useful to government is inherently good. Montesquieu made the absurd argument it is useful therefore it is good. Anquetil-Duperron wrote sarcastically that according to that short-sighted philosophical view: It is good that the Iroquois eat their prisoners of war and the commerce of Negroes is a good thing.110 Among several better-remembered works, Anquetil-Duperron wrote a remarkable book: Lgislation orientale (1778), which argued against the veracity of Montesquieus concept of oriental despotism as expressed thirty years earlier in The Spirit of the Laws (1748).111 Anquetil-Duperrons book on law asserted that oriental despotism did not exist, that the Ottoman empire, Persia, and India were subject to rigorous laws and organized legislation, and he argued for the legality and the rationality of the sociopolitical systems of these countries. He argued this against a long

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 283Greek tradition of attributing oriental despotism to Asia.112 He did this to defend the monarchy in France. His scholarly attempt to describe the governments of the Ottomans, Persians, and Indians as governed by law failed. His book remained unnoticed, and Anquetil-Duperrons hard work to debunk oriental despotism did not get full recognition in the French journal Rpublique des Lettres. As Lucette Valensi has explored, the social and intellectual dimensions of such a failure are inherent to the political climate of France before the French Revolution, where the idea of despotism was a central concept in the criticisms of the institution of monarchy.113 It was precisely because of the same climate that Anquetil-Duperron was exasperated with Montesquieu and tried to demonstrate the phantom of despotism as a fake construct. In this climate Montesquieus success in writing fantasies like the Lettres persanes stands in stark contrast to Anquetil-Duperrons attempt to describe reality as he saw it in Persia or India, described in his Lgislation orientale. His headings speak of his stance, as the rst heading reads: That the manner in which despotism has been represented up to now, which passes for being absolute in these three states cannot but give an absolutely false idea of what they are. Anquetil-Duperron was not content with the usual travelers trope of stating that he was the rst to actually see things as they really were, and he attacked his predecessors for this common statement, throwing out a long tradition formed by many travel accounts, not least of all Berniers.114 Franois Berniers work would have an impact that Anquetil-Duperrons never did, as it inspired Marxs own views on Asia and the Asiatic mode of production. In addition to inspiring Marxs economic classication of Asian societies as different from Europes, other aspects of Berniers work have recently been studied by Siep Stuurman. He saw Berniers work as a rst attempt at a racial classication of the worlds population.115 Unlike Anquetil-Duperrons, Berniers work would have intellectual consequences under the pen of many future admirers. France was not ready for Anquetil-Duperrons royalist stance on the eve of the Revolution, and there was also little patience for his eulogy of commerce in 1789, at a time when luxury and riches and its commerce were associated with the corrupt monarchy and aristocracy of France. Like Chardin and many orientalists before him, Anquetil-Duperron showed that the profession of merchant was considered as a noble pastime in Asia, that shahs were merchants, and that kings could be the highest merchants of their land. He launched into a fulledged eulogy of Louis XVI for his reforms, in particular because he had created the Ministry of Commerce as distinct from the Ministry of Finance.116 Thus in the eyes of many this move exacerbated Louis XVIs sins. Also under attack by Anquetil-Duperron were all the writings by French humanists and philosophers, especially Montesquieu, accused of falsifying the state of legal affairs in the Ottoman empire, Persia, and India by inventing oriental despotism. To argue against this, Anquetil-Duperron carefully examined legislation on two fronts: he looked at customary legislation and at the laws regarding property. In his second heading: That in Turkey, in Persia and in Indoustan, there is a code of written law

284 Orientalism in Early Modern Francethat obliges the prince as well as his subjects, Anquetil-Duperron spends a number of pages countering the notion that the monarchs will alone constituted the law and denied that the monarch was above the law as was characteristic of despotic monarchies. In his third heading, Anquetil-Duperron dispelled what was commonly believed about India since Franois Berniers (16201688) travel account, that property only belonged to the despotic monarch, and private property did not exist in despotic oriental regimes. Against this he showed under his third heading: That in these three states individuals hold property both in real estate and goods that they can enjoy freely. Unfortunately Anquetil-Duperrons arguments were forgotten in the literature of the Enlightenment, save for his translations of the Zand Avesta and his writings on the Parsees that brought the ideas of Zoroastrianism to Europe and contributed to deism.117 Unlike Anquetil-Duperron, Berniers work had immense consequences on future thinkers, who carried Berniers concept of oriental despotism in economic writing well into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It was Bernier, as interpreted by Engels, that was going to nd its way into Karl Marxs Das Kapital.118 Anquetil-Duperron pointed to the formation of a tradition, a European canon, through which Asia had been falsely dened. That his ideas were not accepted in France should come as no surprise. In a sense Anquetil-Duperron was a pioneer and a precursor of the ideas that Edward Sad would express in Orientalism two centuries later, in pointing to the formation of this false literary canon. Lgislation orientale was published in Amsterdam in 1778, the mark of sedition to French books even if Anquetil-Duperron was a royalist. However, it did not have the impact of other seditious books. As Anquetil-Duperron was writing, the images of oriental despotism were too important to French domestic politics to be destroyed. His rational descriptions of how Asias monarchies and societies really functioned helped him label despotism a phantom, but now oriental despotism has become instrumental in French politics. Anquetil-Duperrons work was unpopular. As he was trying to displace very old views, images of oriental despotism and oriental sartorial splendor were becoming part of the reproaches made in revolutionary pamphlets against the monarchy, the aristocracy, and especially against the new foreign queen of France Marie Antoinette. Anquetil-Duperron was not alone in defending the monarchy; other royalists, some of them far more famous, wrote oriental tales.119

Candide or the Rejection of RichesAnquetil-Duperron was part of a group of royalist writers who had far bigger celebrities in their camp, Voltaire. Although the king had exiled Voltaire from France, the philosopher remained a royalist.120 Candide came out in 1759 in Geneva. It examined, among other things, views about colonization and luxury. As Jacques Van den Heuvel elegantly argues in his preface: Nothing in Voltaires own life was a stranger to the surreal incidents he described in this fantastic tale.121 Voltaire was deeply

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 285involved in court life under Louis XV, traveled widely, and had shares in several commercial companies. Like Anquetil-Duperron he argued fervently for France to engage in foreign trade. He had read about El Dorado, a utopian paradise lost, in Spanish travel accounts and derided the obstinacy the Spanish showed for its quest, but only because he wanted France to participate in the competition for commerce in Asia.122 Voltaire was for foreign trade but against colonies. In Candide Voltaire depicted the vanity of attributing great value to the New Worlds natural resources, gold and gems. Brazil had been yielding diamonds, gems, and gold for three decades. Candide and his valet Cacambo were dazzled by El Dorados gold, rubies, and emeralds on the toys of children dressed in tattered brocades playing in the streets. To get answers to their questions about this earthly paradise Candide and his valet were guided to a wise old man. The door was silver, the room was covered with gems, and the sofa was upholstered with hummingbirds feathers. The old man had witnessed the revolutions of Peru. He said the Incas had very imprudently quit their own land to conquer another part of the world and for this were destroyed by the Spaniards, but El Dorado was hard to conquer:An Englishman, named Sir Walter Raleigh, actually came very near it a hundred years ago; but the inaccessible rocks and precipices with which our country is surrounded on all sides, has hitherto secured us from the rapacity of the people of Europe, who have an inconceivable fondness for the pebbles and scum of our land, for the sake of which they would murder us all to the very last man.123

Candide listened to the wise man give an account of European rapacity. Voltaire was a staunch critic of Frances colonial policy, dismissing the vast territories of New France as producers of little more than a few furs, but a land that required expensive military protection by the mother country against Great Britain and its colonies. Many shared this view. This was not because he was against imperialism, but because like many in France he believed colonies were harmful to the economic health of France. France was seen as an organic whole. In his article on conomie in the Encyclopedie, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, like many before him, had expressed the view that the state was a body, un corps vivant, organis et semblable celui de lhomme. Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu before them shared the view that colonial conquest was disastrous to France. Linnaeus also shared these views, as did many eighteenth-century intellectuals. For Voltaire, this stance was against the expense and cost to France, and he pointed to philosophical views and to the lack of colonial goods arriving, not the actual colonial policies of the court. He had an equally mixed stance on slavery. He had made an investment in a slave-trading enterprise in the port of Nantes. Slave-trading made him one of the twenty richest men in France, yet even some passages of Candide reveal philosophical hostility to slavery. This form of distance between discourse and policy was, as the book has made clear, far too common to be surprising.

286 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceVoltaire, a historiographer to Louis XVs court, wrote a history of Louis XIV on commission. He was a royalist. He also worked for foreign courts, and he wrote a attering history of Peter the Great. When reproached about his very positive portrait of Peter the Great, which appeared in 1763, and his overt justication of the tsars murder of his own son in the manner of oriental despots, Voltaires answer was that he had been well rewarded. My friend, he said, they gave me some beautiful furs, and I am sensitive to the cold.124 His own commercial interests made him as impatient as Anquetil-Duperron with French views on commerce. Like Anquetil-Duperron he believed in the importance of commerce for France, yet it did not mean he had any reason to have affections for the merchant classes. Voltaire complained that these upstarts became idle courtesans instead as soon as they could:In France the title of marquis is given gratis to any one who will accept of it; and whosoever arrives at Paris from the midst of the most remote provinces with money in his purse ... I need not say which is most useful to a nation; a lord, powdered in the tip of the mode, who knows exactly at what oclock the king rises and goes to bed, and who gives himself airs of grandeur and state, at the same time that he is acting the slave in the ante-chamber of a prime minister; or a merchant, who enriches his country, dispatches orders from his counting-house to Surat and Grand Cairo, and contributes to the felicity of the world.125

Voltaire was the rst who took care of his own social rise and the sartorial splendor that went with it. His complaints were that the merchants did not work hard enough and that the colonies did not bring enough wealth. The utility of merchants to the French state was clear to him if they remained merchants. The special legislation that Louis XIV had passed allowing them to trade in 1669 and again 1701, the very edicts admiringly examined by Anquetil-Duperron in his work on the dignity of commerce, had brought social change that questioned the traditional divisions of classes maintained, among other ways, through sumptuary law. The disdain that merchants had been held in throughout the ancien rgime remained and explains not only Voltaires frustration at their social rise but much of the social tensions between classes that foreshadowed the French Revolution. Against the idea that revolution was in times of economic penury, Alexandre de Tocqueville has argued that France was never as prosperous as before the Revolution.126 Voltaire was right, many had risen well above their rank through wealth. He was among them.

The Death of Colbertism and the French Inspector, and the Rise of the Consumer KingIn a powerful analysis that showed how Colbertism and its state inspections of manufactures were slowly undone by the physiocrats and their followers, Philippe Minard has showed how the ubiquitous inspector, who controlled quality of textiles,

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 287porcelains, and tapestries for the state in the manufactures established by Colbert under Louis XIV, was slowly rendered obsolete by liberal economists arguing for laissez-faire:Le mal franais or un tat tantaculaire enrolled under the liberal banner many historians have subscribed to this somber vision. It is politically correct to incriminate a dirigiste tradition in French economics as if it were a genetic hereditary disease proper to our country ... this stainless Giant [Moloch] state exists only in political mythology. The administrative machine was not a rock or a bloc insensitive to time.127

There was indeed much change under the physiocrats. De Gournay and Turgot argued that the state system of inspection was archaic and in the domain of gothic barbarity. In the good tradition of physiocrats looking at England as a model, inspectors and other state functionaries were seen as parasites of a sterile class that impeded progress. A second argument was that the taxes due on marque, manufacturer brands, collected by the inspectors was an undue burden as the market would regulate itself. Turgot argued that this form of state control over quality was no longer needed, that merchant interest and customer information could automatically regulate the market. Merchants, he argued, had self-interest, they would not cheat on quality as they would lose their customers. Customers, he said, were no longer subjected to the states sumptuary regulations and could chose where to buy and what to wear. They were experienced and could not be duped; they needed no institutional support for judging quality. He made the mistake of thinking that eighteenth-century markets were transparent to consumers from Rouen to Cadis, but nevertheless his views that consumer would rule the market without problems of cheating from the merchant and the manufacturer did produce substantial changes in policy.128 The third argument that did away with state regulation was fashion and the changing tastes of the consumer. Regulation was rigid and could not follow fashion. Production had to follow demand. In the end Necker, always in opposition to the physiocrats, argued for maintaining the ofce of brands, the bureau de marque, as it was the only way to tell domestic production from foreign textiles and objects. He argued that regulation was protecting the national economy against foreign goods. This was a point of compromise between Neckers school of thought and the physiocrats. When it came to national economy against foreign goods, this very divided group of administrators, philosophers, and economists all spoke with one voice. Other regulations prevailed. In a case of laissez nous faire, protgez nous beaucoup, the manufacturers of Indiennes in Beauvais wrote to the authorities in 1778 that they suffered losses due to the insubordination of the workers. Not policing markets was one thing, but French manufacturers were reluctant to let go of the state policing workers. This was in the wake of half a century of confrontation between owners of factories and their workers, the most turbulent episode being a strike of 43 days that was ended through the intervention of the royal army. More than willing

288 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceto do away with the states surveillance on markets, brands, and production norms, the entrepreneurs were only too happy to demand state regulation and policing over workers whom they considered their subordinates by right. The drapers of Louviers spoke of the inhuman despotism of the regulations imposed upon them, while owners spoke of the same regulations as a soft and legitimate way to maintain the subordination of their workers.129 The inspectors and administrators had argued against laissez-faire by pointing to the Achilles heel of the French merchants, the trahison bourgeoise, the litany, repeated by Voltaire, that conservative royalists employed against merchant upstarts. The inspectors argued that only they were at the service of the nation and cared about the national good of France, while merchants only aimed to earn enough to buy a municipal or judicial charge to cease to be a merchant and rise above their station. They pointed to the exceptions: the Protestants of Nmes, true to their class and true to their country. They argued that only state regulation could keep these greedy opportunists from using immediate gain to rise above their station and forsake French commerce.130 Indeed, the issue of class and commerce was a deep issue that did not preoccupy the English or the Dutch. If there was a mal franais, it was not the tentacles of the state, it was social disdain for commerce and obsession with rank. Throughout the ancien rgime laws had to be made by Richelieu and later Colbert, among others, to encourage noblemen to enter into trade, and promised that this would not lead to loss of rank as had traditionally been the case in France. Ultimately views about commerce, as views about luxury, remained deeply ambiguous. About two decades before the Revolution, when sumptuary laws were no longer respected and a new class of rich bourgeoisie and artisans appropriated the privileges of the nobility, the competition for luxury was at its ercest. Marie Antoinette and her excessive consumption, and the rise of her very wealthy seamstress and her hairdresser to privileges previously only reserved to the nobility at court, symbolized this immense social change.131 Heightened consumption of luxury goods, many of them still exotic, such as diamonds and ostrich plumes, was impoverishing the nobility and making marquis out of merchants.132 In the two decades before the revolution a generalized sense of corruption and decline was constantly brought up in the many pamphlets. Quesnays wish that rank disappear in France and that merit alone prevail was being realized very shortly after his book on Chinese despotism appeared, but in the late 1770s the French mandarins on the rise were not philosophers and scholars, but merchants and craftsmen, coiffeurs, seamstresses, and mercers. Not everyone thought that this was the right path for France; the age-old ambivalent views about luxury and commerce would give rise to a new discourse about virtue, especially since the enrichment of merchants also seemed to spell bankruptcy and debt for the nobility and monarchy. That a large part of Marie Antoinettes debt was to her seamstress Bertin was a case in point.133

Orientalism, Despotism, and Luxury 289As consuming the exotic became a mark of the aristocracy, the new political economy of virtue held that excessive luxury was the cause of the nations economic and moral degeneration at least a decade before the French Revolution.134 In these events, oriental goods, orientalist writings, and views about oriental despotism played no small part. Political discourse about the new domestic order in France during and after the French Revolution would condemn anything foreign and exotic. Patriotic consumption and abstention from foreign goods became a citizens ultimate duty.

This page intentionally left blank


Nations, like narratives, lose their origins in the myths of time and only fully realize their horizons in the minds eye. Such an image of the nationor narrationmight seem impossibly romantic and excessively metaphorical, but it is from those traditions of political thought and literary language that the nation emerges as a powerful historical idea in the west. Homi Bhahba, Nation and Narration1

What was exotic was either eeting or naturalized to become French according to the caprices of political contingency. As Weber shows for clothing, Marie Antoinettes white dress, the Gaulle, once decried as foreign by the Parisians, became the patriotic uniform of most women during the French Revolution. White, the color of the Bourbons, was overwritten as the color of the Revolution. Silk, now rmly established as a domestic French product, was still perceived as exotic. Wearing silk was banned as a foreign commodity after the Revolution in favor of the more patriotic wool, thereby ruining the silk industry of Lyon. The colors worn by the aristocracy and the clergy disappeared from the streets of Paris. Black was deemed evil as it represented the royalist aristocrats. Oriental sartorial splendor, so highly prized by the aristocracy, was seen as corrupt luxury; women donated their precious stones and jewels to the Convention Nationale as a patriotic gesture for France. Consuming what was French became a duty, not only in the instance of wearing wool, but in the use of any product that symbolized the domestic, even when it was not actually French, which signied virtue. As Webers study of the social meaning of dress and textiles shows for Marie Antoinette, splendor had become the mark of the foreign queen, whose wardrobe was seen, be it unjustly or not, to have bankrupted France. Freedom has restored the taste for classical purity in France, proclaimed the main fashion magazine during the rst years of the Revolution.2 Greco-Roman styles were in, orientalist sartorial splendor and luxury associated with the aristocrats were out. The simple white muslin dress once condemned as foreign and therefore ruinous to France was paradoxically worn with patriotic ardor by any revolutionary woman who could afford to be seen in it. It was patriotic, along with cotton and wool, since the Estates General had marked silks and velvets as foreign and as enemies of the Revolution.3 That silk was French and was produced in Lyon did not matter; its ties to the aristocracy made it exotic,


292 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceforeign. The queen, Marie Antoinette, was seen as a foreigner and depicted several times as an exotic animal in pamphlets, most notoriously as an ostrich with her beak open swallowing gold, the gold of France. The caption read I digest gold and silver with ease but cannot digest the constitution.4 An English visitor to Paris remarked that class distinctions had disappeared from dress, that anyone who dared wear a clean shirt was touted as an aristocratic fop.5 Napoleons war exacerbated the view that what was produced on French soil should be celebrated as good for the nation and good for ones health. When the wars threatened to cut supplies of exotic colonial goods, the following was one of the many reactions in the same vein. Customers of the restaurant the Rocher de Cancalle wrote to the owner, Monsieur Comus:When he sees his supply of pepper and ginger diminish, let him double the trufes, when he no longer has tea to pour us after our meals, let him give us Champagne. Of all of the colonial superuities we obstinately only cling to the cup of coffee The Prigord, the Angoumois, Alsace and Normandy are the colonies that Comus affections, as long as they furnish the mre-patrie [the mother land] with milk, her children will be robust and alert and bold. Let us leave sweets to children, tea to the English and spices to palace people. For us, a people with a frank and loyal appetite let us keep to solid dishes as we do for all the rest. The wines of Bordeaux and Bourgogne, the mouton from Beauvais or the Ardennes, will never fail us, the bay leaf that perfumes our sauces is worth more than all of the products of the Indes orientales and occidentales.6

Clearly identied with consuming the exotic were the gens du palais, the aristocrats who had Orientalized and Americanized themselves by consuming imports from les Indes. To be French one ate what the body of the nation, the mre patrie, produced. The metaphor is clear, the fecundity of a female body: Frances milk feeding her young and giving them health and courage. The state as body was a metaphor common to many writers of the Enlightenment, both in France and England. The many female symbols of the French revolution, Victory, Reason, and the Republic, have been noted by several historians. As early as 1754 the Abb Coyer complained that the old word patrie, the fatherland, had been banned since Richelieu, and historian Mona Ozouf noticed that the masculine fatherland did not gure in Frances revolutionary festivals.7 Joan Landes has argued that masculine representation did not disappear, and in fact were still quite ubiquitous. In focusing on the meaning of the Revolutions depictions of the female body, after an analysis of these allegories Landes argues that The new female body of the nation served to legitimate something novelthe individual participation irrespective of status in a universal or collective whole.8 In the same way, the gastronomical journal created by Grimod de La Reynire, quoted earlier, advocated eating products that were universally accessible, eating the produce of France, and it contrasted the milk of France available to all her children, with the exotic spices of the Orient reserved for palace people. Pointing to parallels between the public and the private spheres, Landes

Epilogue 293sees the female embodiment of the nation as eliciting male desire; private passion was bound to public duty through this eroticization of the nation in revolutionary rhetoric. Eating and drinking were private acts, but citizens as consumers were taking part of a public political act by choosing what to swallow, what to eat, what to consume. To eat the produce of France was not simply patriotic, it was participation in the collective identity of France, in the body of France, the land of plenty. Orientalism before the very end of the eighteenth century was rst and foremost about France, a form of very active political participation in domestic issues, as in the debate for or against monarchy. The royalist Anquetil-Duperron was scientically describing Ottoman legislation to a skeptical audience in France to legitimate the rule of his monarch. Postel was arguing for his monarchs legitimacy in Europe, as was Bodin while discussing the sultan or oriental despotism. Oriental despotism was instrumental to debates on domestic issues, as Thomas Kaiser has shown for the eighteenth century with regard to Frances foreign policy.9 Anquetil-Duperron could not banish oriental despotism, nor prove it was a phantom. What came across well during that period was Count Volnays views on the decay of the Ottoman empire and the corrupt rule of the despotic sultan. Volnay was made famous by Edward Sads discussion of how he inspired Napoleons expedition to Egypt.10 Travel was so important to him that he had changed his identity and gave himself the name Volnay on the eve of his departure for the Ottoman empire.11 Volnays work encouraged many expeditions, among them a Danish expedition that took six years, from 1761 to 1767, to Arabia as described by its sole survivor, Carl Niebhur. According to Justin Stagl, this was to become a model for many European expeditions to follow. These expeditions were to be supplied with an elaborate questionnaire prepared by a team of scholars under the direction of the orientalist Johann David Michelis. Despite never being used in Egypt, Micheliss survey became a European success, and it was immediately translated into Dutch and French. Centuries after Ramus, the questionnaire was still touted as the best tool for travelers. The questionnaire elaborated by Michelis had a profound effect on French orientalists through the agency of the Comte de Volnay. In 1783, Volnay left for Egypt. He was twenty-six years old. Since the age of seventeen, thanks to an annuity inherited from his mother, Volnay had been part of the main salons of Paris. He had been inuenced by Diderot, the Baron dHolbach, and Condorcet. In the encyclopedist fashion he was hoping to become the founder of a universal science. He believed that going to the Ottoman empire was going to allow this ambition to come truetravel would lead him to the science of man (science de lhomme).12 Despite the fact that his scientic aims have been called a cover, there is no doubt he believed in them, and there is also no doubt that he was a secret agent for the minister Vergennes, a former consul to the Ottoman empire and an ardent admirer of Turkey and the Turks. Once in the Ottoman empire Volnay stayed as inconspicuous as possible as he fullled his mission of gathering information based on the principles of the Michelis questionnaire.

294 Orientalism in Early Modern FranceAfter a tour of North America gathering similar information, he returned to Paris where he promptly published a two-volume travel account that was an immediate success. His Voyage en Egypte en Syrie pendant les annes 1783, 1784 et 1785, published in Paris in 1785 and 1787, was acclaimed as a masterpiece. After the death of his patron Vergennes, he published a successful sequel to his travel account called Considration sur la Guerre actuelle des Turcs in 1788, which he certainly could not have written while Vergennes, a fervent admirer of the Ottomans, was alive. There were always several views, even in the exact same period of time, about the Ottomans, Islam, and the Orient. In the Considration sur la Guerre actuelle des Turcs, quite unlike his contemporary Anquetil-Duperron, Volnay elaborated on his negative views on the despotically ruled Ottoman empire and was the rst to discuss in writing the possibility of the French conquest of Egypt, a hot political debate in French political milieus.13 He discussed the issue, however, in order to strongly recommend against the planning of a French expedition with the conquest of Egypt as an aim. Like many before him, he believed that colonies were not good for France. Volnay inherited the views of the physiocrats, and he became famous for his books, not his experiments in agriculture; like Linnaeus he wanted to domesticate the exotic. Volnay was sent to Corisca by the government of the Directoire, armed with his questionnaire to gather information and farm exotic produce. He bought a farm to experiment with planting oriental crops in the hope of growing enough domestically to avoid foreign imports. Volnay made the acquaintance of the Bonaparte family in Corsica. Despite the fact that by the time Napoleon Bonaparte was to embark with his troops on the ship LOrient destined for Egypt the two men were on very bad terms, Volnays writings were by all accounts still instrumental to Bonapartes thinking about the Ottomans and to his ambitions, but in fact Volnay was opposed to the project. Perhaps the best known instance of describing this relationship of text to conquest is Edward Sads.14 Once Napoleon was in Egypt, Volnay sent one of his ubiquitous questionnaires to Cairo for the use of the scholars researching Egypts curiosities under the vice presidency of Napoleon Bonaparte, who made two questionnaires and dismissed Volnays. The staff of 167 scholars accompanying Napoleon to Egypt was also organized within a new institution, the Institut dEgypte, an academy to coordinate all the research on Egypt. Napoleon was loath to give Volnay the credit he was due. Volnay had worked out the questionnaire with the cooperation of the famous orientalist Jean-Louis Langls and the linguist Grgoire, who were both, as he was himself, members of the new Institut de France, for which the questionnaire was eventually to become a statistical tool to classify the people of France. As Justin Stagl has argued, in that age of patriotic travel, of ars apodemica, the art of travel that survived was in its most archaic form, and reincarnated as ethnographic eldwork.15 The questionnaire was made specically to collect information about the religions, languages, sects, ethnic groups, and local conditions in Egypt, but it would nd its best use in France.

Epilogue 295The Institut dEgypte came up with a method to serve the French state that went beyond the questionnaire, and it formed a permanent commission in charge of coordinating the reports of all the travelers going of the Orient. The goal was to collect instrumental information about the geography, antiquities, agriculture, and commerce of the countries visited. Preferably, this was to be done by specic answers to the institutes questionnaires, devised by Bonaparte on Volnays model.16 It had the ambition to scientically classify the entire Orient at the service of state-power, a state represented at this point by Napoleon and his ambition to conquer Egypt. The political aim of this scientic collection of knowledge about Egypt was clear and best summarized by Edward Sads statement that one goal of the conquest of Egypt was to render it transparent to the French: To render it completely open, to make it totally accessible to French scrutiny.17 The endeavors of this ambitious commission collecting knowledge to provide power to the French state were cut short, like the military expedition, by the capitulation of the French army in 1801. Nevertheless, if imperialism failed, its scientic methods had been highly effective, and in a short time the 167 scholars within the Institut dEgypte collected a massive amount of information. To compensate for Napoleons humiliating defeat in Egypt, the twenty-three massive tomes of the Description de lEgypte were published between the years 1809 and 1823.18 Discourse once again was compensating for imperial failure, but this time, unlike other instances previously examined here, it was closely tied to both action and policy. The massive Description de lEgypte and its universal aims at classication contrasted sharply with the relatively short and simple descriptions of the fauna and ora of the Orient written by individual travelers such as Pierre Belon. Nevertheless, even as early as the sixteenth century, travel accounts were tied to the commercial, military, and diplomatic ambitions of France and Frances history. Travel accounts cannot simply be read as discourse and dissociated from policy, nor can they be read alone without the vast network that produced the travel texts. They often wrote for each other or borrowed from each other, producing an intertextuality in their works that makes it much sounder to analyze them as networks engaged in producing new knowledge than as individuals writing texts. Despite its imperial discourse, French Orientalism did not result in imperial rule beyond France, most of the states attempts failed, and some successes can be attributed to French merchants and corsairs. Even Frances colonies in the Antilles were not won over by the state, but taken over later as a fait accompli. Orientalism did not directly result in statist imperialism, but it succeeded in transforming France, which was the real focus of this discourse about the world. Networks of travelers and orientalists gave rise to important institutions within France. The Collge de France, the Academy of Sciences, the Jardin des Plantes, and the Institut des langues Orientales are all institutions of some importance today and have their roots in Early Modern Orientalism in France and its royal sponsorship. The questionnaires sent out to collect answers since the Huguenot Ramus were a survey aimed at the world beyond France, but in the patriotic eighteenth century they

296 Orientalism in Early Modern Franceturned into the best tool for domestic intelligence, as Justin Stagl has well described. Volnays questionnaire for Egypt was used by the government of France after the Revolution. France had to be conquered by the Directoire and its nationalist ideals. The country had to be cleaned of its superstition, as Catholicism was now called, cleared of its bells and crosses. Information was needed to conquer the remote villages of the Lot and of the Vende. There was, however, nothing modern about this relationship of knowledge to power, of desire born in the quiet act of reading preceding the brutal act of conquest. Alexander had read Ctesias and imagined his conquest of the Orient before his departure.19 After the Revolution the rst territory to conquer was France. In post-revolutionary France the language to impose on this territory was French, along with the culture that went with it. Francis I may have declared French a national language in 1530, but most of Frances population still did not speak French in 1789. The people to convert were not the savages in Canada, or the inhabitants of Egypt, but the Breton, the Basque, the Alsatian, and the Provenal. All the provincial peoples were still speaking their dialects and clinging to local customs. Volnays questionnaire elaborated for Egypt was to nd its application in the provinces of France. Local folklore, Catholic feasts and superstitions, languages other than French, were now exotic to the norms of French citizenship and the uniformity it imposed. In this internal conquest, in this cause of uniformity, as Stagl has shown, Volnays questionnaire emerged as instrumental to the commissaires, the government inspectors who were sent to the provinces by the government during the Directoire.20 Marie Louise Pratt has argued that scholars have failed to notice how imperial experiments were imported back into Europe, to classify, subjugate, and bureaucratize the populations of Europe.21 Mona Ozouf in her work on revolutionary festivals calls this phase a shameful ethnology. If ethnology was born of travel, it would have plenty of applications at home, not only to classify, to observe, but ultimately to subject. In some of the documents left by the commissaries sent out by Franois de Neufchteau with the governments order you will be like a pure faithful mirror to reect the peoples observed, commissaries wrote back to Paris with reports of a resistance perceived as savage.22 The commissioner for the Finistre considered that The barbarous idiom that in many cantons is the exclusive language of the governed is the reef against which all our efforts break.23 In addition to lling out questionnaires and observing, as Ozouf has shown, the commissaries were in charge of conscating crucixes by day (even if they returned at night and proliferated like mushrooms on graves) and in charge of silencing and conscating the bells that marked the time of day, of purging France of any language and superstitious custom that was not French as was part of the Revolutions program. Indeed, Catholicism, once a state religion, and an instrument of Frances imperial conquest, was no longer seen as French, it was a superstition. What was to replace the crosses and bells of Catholicism? On May 24, 1792, people were told that the red cap, the liberty bonnet, one in fact much like the ones worn by Turkish and Huguenot slaves on the galleys, was

Epilogue 297the emblem of emancipation from all servitude in Greece and Rome. It was to be worn by everyone. Weber writes of the moment when a revolutionary forced the red cap on Louis XVIs head at a moment when the king of France lost his authority as monarch.24 The oriental despot was conquered. France saw itself as purged of the despotism of the Bourbons and evoked democratic Greece and Rome as Frances past. Yet, just as the government banned all signs and symbols of Catholicism, of the monarchy and the aristocracy, despite practicing a temporal exoticism by borrowing Greco-Roman garb for its past, France still had to, in Mona Ozoufs words ll the space of dreams for its future:When temporal exoticism failed, this century of voyagers could call on space to feed its dreams. There were the Abb Mallets Danes who held pure religious festivities in the woods to worship a god who was already a Supreme being. There were Mirabeaus Chinese, who had invented symbolic festivals in which the emperor himself bowed low before the nourishing plow (and who were called upon by the organizers of the Revolutionary Festival of Agriculture, along with the Peruvians to whom the same cult was attributed). There were the civilized nations of the New World, who, Marbly declared, had returned to the principles of Nature herself. Raynal added that they were capable of renewing the world a second time.25

In renewing herself, revolutionary France turned to the world it had explored beyond its borders to nd a universal language of symbols for mankind. The Revolution had no less of an ambition than to break with the past to return to the beginning, to renew the world a second time, but rst it had to make its exotic citizens, the Iroquois of the interior, French.

This page intentionally left blank

NotesIntroduction1. Quotation from Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999), 226, a book that has been an inspiration throughout the years. 2. A good example of how orientalists in later times were rewarded: After he retired from public service in 1792 Sylvestre de Stacy studied Pahalvi and Arabic full-time, and in 1795 he was given a chair in Arabic at the newly founded cole speciale des langues orientales vivantes. In 1806 he became professor of Persian, still holding his chair for Arabic, and secretary of the Academy of Inscriptions from 1832 onwards. He was made a baron in 1813, and, as a rather old man in 1832, he became a peer of France. In 1815 he was rector of the University of Paris. With Abel Rmusat he was joint founder of the Socit asiatique and was inspector of oriental types at the royal printing press. 3. The Egyptian government Web site (http://touregypt.net/featurestories/descrip tion.htm) commemorates this. 4. However, Sad himself showed great interest in the seventeenth century by discussing a few gures like Bethelot de Moulainville. 5. Edward Sad, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 7981. 6. John Doran, Knights and Their Days (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1856), 23. 7. Charles Sigisbert Sonnini de Manincourt, Voyage dans la haute et basse gypte, fait par ordre de lancien gouvernement, et contenant des observations de tous genres (Paris: F. Buisson, 1799). 8 Although the term Orient is no longer the preferred term to refer to Asia, I have used it here because it is the traditional term for Asian countries during the period of this study. 9. Guy Tredaniel (ed.), Guillaume Postel 15101581 (Paris: Edition de la Maisnie, 1985), 197. 10. Sophie Linon-Chipon, Gallia Orientalis: Voyages aux Indes Orientales, 15291722. Potique et imaginaire dun genre littraire en formation (Paris: lUniversit Paris-Sorbonne, 2003). 11. Antoine Galland, Avertissement to Les paroles remarquables, les bons mots et les maximes des Orientaux:Traduction de leurs ouvrages en arabe, en persan & en turc, avec des remarques (Lyon: H. Baritel, 1695), translation my own.


300 Notes12. Dictionnaire de lAcadmie franaise, 1st ed. (1694), 159. 13. Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 5152. 14. Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000). 15. The issue of fashion and the bibliography on it is addressed in the second part of the book in Chapters 7, 8, and 9. 16. Charles Woolsey Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1964), vol. 2, 18795. See also Olivier Pastr, La mthode Colbert, ou, Le patriotisme conomique efcace (Paris: Perrin, 2006). 17. Among the eighteenth-century partisans: Neil McKendrick, John Brewer, and J. H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England (London: Europa Publications, 1982), and Maxine Berg and Elizabeth Eger, eds., Luxury in the Eighteenth Century: Debates, Desires, and Delectable Goods (New York: Pelgrave, 2003). For the Renaissance as a start for modern consumption, the discussion of which is all centered on Italy, see, among others: Richard Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 13001600 (Baltimore, Md., 1993); Richard A. Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 1980); Chandra Mukerji, From Graven Images: Patterns of Modern Materialism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983); Lisa Jardine, Worldly Goods: A New History of the Renaissance (New York: Nan E. Talese, 1996); and Paula Findlen, Possessing the Past: The Material World of the Italian Renaissance, American Historical Review 103, no. 1 (February 1998): 83114. For the Dutch Republic as the rst locus of consumerism in the seventeenth century see Jan de Vries, Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age in Theory and Practice, in Berg and Eger, eds., Luxury in the Eighteenth Century, 41. For seventeenth-century origins in England: Linda Levy Peck, Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Concerning the bourgeois vs. aristocratic origins of modern consumption, the classic debate was between Werner Sombart and Max Weber. Those who see the locus of the consumer revolution in eighteenth-century Britain point to the ascending middle classes, while those who locate it earlier focus on the French courts and Italian cities to point to the aristocratic origins of consumption. For de Vries, the urban society of the Golden Age Dutch Republic generated modern consumer behavior; Luxury in the Dutch Golden Age. For an overview on the debates, see Jean-Christophe Agnew, Coming Up for Air: Consumer Culture in Historical Perspective, in John Brewer and Roy Porter, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods (London: Routledge, 1993), 2325, and Craig Clunas, Modernity Global and Local: Consumption and the Rise of the West, American Historical Review 104, no. 5 (December, 1999): 14971511.

Notes 30118. Caroline Weber, Queen of Fashion: What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2006). 19. For the many who wrote about the subject before Sad see: David R. Blanks and Michael Frassetto, eds., Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Perception of Other (New York: St. Martins Press, 1999). For a near complete list of the many people who have added their own words to amend Sads binary views of Orient and Occident see Jeffrey Cass, in Interrogating Orientalism: Contextual Approaches and Pedagogical Practices, ed. Diane Long Hoeveler and Jeffrey Cass (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2006), 125. 20. I would like to thank Madeleine Dobie at Columbia University for sending me the proofs of her upcoming article on furniture. 21. Madeleine Dobie, Foreign Bodies: Gender, Language, and Culture in French Orientalism (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001); see Chapter 3, Intimacy Exposed: Gender, Race and Language in the Oriental Tale, and especially illustrations on pages 9395 for French furniture. 22. Madeline Dobie, Orientalism, Colonialism and Furniture in Eighteenth-Century France, in Furnishing the Eighteenth Century, ed. Kathryn Norberg and Dena Goodman (New York: Routledge, 2007), 1336. 23. Michle Longino, Orientalism in French Classical Drama (London: Cambridge University Press, 2002) is devoted to Orientalism in plays by Molire, Corneille, and Racine. 24. Dominique Carnoy, Reprsentations de lIslam dans la France du XVIIe sicle (Paris: LHarmattan, 1998). 25. Fatma Mge Gek, East Encounters West: France and the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 26. See Chapter 7 in this book. 27. Roy Porter is chief among them. Roy Porter and John Brewer, eds., Consumption and the World of Goods (London: Routledge, 1994). Chandra Mukerji, Territorial Ambitions and the Gardens of Versailles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 28. One of the rare recent books about the subject is Alastair Hamilton, Arab Culture and Ottoman Magnicence in Antwerps Golden Age (Oxford: Arcadian Library, 2001). 29. Glru Necipoglu, Architecture, Ceremonial and Power: The Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991). 30. Jerry Brotton, Trading Territories: Mapping the Early Modern World (London: Reaktion Books, 1997); Kim Hall, Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995). 31. Lisa Jardine and Jerry Brotton, Global Interests: Renaissance Art between East and West (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002). 32. Campbell, Wonder and Science.

302 Notes33. Full title: G. Boucher de la Richarderie, Bibliothque universelle des voyages, ou Notice complte et raisonne de tous les voyages anciens et modernes dans les diffrentes parties du monde, publis tant en langue franaise quen langues trangres, classs par ordre de pays dans leur srie chronologique; avec des extraits plus ou moins rapides des voyages les plus estims de chaque pays, et des jugemens motivs sur les relations anciennes qui ont le plus de clbrit (Paris: Treuttel et Wrtz, 1808). Cited in Daniel Roche, Humeurs vagabondes: De la circulation des hommes et de lutilit des voyages (Paris: Fayard, 2003). 34. For ideas of Europe see Anthony Pagden, ed., The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 35. Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, 48. 36. Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, 48. 37. Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, 49. 38. For early ideas of the nation in France see David A. Bell, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 16801800 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). 39. For Guillaume Postel see the following chapter in this book. For Gassendi see Antonia LoLordo, Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007). For Abelard see Peter Abelard, The Letters and Other Writings (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2007).

Chapter 1 The First Orientalist, Guillaume Postel1. De qui est premier, Bibliothque Nationale MSS, f. lat., 3678, f. 49. Original spelling. Unless indicated otherwise all translations in the book are my own. 2. Marion Leathers Kuntz, Guillaume Postel: Prophet of the Restitution of All Things, His Life and Thought (The Hague: Martinus Ninhof Publishers, 1981), 4351. This is an intellectual biography of Postel based on his manuscripts. 3. Lefevre dEtaples, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes Lefvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. E. Eerdmans, 1984), 66. 4. James Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance (New York: E. J. Brill, 1991); for Ficinos interest in Egyptian and Persian astrology see M. Bullard, The Inward Zodiac: A Development in Ficinos Thought on Astrology, Renaissance Quarterly 43, no. 4 (Winter, 1990): 687708. 5. R. Scheller, Imperial Themes in Art and Literature of the Early French Renaissance: The Period of Charles VIII, Simiolus 12 (19811982): 736. 6. Michel de Certeau, Heterologies: Discourse on the Other (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 87.

Notes 3037. Marcel Destombe, Guillaume Postel cartographe, in Guillaume Postel (1581 1981), ed. Guy Trdaniel (Paris: Editions de la Maisnie, 1985), 371. 8. The experts on Postel are: Franois Secret, William Bouwsma, and Marion Kuntz. Secret and Kuntz have devoted most of their work to Postel. Both still nd his work enigmatic and difcult to analyze. Most of Postels seventy works remain unexplored. 9. Nations, like narratives, lose their origins in the myths of time and only fully realize their horizons in the minds eye. Such an image of the nationor narrationmight seem impossibly romantic and excessively metaphorical, but it is from those traditions of political thought and literary language that the nation emerges as a powerful historical idea in the west. Homi Bhahba, Nation and Narration (New York: Routledge, 1990), 1. 10. Marion Kuntz, The Universal Monarchy, in Trdaniel, Guillaume Postel 15811918, 22356. 11. Kuntz, Guillaume Postel, 25053. 12. David A. Bell, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). 13. Marion Leathers Kuntz, Guillaume Postel and the World State: Restitution and the Universal Monarchy, History of European Ideas 4, no. 3 (1984): 299323. 14. Jose Balagna Coustou, Arabe et humanisme dans la France des derniers Valois (Paris: Editions Maisonneuve et Larose, 1989), 42. For literacy during this period see Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern