Icon - ResearchSpace@Auckland - The University of Auckland

the means of entry to “Turkish”, not to ‘Muslim’, Heaven: ethnicity stands for religionas religion does for ethnicity. However, the Christian side is more diverse than theOther.The pro-Western, anti-Eastern attitude is strongest in The Siege of Corinth. Indeed, itmight have gratified the New Review article’s writer, who complained about the use ofthe term “infidel” against Christians in The Giaour, to read The Siege of Corinth,which begins with an Advertisement taken from David Jones’ A Compleat History ofthe Turks (1718-9), using the term “infidels” for the Ottoman Muslims (McGann3.322: Advertisement, 11). The term is then applied consistently to Muslimsthroughout The Siege (SC 21.527, 24.705, 27.832), but not used in the poem for theChristians, even when Muslims are speaking together. This consistentlydiscriminatoryusage was followed by at least one reader: the Dublin Examiner usesthe term “infidels” for the Turks in its review of the poem. 275 Thus, also, the poemrefers to Ottoman control of Greece as “the unchristian yoke” (SC 9.178). Thenegated term automatically defines the root, ‘Christian’, as the norm, from which thisinstance is an aberration.Moreover, in The Siege, Byron seems to move towards the all-too-common positionof using religion to justify war. That might seem peculiar for a text which focusesupon the death and destruction resulting from warfare, but it is noteworthy that theMuslims are attacking the Christians, and so the Corinthian casualties are a cause forthe English audience’s sympathy. The Turks are represented as the enemies of allChristians: introducing the Grand Vizier Ali Coumourgi, Byron’s note says,His last order was the decapitation of General Breuner, and some otherGerman prisoners; and his last words, ‘Oh that I could thus serve all theChristian dogs!’ a speech and act not unlike one of Caligula. (McGann 3.485).The note is an explanation of Giaffir’s expression “the curs of Nazareth” (BA 1.4.98).The poet having thus used the description of the Grand Vizier’s words and actions,275 Dublin Examiner, I (May 1816), 9-20, RR, II, 682-688: pp.16, 17 (686, 687).180