maryjane's blog

((Again, I can't get my image to display :(. Here is the link ... ))

The other day my landlord saw my Columbus text sitting out on my kitchen counter and he asked me who Christopher Columbus was. First of all, I was a little taken aback -- Columbus is certainly one of the first names I learned in elementary school. But I told him the first thing that came to mind, which was that he was an asshole-ish navigator. Probably not the best description ever ... but after having read his travelogue, it seems pretty accurate. Perhaps one of the first things to say about Columbus is that his writing, at the very least, is digestible. It's certainly boring, but the travelogue entries are so short that they take seconds to process, like this one from October 25:

"After sunrise he steered WSW until nine o'clock. They made about 5 leagues. Then he changed course to the W. They were making 8 miles an hour until one o'clock in the afternoon, and from then till three o'clock, and they made about 44 miles. Then they sighted land and it was seven or eight islands in a line from north to south, about 5 leagues away, etc." So as per usual, I've tried to find a part of the book that relates to food that I can discuss. Mostly, however, the text just focuses on the idea of trading food. Like here, on November 2, Columbus writes: "[The Admiral] gave [explorers] strings of beads to buy food if they needed to ... He gave them samples of spices to see if they could come across any of them." I suppose what is interesting here is the idea of collecting spices; this does reflect on how important spices were to the explorers, particularly as a bargaining tool. (It's also interesting to consider trading food, although, for beads ... I understand that beads would have had importance as a luxury and a foreign import; I'm really just mentioning this because I thought it was funny to think about trying to trade a string of beads for dinner today.) Again, spices are mentioned on January 1, when an explorer returns to the ship telling this tale, which the Admiral relates, of a place where the spices are bountiful: "The spices they eat (says the Admiral) are many and worth more than pepper and allspice. He had ordered those whom he wanted to leave behind that they should obtain as much as they could." I was interested in the talk of spices so I read this site (http://www.lakesideschool.org/studentweb/worldhistory/globalcontactsb/sp...) to learn more. Perhaps the spices seemed to be worth more than pepper, but black pepper's trade was really sparked by Columbus. It's important for flavor, of course; also it can sometimes be used along with other spices to help preserve food. The very idea of trading black pepper and working hard to find black pepper today is laughable. But it happened a lot, obviously, during the spice trade time and the trade is frequently mentioned in Columbus' travelogue: Sunday November 6: "The Admiral showed the Indians there some cinnamon and pepper, apparently some which he had brought from Castile as a sample, and they recognised it, he says, and made signs that there was a lot of it nearby to the SE." And the spices have so many uses (as the spice website points out -- I'm particularly interested in the magical reasons use; I wish Columbus had spoke more about that). On Sunday October 21, Columbus writes about the trees he sees on one island, and how valuable he believes their spices would be for healing back in Spain. However he then points out that he doesn't understand the trees, so he doesn't want to take home the spices they offer: "I believe that there are on the islands many plants and trees which would be of great value in Spain as dyes and medicinal spices." The text as a whole is a little dry, but perhaps this is reflexive in Columbus' days being dry, the food being dry, gathering water to keep on the ship every day being dry. His journey in its entirety was eventful and a lot was accomplished -- but his travelogue just makes the days feel long, and somehow the pompous Columbus makes "sailing the ocean blue" seem like a bore.

Here are five things I learned from this class

1.     The readings were interesting. I’d never read any of them and that was fascinating to me. Some of them had dry spots — but in general, the stories told in them were interesting, not at all boring.

2.     I wish I would have been a better student during the class; as I’m finishing the readings and blog posts now there are bits I’d like to discuss with other students, like my thoughts on Ibn Battuta — things I wish I could have talked about in class.

3.     Almost every text can relate to my concentration (food writing) somehow. Actually, this relationship was pretty easy to find in most of the texts. And doing so made writing posts more fun, and searching the readings for mentions of food meant the reading was more personally interesting to me. Also, as a food lover, the texts were so encouraging and made me think a lot about the universality of food and what it means to different cultures; how differently groups of people approach gathering and eating food.

4.     But there were one or two texts where this was sort of quite impractical, or food was barely mentioned. And in here I learned more about travel writing in general. I think trying to focus on food so much may have hurt me; I just learned more about what I already love. While that’s good, I wasn’t learning much about other topics. However, reading those one or two texts where I could extract much about food was really interesting.

5.     I loved all the videos in class, particularly learning about the Hajj and Mecca. Ibn Battuta was definitely the most interesting text, I thought, and I loved these videos likewise. The videos showed me something I’d never been exposed to, and really brought a picture to the text.

(I've been trying to insert the picture, but I can't seem to. For what it's worth ... the image is linked here)

Here’s the passage I’m focusing on:

<< During my stay at Alexandria I had heard of the pious Shaykh al-Murshidi, who bestowed gifts miraculously created at his desire. He lived in solitary retreat in a cell in the country where he was visited by princes and ministers. Parties of men in all ranks of life used to come to him every day and he would supply them all with food. Each one of them would desire to eat some flesh or fruit or sweetmeat at his cell, and to each he would give what he had suggested, though it was frequently out of season. His fame was carried from mouth to mouth far and wide, and the Sultan too had visited him several times in his retreat. I set out from Alexandria to seek this shaykh and passing through Damanhur came to Fawwa [Fua], a beautiful township, close by which, separated from it by a canal, lies the shaykh's cell. I reached this cell about mid-afternoon, and on saluting the shaykh I found that he had with him one of the sultan's aides-de-camp, who had encamped with his troops just outside. The shaykh rose and embraced me, and calling for food invited me to eat. When the hour of the afternoon prayer arrived he set me in front as prayer-leader, and did the same on every occasion when we were together at the times of prayer during my stay. When I wished to sleep he said to me "Go up to the roof of the cell and sleep there " (this was during the summer heats). I said to the officer "In the name of God," but he replied [quoting from the Koran] "There is none of us but has an appointed place." So I mounted to the roof and found there a straw mattress and a leather mat, a water vessel for ritual ablutions, a jar of water and a drinking cup, and I lay down there to sleep.>>

One of the reasons I'm focusing on this passage is because most of the gifts al-Murshidi gives are food and food is my concentration. But also the passage is interesting on its own.

"At the end of part one of Ibn Battuta's travels, he visits Alexandria and is fascinated. He meets many men throughout his journeys with special powers or gifts; in Alexandria he meets a man who has essentially the power to give whatever the receiver needs.

This man — "the pious Shaykh al-Murshidi" bestows "gifts miraculously created at his desire" to those who visit him.

One of the reasons I'm focusing on this passage is because most of the gifts al-Murshidi gives are food and food is my concentration. But also the passage is interesting on its own.

The man can give gifts that can't be found elsewhere; gifts of foods "frequently out of season" or difficult to find. This in itself is astounding; he’s a chef’s dream.

Poor men aren't the only ones to visit him, as one might assume. "Parties of men in all ranks of life used to come to him every day and he would supply them all with food." Here is what I don't understand — why was it necessary for men who were wealthy or upper-class citizens to come visit al-Murshidi? It's almost as if he was the town farmer who created everything at his whim. And this would seem to probably make a town collapse; if no one has to work to produce food (a major reason to work) then why would they. Why would they bother creating their own food if they can just get it from al-Murshidi? It would seem to create laziness; although he is spreading religious gospel in a way when they come visit him, this hardly seems payment for the food they get from him.

What else is interesting: The men visit al-Murshidi, sometimes every day, without ever giving him something in return. It's hard to imagine that a person could be so selfless without making Biblical comparisons. And Ibn Battuta calls al-Murshidi the "pious" man he has heard so much about all around Alexandria, and calls his actions "miraculous." This is almost Jesus-like: The men ask and then receive.

Considering both that the food is unattainable otherwise, and that al-Murshidi acts in a somewhat Jesus-like way, the man's existence is questionable. What does this man's story say for the veracity of all of Ibn Battuta's stories? al-Murshidi's tale is too hard to believe. Why would there have been any hunger at all? And it seems unreal that even the most pious and religious man could have given whenever — would have given whenever. al-Murshidi never denies, at least not in the story. Why not? Even the most religious, the most pious man would seemingly ask something in return.

I know I’m probably looking too deeply at this, but how very strange (and the passage reminded me so much of all of our veracity discussions in class).

(I can see a picture — but I must not be doing it correctly. It shows up here, but not on the blog post)

The Tempest was just as strange and, in parts, unbelievable as most of the other texts we've read in this class, but then ... it's a work of Shakespeare. Of course it's strange and unbelievable.It was very refreshing to read such a lively text — much easier to be lively and interesting when you're not bound by history or telling the truth.

I think the Miranda and Ferdinand plot is particularly fascinating and a good example of another idea I've thought about a lot during this class — what's believable? what's too much? and how do our different perceptions of culture affect our perceptions of history and our abilities to learn and examine situations.

Ferdinand and Miranda meet and are romantically involved really, really quickly. Of course she loves him. He is literally the third person she has ever seen. This following Prospero's attempted murder of Ferdinand.

Just after meeting Miranda, Ferdinand is asking, "How I may bear me here: my prime request,

Which I do last pronounce, is, O you wonder!If you be maid or no?" (Act II)

"All the houses and churches went down. We had to walk seven or eight together, locking arms, to keep from being blown away. Walking in the woods gave us as much fear as the tumbling houses, for the trees were falling, too, and could have killed us. We wandered all night in this raging tempest..."-Ch 1My version of the text didn't call it a hurricane. Did anyone else's? I just was struck by this because even though it was never identified as a hurricane, it was certainly clear exactly what the winds amounted to."found the buhíos deserted, the Indians having fled by canoe in the night. One of the buhíos was big enough to accommodate more than 300 people"-Ch 3I always think of wigwams as being smaller homes, suitable for only one family generally. This obviously contradicts this. Also in my text, this chapter seems to begin with kindness — the crew sends ahead a man who speaks and trades with the Indians. But then the rest of the crew arrives the next day and the Indians have disappeared. When I first read this I was slightly confused; now after having read further into the story I realize it's natural foreshadowing and quite clear.Also — the man traded "fish and venison for trinkets." Why couldn't "the Indians" find their own fish and venison? Were they being kind and accepting his unfair offer (the man likely couldn't make the trinkets), or could they really not hunt for fish and deer? Indeed, deer are native to North America. I don't understand why the European trader was offering up deer.Speaking of eating:"They [the Mariames people] cast away their daughters at birth; the dogs eat them ... if they were to marry off their daughters, the daughters would multiply their enemies until the latter overcame and enslaved the Mariames, who thus preferred to annihilate all daughters ... We asked why they did not themselves marry these girls. They said that marrying relatives would be a disgusting thing; it was far better to kill them than give them to either kin or foe."No part of this passage made sense to me. There are obviously other factors affecting this, but no wonder the Mariames Indians no longer live in Texas. How were they reproducing with flourish when they had to buy all of their wives? The neighboring Yguaces lead similar practices. Their food practices are astounding to us now — but not when I consider the dry stretch of land in what would today likely be Texas that they lived in. "Two or three kinds of root comprise their basic diet" even though much of that root is bitter (and slaved away at by the women, who spend "the wee hours heating the ovens to bake roots" as the "men bear no burdens" Ch 30). And otherwise they eat deer (apparently more skilled than the Indians first mentioned in Ch 2) and spiders, deer dung and poisonous vipers among other things we would never consider food today. I like that the drunks are described as drinking liquor from the cactus.And as depressing as these people sound food-wise (they must move every few days to find more nourishment,) they are described as having wonderful parties and being encouraging people at times of the prickly pear season — "Many times while we were among this people and there was nothing to eat for three or four days, they would try to revive our spirits by telling us not to be sad; soon there would be prickly pears in plenty." (Ch 30)I'm astounded generally by how poorly the Indian tribes de Vaca meets eat. Some stretches of land only have chacan (not-so-good juniper berries) to eat. Then in Chapter 47 de Vaca describes the methods the Indians use to cook without pots or pans. They're inventive ways, and contradict almost everything else I've read about food in this story. To me, and perhaps because de Vaca's view is stilted, the Indians do not seem to be the great farmers I've learned since elementary school they were.

Voltaire: Voltaire's "Candide" from uhseport.net

"The Travels of Marco Polo" is strikingly similar at times to Voltaire's "Candide." Both are books recounting relatively short stories of what would today be considered extraordinary travels.Of course, Voltaire's story is frankly insane. Unbelievable things happen to Candide. But they also happen in Marco Polo. In the prologue alone his brother and uncle sail for days on end, and meet a Prince and his people who essentially fall in love with the brothers because they are Latin. "And when the Envoys beheld the Two Brothers they were amazed, for they had never before seen Latins in that part of the world."But does Marco Polo have as much social commentary as Voltaire's work does? I realize Candide's original political point is not as relevant today, but the underlying point remains. That is, essentially, you might question someone who refuses to compromise a theory on life (like a theory about always living in the "best of all possible worlds" even when you believe your lover has just died and you have nearly been killed and all your money has been lost).But where is the political statement in Marco Polo?I hope there is some subtle political statement in quotoes like this one, where the Prince is speaking with the brothers early in the prologue:"He begged that the Pope would send as many as an hundred persons of our Christian faith; intelligent men."I'm not sure though, if the Khan's obsession with the Latin people and associating Christian faith with intelligent men is a social comment at all. I wonder if really the only commentary is in the larger sense. Kublai Khan doesn't want his favorite and only Latins to leave:"They applied to him several times for leave to go, presenting their request with great respect, but he had such a partiality for them, and liked so much to have them about him, that nothing on earth would persuade him to let them go."But, of course, eventually they do get to leave (the book is called "The Travels"). But Khan takes a particular liking to Marco Polo (even going so far as to christen him as such), though, and there's always a return to him. Is the commentary on learning about other cultures — the "Latin" Marco Polo teaches so much about his life to Kublai Khan who is so very curious; in turn Marco Polo shares with outsiders stories of his time with Prince. Perhaps I'm not reading carefully enough and I'm missing something. To jump back to the first quotation — "And when the Envoys beheld the Two Brothers they were amazed, for they had never before seen Latins in that part of the world." I think this is also appropriate here. It's the same as with Herotodus. Because the King and his Envoys have never met a Latin, are they ignorant? Was Herotodus ignorant for being so astounded by cannibalism? I don't like to say "ignorant" because it has such a negative connotation about it. Is it bad to not know something when you haven't been given an opportunity to learn (the idea is ridiculous)?

"When a man has killed one of the sacred animals, if he did it with malice prepense, he is punished with death; if unwittingly, he has to pay such a fine as the priests choose to impose. When an ibis, however, or a hawk is killed, whether it was done by accident or on purpose, the man must needs die.""There is another set of Indians whose customs are very different. They refuse to put any live animal to death...If one of them (people) is attacked with sickness, he goes forth into the wilderness, and lies down to die; no one has the least concern either for the sick or for the dead."Persians: "He cuts the victim in pieces, and having boiled the flesh, he lays it out upon the tenderest herbage that he can find, trefoil especially. When all is ready, one of the Magi comes forward and chants a hymn, which they say recounts the origin of the gods. It is not lawful to offer sacrifice unless there is a Magus present. After waiting a short time the sacrificer carries the flesh of the victim away with him, and makes whatever use of it he may please."

Even the animals have a certain strange way of dying: "...when they couple, the female seizes the male b the neck at the very moment of the release of the sperm, and hangs on until she has bitten it through. That finishes the male; and the female, too, has to pay for her behaviour, for the young in her belly avenge their father by gnawing at her insides, until they end by eating their way out." (41) "Another tribe...they live on raw meat...when a man falls sick, his closest companions kill him, because, as they put it, their meat would be spoilt if he was allowed to waste away with disease" ... "The invalid protests their is nothing the matter with him .... his friends refuse to accept his protestations, kill him and hold a banquet." (36)

The theme of very mundane death was a prominent and fascinating one in the readings, as evidenced by the above quotes. It blows my mind, until I remember that, in this last quote, Herotodus is discussing cannibals. At first, to me, this kind of society was unbelievable because I was only considering what I'd personally seen with my eyes. But then, of course there is a society outside of my eyes, and I reexamined. I can't help but wonder what Herotodus felt like. Of course he must of been astonished, because he'd never experienced anything similar before. Some parts of the story are unbelievable. But then I consider what Herotodus' fascination and reaction must have been to all of these wonders of life he had never encountered before, like I mentioned earlier. I too am fascinated, too fascinated to care about the veracity of Herotodus' story. How does it affect me one way or the other? Besides, Herotodus forging a way to come out of one's own world and explore others was more important than was documenting history. My blog post is late -- and not as complete as I'd like it to be. I'm planning to edit later, if only for my sake.