Ibn Battuta
provides a neutral perspective on the city of Constantinople. In his description, he explains both the
negatives and positives of the city, which therefore, balance each other
out. He describes how Constantinople is
split into two regions due to a river running through and the second part,
Galata, is rebellious, dirty, and filthy.
However, Battuta also gives a depiction of what seems to be the
prominent feature for the city, the church, since it is explained as being “one
of the greatest churches of the Greeks”.
His portrayal of the other part, Istambul, is definitely neutral because
he does appear to be praising anything. He
just gives a list of all of its features such as the bazaars, city-wall, and
citadel, but never shows absolute admiration for any of these. The information Battuta provides can be
trusted because of the fact that he was not biased in his descriptions. Also, he went to great depths to ensure he
included everything as indicated by his inclusion of the other, but worse,
region of Galata.
Benjamin of
Tudela, based on his article, has a positive outlook on Constantinople. He describes how the wealth of the city
cannot be found in any other area of the world.
Also, he includes that the entertainment the emperor provided was like
that of no other society. The description
of the Greek inhabitants as looking like princes indicates the extent of the
city’s prosperity. The main point he
made to support his positivity was when he expressed that Constantinople was
like no other city in the world except Baghdad, another extremely prosperous
city as well as the center of Islam. All
of these statements of an indication to the idea that Constantinople is unique
in regards to its wealth and high business activity portray Benjamin’s positive
perception of this capital. His
description should not be trusted because it appears to have some bias. His explanations that stated the city or something
about the city was like no other in the world are opinionated and assumptions rather
than truthful facts.
Liudprand
of Cremona's description is clearly presented as a negative perspective on the
city of Constantinople. Throughout his
entire account, he consistently and unenthusiastically describes his
experiences with the city. Right at the
beginning of this piece, his pessimistic attitude is evident as indicated by
his description of the dwelling he was admitted to as a “hateful, waterless,
draughty stone house”. In addition, he
depicts the emperor Nicephorus very negatively in that he is described as being
“a monstrosity of a man, a dwarf”.
During the procession of the emperor, he attacked the wardrobes of the
nobles, tradesmen, and even the emperor.
For example, he portrayed the emperor as looking “more disgusting than
ever in the regalia” that was created for him.
This explanation also cannot be trusted because it is full of bias. It only accounts for his encounter with Constantinople
at one period of time. Unlike the other
descriptions, there is no account of any of the city’s features. The only thing Liudprand did was attack the
people, especially the emperor, living in the city.
No comments:
Post a Comment