The Dance of Text and History: Cultural Poetics and New Historicism

The Dance of Text and History: Cultural Poetics and New Historicism

History has been a focal point for humans for centuries and has contributed to the development of many other scientific fields. However, history has always been a subject of great debate: How is history made? How is it interpreted? While the traditional view of history suggests that the past can be written objectively and that historians can present events in a neutral manner, modern historical theories go beyond this by showing that historical writing is always shaped by a particular perspective and ideology. Approaches like New Historicism and Cultural Materialism argue that history is not just a chronological record of the past but is also a construct woven through social and cultural discourses. In this blog, we will explore the nature of historical writing, how it is shaped through texts and discourses, and the interaction between literature and history, showing that history is not merely a recounting of the past but also a discourse reflecting cultural and political power relations.

Studying literature is not just about reading words—it’s about uncovering the worlds hidden within them. To truly understand books, we must explore the past, society, power structures, and human experiences they reflect. Over time, different approaches have emerged to analyse literature. Among them, three major perspectives stand out: New Criticism, Old Historicism, and New Historicism (Cultural Poetics & Cultural Materialism).

New Criticism: The Text Stands Alone

From the 1940s to the 1960s, New Criticism dominated literary analysis. According to this approach, a literary text existed independently—it didn’t matter who wrote it, who read it, or what historical period it came from. What mattered was the text itself.

New Critics believed meaning could only be found within the words on the page. However, scholars like Stephen Greenblatt argued that this method was too limited. They believed literature couldn’t be fully understood without considering the world that shaped it.

Old Historicism: The Search for "Objective" History

Traditional historians, following Old Historicism, assumed that history could be written objectively. They believed it was possible to reconstruct an accurate and unbiased account of any event, era, or text.

New Historicists challenged this idea. They argued that history is always influenced by the perspectives of those who write it. Just like a novel, history is a story shaped by interpretation rather than an absolute truth.

New Historicism & Cultural Poetics: Literature as a Reflection of Power and Society

By the late 1970s, New Historicism (in the U.S.) and Cultural Materialism (in the U.K.) emerged as alternative approaches. These methods emphasized that literature is deeply connected to historical and social power structures.

According to this perspective:

📌Literature and history are intertwined. A text is influenced by its time period, but it also helps shape that period.

📌History is not absolute truth. Each era interprets past events differently, constructing its own version of reality.

📌Power and literature are inseparable. Texts either reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies.

Key Thinkers and Ideas in New Historicism

📖 D.A. Miller and Louis Montrose argued that literary texts are not just artistic works but also tools of power.

📖 Jonathan Goldberg claimed that each historical era develops its own unique "modes of power" and ways of perceiving truth.

📖 Stephen Greenblatt, in his essay Towards a Poetics of Culture (1987), suggested that no single theory can fully capture the complex relationship between literature and society.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, scholars like Catherine Gallagher, Jonathan Dollimore, Jerome McGann, and others expanded on these ideas. They blurred the boundaries between artistic and social production, treating literature as a cultural act deeply embedded in history.

Final Thoughts: Are Texts Just Words on a Page?

New Historicism and Cultural Poetics invite us to see literature as more than just a creative expression. They encourage us to ask deeper questions about power, ideology, and history.

If you’ve ever wondered while reading a book:

🔍 What was happening in the world when this was written?

🔍 Whose voices are heard, and whose are silenced?

🔍 Is this just a story, or is it reflecting something larger about its time?

Is it possible to study history and literature together?

Yes, and in fact, it is essential! Cultural Materialism and New Historicism examine literary texts not just as artistic works but also as historical and social documents. These two approaches argue that history and literature cannot be evaluated separately, inviting us to read with historical awareness.

CULTURAL MATERIALISM

• Rooted in Marxist thought, it believes that change is possible in all areas, from politics to culture.
• It claims that "literature can create change!" and argues that power structures can always be challenged.
• It analyses how societies' ways of thinking are shaped.

NEW HISTORICISM

• It emphasizes that culture influences everything, including literary texts and even critics themselves.
• It asserts that "texts are never born in a vacuum!" and stresses the importance of considering the social dynamics of the time when interpreting a work.
• It rejects classical historical approaches; history is not a straight line progressing toward a predetermined end but rather a result of many complex interactions.

MICHEL FOUCAULT: HISTORY AS A POWER MECHANISM

According to Foucault:

• History does not progress through simple cause-and-effect relationships.
• Each era has its own "episteme," meaning people define "truth" and "falsehood" based on the intellectual framework of their time.
• To understand history, one must carefully excavate its layers, much like an archaeologist.

CLIFFORD GEERTZ: CULTURE MAKES US WHO WE ARE

Geertz famously said, "There is no such thing as human nature, only culture."

• Culture is the invisible force that shapes a society's ways of thinking and behaviour.
• Understanding culture lies in the details. According to him, the "thick description" method reveals how even the simplest daily events can expose major social dynamics.

TEXTS, HISTORY, AND INTERPRETATION

• Literature is not merely an art form; it also reflects social and political events.
• A text is in constant interaction with its author, society, historical traditions, and readers.
• Every reading is a struggle, as the dynamics between the author, society, and reader are always shifting.

If we truly want to understand a text, we must evaluate it not just between the lines but within its historical and cultural context. While exploring the past, we also discover ourselves. Cultural Materialism and New Historicism offer us not just a deeper understanding of literature but of the world itself

WHAT CULTURAL POETICS REJECTS

• One-sided interpretations of a culture or historical era as a fixed truth.
• The idea is that historians can determine absolute “norms” and “truths.”
• The belief that writers and historians can be completely objective.
• The notion that literary texts exist independently of historical and social contexts.
• The assumption is that history is merely a background for literature rather than an active force shaping it.
• The claim that there is only one correct interpretation of a text.

WHAT CULTURAL POETICS ACCEPTS AND DOES

• It blurs the boundary between history and literature, treating them as interconnected.
• It acknowledges that definitive interpretations are impossible—too many voices have shaped history and texts, and we can never hear them all.
• It recognizes that power dynamics influence both literature and history.
• It sees texts as both shaped by and shaping social forces.
• It examines specific historical moments that influenced (or were influenced by) literary texts, using historical documents as crucial tools.
• It treats history not as mere “background” but as an essential part of interpretation.
• It understands literature as shaping not just historical moments but also its readers and listeners.
• It emphasizes uncovering how a text was formed and the cultural forces that influenced it.
• It argues that neither writers nor critics can be fully objective—everyone is shaped by social biases, cultural influences, and political agendas.

METHODOLOGY: HOW CULTURAL POETICS WORKS

📖 Cultural Poetics begins with the assumption that language both shapes and is shaped by the culture that uses it.

📖 It sees history and literature as nearly identical—both are narratives influenced by their time, their creators, and their readers.

📖 It rejects the idea of a single, objective historical truth. Instead, history itself is viewed as a narrative discourse—a conversation between the past and the present.

📖 Meaning is created through the interplay of different social discourses—there is no hierarchy, and every discourse must be considered.

📖 A text’s significance lies in the cultural system that includes its author, the text itself, and its readers. Ignoring any of these risks falling back into old-fashioned, rigid historicism.

📖 Cultural Poetics encourages us to seek alternative histories ("counter-histories")—perspectives that challenge dominant narratives and bring forward the voices that history often silences.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Cultural Poetics teaches us that literature and history are not just records of the past but living conversations. Every text, every historical event, and every interpretation carries many voices—our own, those of others, those of the past, and even those of the future.

Cultural Poetics scholars, regardless of their specific methodology, begin by assuming that language both shapes and is shaped by the culture that uses it. From this perspective, history and literature are almost synonymous, as both are narrative discourses that interact with their historical contexts, their authors, readers, and present-day cultures. Neither can claim a complete or objective understanding of its content or historical situation, as both are ongoing dialogues with their creators, readers, and cultures. History, in this sense, becomes a narrative discourse, and meaning evolves from the interaction of various social discourses. No discourse holds a hierarchical position; all are necessary and must be investigated in the process of textual analysis. A text’s meaning, as viewed through the lens of Cultural Poetics, resides within a cultural system composed of the interconnected discourses of the author, the text, and the reader.

To truly understand a text's significance and the complex social structure it is a part of, Cultural Poetics critics argue that all three areas—author, text, and reader—must be investigated. Ignoring any one of these risks reverting to old historicism, which fails to recognize the text as a social production. Scholars of Cultural Poetics assert that examining these elements uncovers the intricate relationships among various discourses, showing how narrative discourses like history, literature, and other social productions interact with, define, and are shaped by their cultural context. What we learn through these principles and methods is that there is not one singular voice interpreting texts and our culture, but many voices: our own, others', past voices, present voices, and future voices. This approach opens the door to "counter-histories" or alternative perspectives that are often silenced in traditional historical interpretations.

New Historicism	Cultural Materialism
Concentrates on those at the top of the social hierarchy.	Concentrates on those at the bottom of the social hierarchy
Focuses on the oppressive aspects of society that people have to overcome to achieve change.	Focuses on how that change is wrought
Uses only co-texts that would have been contemporary to the text in question.	Uses co-texts from the entire trajectory of a text’s history
Influenced by Foucault , whose 'discursive practices' are frequently a reinforcement of dominant ideology.	Raymond Williams, whose 'structures of feeling' contain the seeds from which grows resistance to the dominant ideology

What New Historicists Do:

i)   They juxtapose literary and non-literary texts, interpreting literary works through the lens of historical, social, and political contexts.

ii)  They aim to 'defamiliarize' canonical texts by detaching them from the weight of past scholarship, approaching them as if reading them for the first time.

iii) They focus on the role of State power, patriarchal structures, and colonization, exploring how these systems are maintained and reinforced within the text.

iv) They incorporate post-structuralist ideas, particularly Derrida's notion that all aspects of reality are textualized and Foucault’s theory of social structures shaped by dominant discursive practices.

What Cultural Materialist Critics Do:

i) They read literary texts—often Renaissance plays—in a way that recovers the histories of exploitation from which the texts emerged.

ii) They highlight the elements that caused these histories to be lost, such as the commodification of works like Shakespeare's through the heritage industry.

iii) They combine Marxist and feminist approaches to critique dominant ideologies, especially in Shakespeare criticism, in an effort to break from conservative cultural, political, and religious assumptions.

iv) They employ close textual analysis, often using structuralist and post-structuralist techniques, to challenge traditional methods of interpretation shaped by conservative frameworks.

v)  They primarily work within traditional canons, arguing that engaging with more obscure texts is less effective in political debates about national identity or the school curriculum.

Jude the Obscure: The Collapse Between Dream and Reality

  Jude the Obscure: The Collapse Between Dream and Reality

What could be the worst thing that could happen to a person? Losing family? Becoming penniless? Losing a job? Being abandoned? Being betrayed? Impossible love, or perhaps disappointment? Could all these things happen to a person? Yes, they can. In fact, sometimes, they all come at once. Life, at times, is like a ruthless chessboard, putting everything in front of you: losses, betrayals, hardships… How much can a person endure? After how many defeats can they still rise?

First, losing family… When a person loses their first shelter, they feel like they are utterly alone in the world. But eventually, they realize that their greatest refuge is their own soul. But what if the loss is even greater? What if a parent loses a child—loses them not to fate, but to despair? A child’s suicide is perhaps the deepest abyss a heart can fall into. It is not just loss; it is an unbearable question that haunts forever: Could I have saved them?

Then comes poverty… When you've spent your last penny, hopelessness might sink in. But who knows, perhaps the greatest wealth is the courage to begin anew. Losing a job feels like dreams shattering. But perhaps losing it is what takes a person to where they truly belong. Being abandoned? Yes, it hurts. But sometimes those who need to leave, leave, so that a person can find themselves. Being betrayed? A person is hurt the most by a blow from the one they love, but from the ruins of that betrayal, they can rebuild themselves.

If one day everything falls apart, if everything crumbles, what does a person do? They either give up, or they rise from the ashes. Perhaps the hardest lesson life teaches is this: Hitting rock bottom can sometimes be the only way to rise again. And perhaps the worst thing that could happen to a person is losing their hope despite all the pain they’ve experienced. Because if hope is lost, there is nothing left. But if there is even a spark within, then despite everything, one can begin again.

Thomas Hardy explores these various themes through the character of Jude in Jude the Obscure. As Jude drifts between his dreams and reality, the novel questions how much suffering a person can endure. First and foremost, the collapse of dreams forms the foundation of Jude’s story. A humble stonemason aspiring to an intellectual life sees his admiration for Christminster as a sacred purpose. His longing for knowledge and social mobility appears to be his ultimate goal. However, faced with the harsh realities of society and rigid class barriers, his dreams are shattered one by one. The university doors remain closed to someone from his background, ashis birthplace and economic status have already dictated his fate. Hardy exposes the brutal class discrimination of the Victorian era through Jude’s tragic struggle. Another central theme is the destructiveness of love and relationships. Jude’s relationships with Arabella and Sue illustrate how love and marriage can shape an individual’s destiny. Arabella appeals to Jude’s physical desires but lacks emotional depth, portraying a selfish and manipulative character. Sue, on the other hand, is like Jude’s spiritual twin—independent, defiant of marriage, and rejecting traditional female roles. However, her fear of life and deep-seated guilt gradually push her away from Jude. Through these two women, Hardy examines how love influences and ultimately dictates the course of one’s life. Perhaps the most devastating moment in the novel is the death of the children. Jude and Sue’s children, particularly Little Father Time, bring about the novel’s most tragic scene. Believing that the world is cruel and loveless, Little Father Time takes his own life and those of his siblings to relieve his parents of their burden. This event deepens Sue’s internal conflict with her religious beliefs, while for Jude, it marks the beginning of the end. Hardy underscores the sheer brutality of life—sometimes it can be more merciless than one can ever imagine.

Ultimately, Jude’s journey is one from optimism to pessimism, from dreams to reality, from ascent to downfall. Hardy portrays the injustices of Victorian society, the inescapability of fate, and the destructiveness of love. Despite all his losses, Jude’s relentless struggle to hold on to life tests the limits of the human spirit. Yet, in the end, with Jude’s disappearance, Hardy reminds us of this bitter truth: Not everyone can rise from the ashes. For some, life is nothing but a slow and inevitable collapse.

Dream: Jude’s Hopes and Optimism

Christminster: Desire for Education and Intellectual Advancement

Christminster is not just a city for Jude; it is a great dream. From a young age, he has wanted to reach Christminster through his passion for education and knowledge. He sees it not just as a school but as a place of salvation, a kind of heaven. Jude believes that here, he will be able to fulfill his dream and change his life through education. Books, languages, learning— these are all tools of salvation for him.

However, Christminster never truly comes close to him. From the outside, it may appear to be a center of education, knowledge, and culture, but for Jude, it becomes an unreachable place. When he arrives in the city, he realizes that his dreams are not coming true and that the obstacles in his path are greater than he imagined. One day, while talking to Sue about the city, Jude says, “This is a wonderful place.” Sue responds, “Everything here is stone.” Jude doesn’t understand what she means and asks, “Are you talking about the buildings?” Sue replies, “No, I’m talking about the students.” In this dialogue, the difference between Jude’s idealized vision of Christminster and Sue’s more realistic perspective is revealed. While Jude sees Christminster as a place of hope, Sue is referring to the hardened nature of the education system and the relationships between the people there.

Christminster is the greatest love of Jude’s life, but it is also the place where he receives his greatest wound. His dreams begin to slowly fade there, and in his pursuit of education and knowledge, he is forced to face harsh realities. At first, his dreams related to education give him strength and hope, but over time, these dreams turn into nothing more than ruins, leaving Jude in frustration. Hardy presents Christminster as more than just a place; it becomes a symbol that deeply affects Jude’s entire life, leading him to disappointment. This city is the point where ideals and reality clash painfully, the climax of his disillusionment.

Romantic Ideals: Relationships with Sue and Arabella

Jude's marriage to Arabella represents a traditional yet flawed romantic ideal based on physical attraction and societal norms rather than true emotional or intellectual compatibility. Their relationship begins with desire and haste, and their marriage takes place without a foundation for a deeper connection. Arabella’s manipulation and practical reasons show how the passion in their marriage is intertwined with social ambition, leaving Jude feeling trapped in a loveless and unsatisfying marriage. The child from this marriage later shapes the fate of Jude and Sue's children as well. Perhaps here, the author advocates for a more rational approach in marriages, rather than relying on pleasure or physical attraction. The novel primarily focuses on themes of marriage, and Aunt Drusilla frequently warns Sue about this. The author also shows that, before the catastrophes, there is always a forerunner, hinting at the inevitable tragedies approaching.

Jude’s relationship with Sue represents the pursuit of an idealized connection based on intellectual and emotional depth. Sue, whom Jude describes as "the only suitable soul" he has met, awakens a desire for love that transcends societal structures. The two engage in conversations about love, individuality, and social reform, expressing mutual understanding and a desire for freedom. However, despite their intellectual companionship and romantic hopes, their relationship is filled with challenges and is ultimately hindered by external pressures and internal uncertainties. This relationship represents their avoidance of marriage and their repeated reconsideration of this decision. In family traditions, marriage often brought great distress and usually ended in death, which is why they tried to escape it. However, marriage is not just a signature on a document. The tragedy, which their families never let go of, ultimately found them again. Sue’s acceptance of Little Time Father could symbolize the acknowledgment and confrontation of a past mistake, even though the sin was not hers. The author conveys an important message here: some mistakes cannot be compensated.

Jude’s Struggle to Shape His Own Fate

Despite coming from a peasant family, Jude sets out with a grand dream of an academic career and intellectual development. His greatest desire is to overcome societal class differences through education and see himself in a higher social status. However, the class barriers and economic hardships he faces constantly disappoint him. His admiration for Christminster is a symbol of his educational aspirations, but here too, the rigid structures of society stand as obstacles to Jude’s achievements.

Jude’s attempt to transcend the role society has assigned him through education creates an inner void, while he faces similar barriers in his personal relationships. His romantic and intellectual bond with Sue is suffocated by external pressures and societal norms. Traditional social structures, such as marriage, impose their place on them, ultimately hindering their pursuit of freedom and happiness. Jude’s life, despite his continuous efforts, is shaped by the rigid structures of society and his own class.

Up until this point, we have witnessed Jude’s hopes, efforts, and personal life. We have examined how his optimistic outlook shaped the decisions he made in order to achieve his great goals. We have seen how his desire for intellectual development and overcoming class barriers influenced crucial turning points in his life. However, now we will begin to explore the collapse of these dreams. Jude’s efforts, although initially filled with great hope, ultimately lead to a tragic end due to the societal obstacles, disappointments, and internal struggles he encounters.

The Harsh Walls of Society and Collapse

Academic Failure: The Unattainability of Christminster

BIBLIOLL COLLEGE.

SIR: I have read your letter with interest; and, judging from your description of yourself as a working-man, I venture to think that you will have a much better chance of success in life by remaining in your own sphere and sticking to your trade than by adopting any other course. That, therefore, is what I advise you to do.

Yours,

T. TETUPHENAY.

To Mr. J. FAWLEY, Stone-mason.

This letter represents the moment when Jude's enduring optimism comes to an end, marking a shift towards pessimism—or perhaps a confrontation with the harsh realities of life.

"This terribly sensible advice exasperated Jude. He had known all that before. He knew it was true. Yet it seemed a hard slap after ten years of labour, and its effect upon him just now was to make him rise recklessly from the table and, instead of reading as usual, to go downstairs and into the street."

This letter is a harsh rejection of Jude's years of hope and effort. Realizing that his academic dreams will not come true means not only a failure for him but also accepting that his fate is unchangeable. No matter how hard he tries, Jude realizes he cannot overcome the boundaries society has placed on him. His decision to put the books aside and go into the street shows that his belief in knowledge and education has been shaken. This event symbolizes not only the collapse of his academic dreams but also the collapse of Jude's hopes for freedom and upward mobility. He is no longer someone trying to change his destiny but a person doomed to live within society's limits.

Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Frustration in Marriage

"Marriage," as a social institution, has always been considered one of the major themes around which a good number of Victorian novels such as Jude the Obscure revolve. It is believed by many critics that the presentation of "marriage" in this novel has been performed through various literary tones including irony, diatribe, sarcasm, satire, or direct criticism (Ghasemi & Keshavarz, 2012). The concept of marriage is emphasized at the beginning of the novel through Jude’s aunt Drusilla’s words: “The Fawley marriages end badly.” This statement is confirmed through Jude’s own marital experiences throughout the novel. The first example is his marriage to Arabella. Arabella has a completely different from Jude's romantic dreams and intellectual goals. The differences between them are clear from the beginning, and although this flawed marriage appears to be short-lived, its effects will continue for years to come.

The most tangible example of this impact is Jude and Arabella’s child, Little Jude. He is called Little Father Time due to his mature and despairing attitude despite his young age. His fatherless upbringing and the hardships he faces early in life set him apart from his peers. Jude and Sue unreservedly accept Little Jude and try to provide him with a loving home. However, the society they live in excludes not only their non-marital union but also their child. Little Jude grows up in the midst of this exclusion and despair. One of the most striking moments in the novel is the radical decision he makes. Seeing his parents' unhappiness, poverty, and societal pressure, the child, believing his existence to be a burden, takes a horrifying action. He kills his two younger siblings and then commits suicide.

This tragedy painfully illustrates how wrong decisions affect not only the present but also the future in irreversible ways. The societal rejection Jude and Sue face for not conforming to social norms determines not only their fate but also the fate of their innocent child.

Peak of Pessimism

“Done because we are too many” (p. 325).

This sentence summarizes one of the most shocking moments in the novel. The phrase that Little Father Time writes on the wall before his suicide marks the peak of pessimism. This tragic event not only reveals the desperation of a child but also exposes the devastating consequences of social pressure and exclusion. Perhaps Little Father Time did not want to live the same fate as his father, as he too grew up without a family. However, there was a crucial difference: unlike his son, Jude chose to fight against all the difficulties he faced. Even though his aunt did not show him love, he constantly strove for more, seeking knowledge and freedom. In contrast, Little Jude saw no way out in struggle but instead found his escape in death. Moreover, he did not only end his own life but also that of his younger siblings, making the tragedy even more profound. His decision marks one of the most hopeless moments in the novel, becoming one of Hardy’s most powerful critiques of social injustice and individual despair.

This conclusion can also be drawn from a conversation between Sue and Little Father Time the day before the suicide:

 

"Father went away to give us children room, didn’t he?" "Partly."

"It would be better to be out o’ the world than in it, wouldn’t it?"

"It would almost, dear."

"’Tis because of us children, too, isn’t it, that you can’t get a good lodging?" "Well–– people do object to children sometimes."

"Then if children make so much trouble, why do people have ’em?"

(Page 322)

Little Father Time questions his father’s absence and the possibilities created by it for himself, stating that he would prefer to escape from the world. Furthermore, Little Father Time’s comments on children also contain a societal critique. The question, “If children make so much trouble, why do people have ’em?” is a questioning of societal norms and the responsibilities that come with having children. While children are generally expected to be loved and seen as innocent beings, here the negative perspective towards them is reflected due to societal and economic difficulties.

In the following dialogue, Little Father Time clearly expresses his thoughts to Sue:

'And what makes it worse with me is that you are not my real mother, and you needn’t have had me unless you liked. I oughtn’t to have come to ’ee–– that’s the real truth! I troubled ’em in Australia; and I trouble folk here. I wish I hadn’t been born!'

'You couldn’t help it, my dear.'

'I think that whenever children be born that are not wanted they should be killed directly, before their souls come to ’em, and not allowed to grow big and walk about!'"

Despite his young age, Little Father Time feels anger towards the world and the burden of his existence. The lack of emotional support Sue provides as a mother leads Little Father Time to perceive himself as an unloved and unaccepted being. His expression “I wish I hadn’t been born” highlights the suffering and existential crisis life has imposed on him. Furthermore, his radical statement, “children should be killed directly, before their souls come to them,” symbolizes societal pressures and negative views on the existence of children. Little Father Time’s words criticize society's failure to fulfill its responsibility in raising and educating children.

 

Conclusion

Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure deeply explores the collapse between dreams and reality, transitioning between hope and despair. Jude Fawley initially appears as an idealistic figure, seeking education and personal fulfillment. However, as he faces societal pressures, class barriers, and personal tragedies, his dreams slowly crumble, forcing him to confront harsh realities. Through Jude's internal struggle, Hardy illustrates how individuals are crushed by societal structures and how personal dreams often meet a painful reality, highlighting the destructive effects of rigid social systems on individuals during that period.

References

Risling, M. (n.d.). The antisocial fantasies of Jude the obscure. Pivot, York University.

Brandon, D. L. (1971). The biblical parallels of suffering in Jude the obscure. Eastern Illinois University.

Saito, N. (n.d.). The disappearance of the real: Obscurity in Jude the obscure.

Flynn, S. J. (2016). The return of the poor man: Jude the obscure and late Victorian socialism. Gettysburg College.

Ghasemi, P., & Keshavarz, M. (2012). Consolidation of the Victorian marriage tradition in Hardy’s Jude the obscure. Epiphany, 5(1), 1840-3719.

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq: A Diplomat in the Ottoman Court

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq: A Diplomat in the Ottoman Court

Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq was born in 1522 in Lille, a city now situated on the French-Belgian border, then under the rule of Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. He belonged to a noble lineage and was raised in an intellectual milieu profoundly shaped by the Renaissance and the Reformation. His humanist worldview was likely solidified during his academic pursuits at the universities of Leuven, Padua, and Venice. A polymath of his time, Busbecq possessed extensive knowledge in various disciplines, including botany, zoology, and linguistics, and is reputed to have been proficient in eight languages, among them Turkish. Around 1554, he entered the service of Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, and his initial diplomatic assignment was to represent his sovereign at the wedding of Queen Mary Tudor and King Philip II of Spain in England. That same year, he was dispatched to Istanbul on a mission that would later form the basis of his renowned writings. His primary objective was to negotiate the resolution of a protracted border dispute between the Ottoman Empire and Austria. However, the diplomatic process proved lengthy, and he endured approximately eighteen months in semi-confinement at the Ottoman court before returning to his homeland. In 1556, he was once again sent to the Ottoman Empire to finalize the unresolved negotiations.

Jean Baptiste Vanmour - Sultan Ahmet III Receiving a European Ambassador

Tragic End of Şehzade Mustafa

Prince Mustafa was at the height of his youth and had gained great fame as a soldier. Being the son of a Turkish sultan was a great misfortune because when one of them ascended the throne, it meant inevitable death for the others. The Turks did not tolerate rivals to the throne.

When the sultan went to war against Shah Tahmasp of Iran, Rüstem was sent as the chief commander. As he approached the Iranian border, he suddenly stopped and sent a message to the sultan, claiming that he was facing a serious situation. He said he had been betrayed, that the army had been bribed and that they refused to accept anyone but Mustafa. He added that he could not handle the situation alone and urged the sultan to come immediately if he wanted to save his throne. Süleyman immediately set out and sent a letter to Mustafa, summoning him. He told him to clear himself of the accusations and assured him that if he did so, he would not face any danger. Mustafa was in a difficult situation. If he faced his father, he would undoubtedly put himself in danger; if he refused, he would be admitting to treason. Choosing the boldest and most dangerous option, he left Amasya and travelled to his father’s nearby camp. Süleyman had already decided to kill his son before leaving the capital.

When Mustafa arrived at the camp, the soldiers were filled with excitement. They took him to his father’s tent. Everything seemed calm, there were no soldiers, no servants, and no sign of treachery. However, in the inner chamber, a few strong, mute executioners were waiting to kill Mustafa. As soon as he stepped inside, they attacked, trying to strangle him with a bowstring. Mustafa fought bravely. Behind a curtain, Süleyman was watching. When he saw that the execution was taking too long, he leaned forward and gave the executioners a furious, threatening look. The mute men, frightened, tried harder and finally managed to pin Mustafa down, strangling him with the bowstring.

Hüner-nāme, II, Library of the Topkapi Palace Museum, Hazine 1524, f. 168b

Drinking Wine Is Forbidden, But Eating Grapes Is Not

Magnificent Suleiman banned wine. In response, some Greeks came up with a clever plan to challenge his decision. Hoping to make a statement, they uprooted their vineyards and scattered the vines along his path. However, the sultan’s response was not what they expected.When they learned that he would pass through an area with vineyards, they gathered together and uprooted the vines. Some were thrown onto the road, while others were piled onto carts.

When the sultan arrived, he stopped, curious about what had happened. He called the nearest men and asked what they were doing. They replied that since he had banned wine, the vines were now useless, so they were removing them to use as firewood.

In response, Suleiman said:

"You are mistaken; you have misunderstood my intention. I banned the drinking of wine, not the eating of grapes. Grapes are among the noblest fruits bestowed upon man by God. There is nothing stopping you from enjoying fresh grape juice—unless you store it in barrels and, with your harmful inventions, turn it into something improper. Just because apples are not made into wine, should we cut down apple trees? Fools, stop this nonsense and leave these fruitful vineyards alone."

Thus, the Greeks’ clever plan failed completely.

The Intrigues of the Ottoman Palace

I need to repeat what I previously explained about Suleiman’s family. He had five sons. The eldest was Mustafa, born to his concubine, Mahidevran. From his legitimate marriage to Roxolana, he had four more sons: Mehmed, Selim, Bayezid, and Cihangir. Mehmed was married but died at a young age. Selim and Bayezid were still alive.

Death of his youngest son, Cihangir:

When the news of Mustafa’s death reached Istanbul, Cihangir, who was physically and mentally frail (he had a hunchback), became terrified, believing he would meet the same fate. His only hope was that no harm would come to him as long as his father lived. If Suleiman were to die, whoever took the throne next would inevitably see him as a rival, and he would be eliminated along with his brothers. These thoughts filled him with such dread, as if a decree for his execution had already been issued, that he fell ill and died.

Suleiman’s two surviving sons, the elder one, Selim, had been chosen by his father as the heir, while Bayezid had the support of his mother. However, Suleiman wanted only Selim to succeed him after his death. Bayezid, in his quest for the throne, took various measures and even supported a rebellion led by an impostor claiming to be Mustafa. When Suleiman learned of this, he reprimanded the provincial governors for their negligence and ordered them to suppress the revolt. Forces led by Pertev Pasha besieged the rebels, capturing the impostor Mustafa and other leaders, who were then sent to Istanbul. Under torture, the captives confessed Bayezid’s involvement in the rebellion, after which Suleiman had them executed by drowning at sea.

When Bayezid’s punishment became a matter of discussion, Hürrem Sultan cleverly intervened, arguing that her son had made a youthful mistake and should be forgiven. Influenced by his wife, Suleiman softened and pardoned Bayezid, who then appeared before his father and swore his loyalty. Fearing poison, Bayezid hesitated to drink the sherbet offered to him. To ease his son’s worries, Suleiman drank from the same cup, ensuring Bayezid’s temporary safety.

📖 Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq