Indo-Persian Performative Identities and the Harlequin
Agency and Subversion in
The Wonders of Vilayet and The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan
Stevie Friesth
Submitted to the Department of English, Vanderbilt University,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Major,
April 15, 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin:
Performing as the Harlequin and the Parabolic Narrator ……………… 5
Mirza Abu Taleb Kahn:
Performing as the Turkish Noble and the Hafez ………………………….. 21
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
2
Introduction
In 1765, Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin, an Indo-Persian, Muslim man and employee of the
Mughal court, visited England. There, he immersed himself within English high society and
attended cultural events and traditional celebrations. One of these cultural excursions included
a trip to a London playhouse in which he viewed a Harlequinade, which fascinated and
enthralled him. While on the streets of London, I’tesamuddin adopted and mimicked the
performative identity of this theatrical character, comparing the women to the fairies of the
playhouse performance and calling himself a spectacle. He documented these experiences in
his travel narrative, The Wonders of Vilayet.
Thirty-four years later, in 1799, Mirza Abu Taleb Khan1, another Indo-Persian Muslim,
embarked on a voyage to the British Isles, where he also immersed himself in cultural and social
affairs. Much like the man before him, Abu Taleb encountered the Harlequin in a performance
called The Ethiopian. He did not, however, adopt this identity, as it was beneath him both
socially and racially. Instead, he opted to perform the identities of a Turkish nobleman and a
poet, comparing the women of London to the nymphs of Paradise instead of Harlequin fairies.
He documented these experiences in his ethnography, The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan.
While these two men had vastly different travel experiences, the key character that ties
them together is the Harlequin. In the early 16th century, French acting troupes introduced
what would become one of the most notorious and significant characters in English history to
1
For the duration of this thesis, I drop the honorific titles “Mirza” and refer to them as I’tesamuddin and Abu Taleb
for the sole purpose of remaining brief.
3
the London stage, the Harlequin. The Harlequin, with his roots in ancient Greco-Roman miming
and Italian commedia dell’arte traditions, is a pantomime, grotesque hero and trickster. He is
best known for his roles in English Harlequinades, jumping on and off stages, dancing with
fairies, morphing into animals, and playing crude jokes on those who would stand between him
and his lover, Colombine. Harlequin, his black mask, his patchwork costume, and his amusing
antics both enthralled and distressed English audiences. While many took issue with his rude
behavior and worried about the messages he disseminated, popular culture found him
spectacularly entertaining. In the midst of this anxiety, they began to transform him into
something uniquely English, venturing away from Italian and French dramatic forms and adding
cultural and political references that related more directly to the English audience (Lust 49-50).
Thanks to his interactions on and off the stage, his questionable morality, his ambiguous
mask, and his ability to morph, the Harlequin is well known for his inherently liminal existence.
He rejects the dichotomies of player and viewer, of good and evil, and of human and creature.
It is this inherent ambivalence that helps create Harlequin’s subversive nature that later
encouraged I’tesamuddin and Abu Taleb to adopt and reject him as a performative identity .
The Harlequin’s liminal existence allows the two Indo-Persian men the space to mimic Saidian
Orientalist thought in a way that creates a hybrid identity and culture. It is this hybridity that
allows them to maintain agency in the streets of England and develop a stronger devotion to
Allah.
4
Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin: Performing as the Harlequin and the Parabolic Narrator
In 1765, Mirza Sheik I’tesamuddin, a Muslim Indian munshi, traveled with Captain
Swinton of the English East Indian Company to England in order to deliver a letter from the
Mughal emperor to the English Crown. However, due to a mysterious “misplacing” of the
monetary gift customarily attached to such letters, I’tesamuddin was left to explore the foreign
streets of England while he awaited the promised arrival of the properly composed letter . In
his ethnographic travel narrative, The Wonders of Vilayet, he recorded his social and cultural
interactions with the English people and their art.
During his exploration of and experimentation with the English culture , I’tesamuddin
attended several theatrical performance in London playhouses. He begins his description of the
English stage with the following character profile:
There is an elusive man with a black face, a kind of devil, called Harlequin, who
appears and then hides himself, and sometimes attaches himself to the dancing
girls, taking them by the hand and dancing with them, then scampers off and
leaps through the window. (I’tesamuddin 67-68)
Much like the English audiences with which he socialized, the Harlequin greatly entertained
him, for, “at seeing his antics … [I’tesamuddin] laughed very heartily (68). However, the quote
above also points to an even greater cultural significance held by the pantomime trickster than
just mere amusement. Without any apparent knowledge of Harlequin’s social or historical
importance, I’tesamuddin foregrounds his experience with the English stage with a description
of the Harlequin. His text, originally transcribed in Persian and later translated to English, was
5
written for an Indo-Persian audience. As few of those who would read his travel narrative in
the Moghul Empire would ever have the opportunity to travel to England and view a
performance in a London playhouse, I’tesamuddin’s account would be one his audiences’ only
sources for understanding the London stage. Therefore, because he is the first description of
the theatre in I’tesamuddin’s text, the Harlequin is the frame through which I’tesamuddin and
his Persian-speaking audience view English theatre and culture. The fact that he chose to frame
the stage to provide a basic education of English theatre, with a profile of the Harlequin points
to the pantomime characters’ significance to I’tesamuddin and may explain why he adopts the
performative identity of the Harlequin. This section explore that adoption and the implications
it creates in his travel narrative.
In the English public sphere, I’tesamuddin presents himself as a spectacle to beheld with
wonder and awe comparable to the shows he attends while there. This first becomes evident
to the reader when he describes his experience at his first English party. He says, “The
assembled ladies and gentleman thronged around me in wide-eyed amazement and examined
my robe, turban, shawl and other parts of my costume” (I’tesamuddin 53). While the definition
of “costume” is a particular style of clothing from a specific setting, which in this case would be
Bengali garb of the 18th century, the word is also used to refer to the apparel an actor wears on
stage. It is the clothing of his or her character. I’tesamuddin then goes on to say, “How ironic
that I, who had gone there to enjoy a spectacle, became a spectacle myself” (I’tesamuddin 53).
Here, in conjunction with the previous quote and the word “costume” in the terms of its latter
definition, the author actually invokes two different meanings of the word “spectacle .” The
6
first spectacle he refers to is the English party at which he is in attendance . To the foreign eyes
of the Indian Muslim man, it would fall under the following definition of the word: “A … thing …
of curiosity … or of marvel or admiration” (“spectacle, n.1”). The second spectacle is himself,
which would be associated with both the definition above and the following : “A specially
prepared or arranged display … forming an impressive or interesting show” (“spectacle, n.1”
emphasis added). The key word to note here is “show,” for it is in this passage that
I’tesamuddin’s self-casting as a character in a dramatic show, a play, first becomes especially
apparent. In his work, Orientalism, Edward Said explores the historical view and treatment of
the Oriental Other by Western culture. He dubs this treatment Orientalism, or the tendency to
sexualize, other, dominate, and define Eastern culture (Said 159, 191, 207). Furthermore, in
examining European historical documents that describe and study the East, Said notes that
“certain motifs recur consistently … [one of which is] the Orient as a spectacle, or tableau
vivant (159). In I’tesamuddin’s experience at the English party, he becomes a tableau vivant,
taking on the tenants of Saidian Orientalism. However, whether this idea of the living picture
has been self-imposed or imposed upon him is not entirely clear, for he states that he becomes
a spectacle, a passive word that neither explicitly names the creator of said identity nor states
whether I’tesamuddin is willingly performing it. Therefore, I’tesamuddin may be perpetuating
Orientalist thought, experiencing a moment in which Orientalist thought is projected upon him,
or both. This ambivalence continues in the performative identity that he adopts.
What role the traveler has imagined for himself—or has been imagined for him—is not
revealed to the reader until later on in the work, upon I’tesamuddin’s attendance of and
reflection on a play in a London theatre. He says of the production, “Then people disguised as
7
… fairies appear on stage and dance …. There is an elusive man with a black face, a kind of devil,
called Harlequin, who … sometimes attaches himself to the dancing girls” (I’tesamuddin 68). He
then makes it fairly apparent that he rather enjoys the show. At first glance, it may appear to
the reader that this passage simply serves to demonstrate his appreciation for the English visual
arts. However, closer reading and reexamination of earlier passages reveal that this spectacle
actually has a greater effect than that, as it is the mode through which he develops his identity
in the streets of England.
In the aforementioned party scene, I’tesamuddin describes the women as being “lovely
as houris” and says, “their beauty would have shamed even fairies into covering their pretty
faces” (I’tesamuddin 53). This comparison of the English women to fairies suggests that a
connection exists between them and the fairies of the drama he attends. That is to say, in the
dramaturgy of I’tesamuddin, the English ladies are the fairy characters. Later, when he first
arrives in London, the men and women who encounter him in the streets are struck with
curiosity and culture shock at the sight of him. He says that they come “from far and near” to
see him and that they appear “pleased with [his] … costume” (I’tesamuddin 54). This revisiting
of the spectacle and costume imagery works to cement, in the minds of the readers, the idea
that he is a character of a play, and it is in this passage that he reveals his dramatic identity. He
says that the children who see him sometimes take him “for a black devil” (I’tesamuddin 54)
and are afraid of him. The “black devil” is comparable to the “elusive man with a black face, a
kind of devil.” That is, he is Harlequin, who roams the London streets where fairy women flirt
with him, saying “‘Come, my dear, and kiss me!’” (I’tesamuddin 55).
8
These street interactions point to both a sexual, racial, and therefore Orientalist view of
I’tesamuddin’s Otherness. In comparing the English women to fairies and houris, or “nymph[s]
of the Muslim Paradise,” I’tesamuddin not only focuses on and praises the women’s sexuality,
but he also does so with images of mystery most often associated with the Orient ("houri, n").
In fact, after providing the above definition of the term “houri,” the Oxford English Dictionary
continues, “Hence [houri] is applied allusively to a voluptuously beautiful woman” (“houri, n”).
Hyper-sexualization—as can be observed in the words “voluptuously beautiful”—and mystery
are, according to the Western definition and translation, inherent within the word. This
sexuality is then a reflection upon I’tesamuddin’s values as an Indian man. It demonstrates that
he appreciates the “voluptuously beautiful” woman. Furthermore, their desire to kiss him
implies that he is not only entranced by the sexual English houri but that he is also a sexual
being himself. He is desirable and desires, leading to a two tiered hyper-sexuality and therefore
hyper-Orientalism.
Harlequin was, as I’tesamuddin accurately notes, a magical, devilish, and mischievous
figure (O’Brian 40). Originally, the blackness of the Harlequin’s mask started less as a signifier
of race and more a symbol of the night, which was associated with the devil, witchcraft, and
magic. However, at the turn of the 18th century, Harlequin’s blackness became, to the audience
members, more associated with any dark skinned, nonwhite race, especially those of African
descent. In his book, Harlequin Britain, John O’Brian makes note of this:
If … [one] could watch the history of English performance in the form of a film
made through time-lapse photography, … [one] could probably observe with
ease how the significance of blackness changed in the course of the eighteenth
9
century; at one time primarily associated with the devil, black faces would
increasingly, … refer to African subjects. (O’Brian 121)
This blackness and association with the African race, though, did not make Harlequin a villain in
the eyes of his audience. Because he was both enticingly mischievous and a devilish character,
Harlequin was a delightful trickster and Other to the spectators. They would cheer on his antics
even though he was both physically and socially different from them (O’Brian 40). It is,
perhaps, for this reason that I’tesamuddin identified with this grotesque and racially charged
character. That is, as I’tesamuddin was an Other in the eyes of the British, he could identify
with Harlequin. As Harlequin-I’tesamuddin, within his narrative, he appears exotic and is
treated like an oddity by the English, but he is also their beloved trickster, with an agency to
subvert the dominant socio-political structures. It then makes sense that the children fear him,
for they are too young to understand that his “antics,” much like the Harlequin’s, are not evil,
but “mischievous”—or different than those of the English due to cultural differences. However,
one should not entirely dismiss the issue of race within the street interactions. They indicate a
level of racism taught to the children who associated evil and the devil with skin color.
Orientalsim and racial Othering was so embedded within Western culture that even children
perpetuated it and cast it upon I’tesamuddin. Furthermore, it indicates a sense of self-imposed
racial Othering on the part of I’tesamuddin, for he adopts the performative identity of the
Harlequin after he acknowledges the color of the character’s face.
Although he does not directly adopt the identity of the second play he views , perhaps
tangentially with the Harlequinade, the performance plays a key role in his Harlequin identity.
10
After describing the Harlequinade, he continues his discussion of the English theatre by
describing another play he witnessed, one in which a bigamist is pardoned right before his
execution. He provides the following summary:
A Captain’s wife discovers that her husband is a bigamist. She raises a great
clamour, and in a mighty rage lays her complaint before a court of law. Since
bigamy is a capital offence in this country, the judge sentences the man to death.
The plaintiff, who in her years of intimacy with her husband has become deeply
attached to him, is torn with remorse and vows to die with him. She
accompanies him to the place of execution …. The second wife … walks on the
other side of the man … as he proceeds on the road to death . … In the end the
judges, on the King’s recommendation, pardon the Captain. (I’tesamuddin 68).
While it may not be possible to determine, with absolute certainty, the exact play that
I’tesamuddin viewed, it is most likely that the work described above is The Beggar’s Opera,
John Gay’s satirical mock opera. According to John Brewer, after its first performance,
“Productions [of The Beggar’s Opera] were mounted on the London stage in every season until
the end of the century with renewed surges of interest in 1759-1760 (two years which saw
seventy-six performances …)” (Brewer 444). Because I’tesamuddin visited shortly after this
surge and because “the music, images and language of The Beggar’s Opera saturated social
life,” even if the play described above is not The Beggars Opera itself, it is likely that it is based
off or related to Gay’s work (444). It is only fitting, then, that I’tesamuddin, as demonstrated
above, first introduces his experience with the English stage with a description of the Harlequin ,
for both the Harlequinade and Gay’s work are historically and thematically related.
11
Both The Beggars Opera and the Harlequinade, Harlequin Sheppard, share a the
character, Jack Sheppard. In 1724, Jack Sheppard, notorious English thief, broke out of prison
four times before finally being executed upon his fifth imprisonment . His master escape
artistry and thievery made him infamous among public officials and a hero and popular icon
among the poorer classes. Popular ballads, newspapers, and pamphlets favored and glorified
his criminal adventures. Within two weeks of his public hanging, John Thurmond wrote and
directed a Harlequinade honoring his exploits, Harlequin Sheppard: A Night Scene in Grotesque
Character.
This play, first performed at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane, the street that homed
most of Sheppard’s criminal activity and arrests, features Harlequin as Sheppard, opening in a
scene that depicts his first night in prison (Thurmond 5-12). Before this production, Harlequin
was no stranger to escaping and tricking the law. However, Thurmond’s Harlequin Sheppard is
one of the first works in which Harlequin depicts and valorizes a real life criminal , transgressing
the government and criminal justice system on an entirely new level and therefore providing a
more severely subversive narrative. Harlequin Sheppard humorously reenacts Sheppard’s first
jailbreak, his robbing of a pawnshop, his several breaking and enterings, and his eventual
recapture. The criminal actions portrayed in this play subvert English moral values and class
structures by encouraging the appropriation of monetary power through thievery.
Furthermore, while the real Sheppard was eventually executed for his crimes, the Harlequinade
that commemorates him ends after his jailbreak and recapture and does not depict his hanging .
Readers can then expect the story to continue beyond that which is presented on the stage . As
12
Harlequin is notorious for escaping justice and receiving underserved , unwarranted pardons, by
emitting his execution from the text, one is left the freedom to reinvent a happier ending for
the thief. This reimagined story of Sheppard provides for an even greater subversion of the
dominant culture, for justice, the law of the sovereign does not prevail.
The song then continues in its third, fourth, and fifth stanzas, to even further
subvert class hierarchies and powers. It says:
Knaves of Old to hide Guilt, by their cunning Inventions,
Call’d Briberies Grants, and plain Robberies Pensions;
Physicians and Lawyers (who took their Degrees,
To be learned Rogues) call’d their Pilfering, Fees;
…………………………………………………………………………
Some cheat in the Customs, Some rob the Excise,
But he who robs both is esteemed most Wise;
Church-Wardens, who always have dreaded the Halter,
As yet, only venture to steal from the Altar;
…………………………………………………………………………….
Some, by Publick Revenues, which pass’d thro’ their Hands
Have purchas’d clean Houses, and bought dirty Lands;
Some to steal from a Charity think it no Sin,
Which, at home (says the Proverb) does always begin. (Thurmond 17)
This song blatantly chastises middle and higher classes for thinking themselves superior , and it
likens them to the common thief. Grant are bribes, pensions are robberies, doctors and
attorneys thieve in fees, church authorities steal from God, and the government takes through
taxes. Everyone in a position of power and wealth is a criminal. This critique offers an opinion
that was not favored by those who held said power. Its open rejection of monetary hegemony
13
and its renouncement of dominant occupational hierarchies transgressed the norms and
expectations set forth by the privileged. These societal and governmental critiques are exactly
like those that were later expressed in Gay’s The Beggars Opera.
This Harlequinade and the ballads within it were later taken and adapted by John Gay in
his play, The Beggar’s Opera, which was first produced by John “Lun” Rich, one of the most
famous Harlequin performers. Instead of Sheppard’s prison breaks, this play focuses on the
business relationship between Jonathan Wild—represented by the character Peachum—and
Sheppard—represented by the character Macheath—and Wild’s work to ensure his execution.
In addition, instead of parodying popular ballads, The Beggar’s Opera satirizes the operatic
style. However, the premise and language of a number of these songs remain similar to those
of Harlequin Sheppard. For example, the first air, “An old woman clothed in grey,” sung by
Peachum, says:
Through all the employments of life
Each neighbor abuses his brother;
Whore and rogue they call husband and wife;
All professions be-rogue one another.
The priest calls the lawyer a cheat,
The lawyer be-knaves the divine;
And the statesman, because he’s so great,
Thinks his trade as honest as mine. (Gay 1.1.Air 1, page 43)
In this song, which closely resembles the Harlequinade ballad above, Peachum compares his
profession as a boss of a mafia-like organization of thieves to more socially legitimate
professions, such as lawyers, priests, and statesmen. Even though a priest is a respectable
14
person, “the lawyer be-knaves the divine.” This critique shows that all men, from those with
the respectable positions of priest and lawyer, to those with baser professions of thief, equally
abuse each other and cheat each other, leveling the playing field and placing the classes on
equal levels of moral goodness. Just as the ballads of the Harlequinade do, this air acts as a
form of subversion as it denies the existence of the pre-established hierarchy.
It is important to note, however, that I’tesamuddin would not have focused on these
similar political agendas and may not have even noticed them. Instead, due to textual evidence
of his hyper-sexual awareness, I’tesamuddin would have focused his attentions on the sexual
vices of 18th century English society as portrayed in The Beggar’s Opera. Gay’s production
provides a critique of the English marital structure and the subsequent value of the woman in
English society. Peachum and his wife do not want their daughter, Polly, to marry because
doing so will result in her becoming her husband’s property and therefore losing her monetary
value. For, if she is single, she can court a multitude of men and receive expensive gifts from
them in exchange for physical intimacy2. If she is married, she can no longer receives those
gifts from other men, and all money and ornaments she has previously received become the
legal property of her husband. This idea can be observed in Act 1, scene iv when Peachum says:
You see I would indulge the girl as far as prudently we can. In anything, but
marriage! … Are we not then in her husband’s power? For a husband hath the
absolute power over all a wife’s secrets but her own. … If the wench does not
know her own profit, sure she knows her own pleasure better than to make
herself a property! (Gay 50)
2
Abu Taleb Khan makes a similar observation about the courting practices of the Capetonian Dutch women and is
explored in the subsequent section.
15
In these lines, the Polly, and therefore English women, are likened to legal prostitutes, who can
earn more money from multiple men than they can from just one. Furthermore, a daughter is
worth more to her parents when she is single than when she is married, for all that she owns
and receives from suitors goes to her husband when she is married.
While performing the Harlequin identity, I’tesamuddin implies a similarity between the
common English women and prostitutes. This comparison can be observed in the
aforementioned section in which he likens the English women to Harlequinade fairies and the
nymphs of paradise. To call the English women fairies and nymphs not only sexualizes them,
but it also brings to mind the image of dancing girls, women who move their bodies sensually in
order to entice men into their beds. These women charge fees for said interactions, turning the
term dancing girl into a euphemism for prostitution. In implying that the women of England are
overly sexual and glorified prostitutes not only then perpetuates the Orientalism discussed
above but also subverts it by critiquing English culture. As one cannot separate one act from
the other, the perpetuation and subversion are therefore simultaneous. The ambivalence
created in this moment is inherent to the Harlequin identity as well as the identity of the
colonized Other. In his essay, “Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and
Authority under a Tree outside Delhi,” the post-colonial theorist Homi K. Bhabha explores the
ambivalent nature of the colonial identity. He argues that the colonial subject, especially the
colonial Indian subject, mimics the “alien culture” and mixes it with the “mother culture” to
create a completely different culture that subverts the power of the imperial alien in its
differentness. He terms this mixing and ambivalence, “hybridity” (Bhabha 153-155). In
perpetuating Orientalism to critique the English sexual vices while performing the role of the
16
trickster Other, I’tesamuddin subverts English power and claims and maintains agency two-fold.
First, he does so through the ambivalence of the perpetuation-critique. Then, he does so
through the Indian Harlequin.
I’tesamuddin later drops this Indian Harlequin identity in favor of a more ambivalent
one. The second performative identity that I’tesamuddin adopts is that of a narrator. Some
narrators are a part of the plot and interact with the other characters; while other,
omnipresent, narrators exist outside of the conflict, in a space between reality (the readers’
world) and fiction (the text3.) It is because of this in-between existence that these narrators
appear all-knowing, for they know and understand both worlds. I’tesamuddin acts as Parabolic
Narrator to both the people of England and to the Indian readers of his travel narrative, and
there are many examples of his narrating to both of these audiences throughout the latter half
of the text. On pages 99-103, for example, he acts as Narrator to the English. In this passage,
he entertains an English dinner party by answering their questions about Islam in the form of
stories. One of these tales is a retelling of the Biblical story of the Three Talents, within which
he explains why so few people will be saved on the Day of Judgment. In this, he not only
reworks a story told by Jesus Christ, but he also tells it in a manner much like Christ taught his
lessons, in the parabolic form. He emulates the most respected and greatest authority of faith
for his Christian English audience. However, it is also important to note that this literary form
and teaching method is present in the Muslim Qur’an. It is through this genre, then, that he is
claiming a degree of knowledge of faith and of God—Allah—equal to that of both the prophets
Jesus and Muhammad. In acting as both Jesus and Muhammad, he then produces another
3
Much like Harlequin existed on the both stage and in the audience
17
moment of hybrid ambivalence, one again claiming and maintaining agency within a foreign
sphere of colonial subjectivity.
As mentioned above, he also narrates to the readers of his work. He does so using
anecdotes similar to the religious parables. This can be observed on pages 83-84, in which he
recounts the tale of a Scottish man who mistakes the word “penny-cook,” a cheap meal, for
“penny-cut,” a cheap haircut. The man ends up drinking soap water at a barbershop because of
this error. This story, told to an Indian audience, for whom the book is written, serves to inform
them of the “simple-minded and doltish” (I’tesamuddin 82) Scottish Highlanders. It is a cultural
analysis and representation that also gives his Indo-Persian readers a good laugh at the expense
of the country people of Scotland. Narrator-I’tesamuddin, in this narrative, claims to be a
knowledgeable source of the Occident’s peoples and cultures. In laughing at the expense of the
Easterner, he also flips the tables of normative colonial power, creating a moment of imperial
subversion.
This transformation from a stage’s Harlequin to a literary narrator of parables can be
explained as a matter of reclaiming an old identity. As stated previously, a narrator is a
character in an artistic work, which is to say that the narrator is part of the story. In this genre
and identity shift, he is presenting himself to the audiences mentioned above as the devout
Muslim and learned man. It is a vehicle through which he readopts the titles of munshi, or a
follower of Muhammad. And, because he exists between reality and fiction as Narrator, he
appears all-knowing and an authoritative source in all things Occidental, Oriental, and Muslim.
Furthermore, his transitions of genre and character have racial implications. According
to O’Brian, “Because … its origins were uncertain, Harlequin’s black mask was free to be filled
18
with meaningful content … by observers who brought their own understanding of performance,
personhood, class, and race to bear on each viewing” (O’Brian 121). For I’tesamuddin the
meaningful content of the mask of this pantomime character concerns both race and class, as it
did for many of its contemporary viewers. After watching the play and adopting the Harlequin
identity, he begins to see “blackness” everywhere and in everyone. He especially sees it in the
Africans and the Lascars—Indian sailors. He calls many of these darker skinned people
barbarians, a word that already implies being African and black as it stems from the European
name for the northern coast of Africa. As the awareness of the racial other increased,
evidenced by the change in meaning behind Harlequin’s black face, so did the ideas of racial
geography and class. For I’tesamuddin, this blackness makes one a lesser being of lower class.
Interestingly enough, through the adoption of the Harlequin identity, he also sees blackness in
himself.
Near the end of his travels, he rejects this black identity as it is beneath him. This can be
seen in I’tesamuddin’s response to Captain Swinton’s calling him a dark skinned “Bengali …
[who] are notorious among Indians for their folly and stupidity” (I’tesamuddin 141). To this,
I’tesamuddin replies: “My ancestors were Sayyids, or descendants of the Prophet, and some of
them were of the families of the Prophet’s companions” (I’tesamuddin 142). In this he not only
rejects the blackness and therefore lowliness of the Bengalis, but he also rejects the Harlequin
on the grounds of race and class.
This shift is also a complete rejection of what it means to be an Indian Muslim man
residing in 18th century England. As his travels continue after his self-imposed transformation,
he begins to tire of what he perceives to be the English, and more specifically Captain Swinton,
19
treating him as if he is still Harlequin. This is evidenced in I’tesamuddin’s discussion of his
eventual falling out with the captain. He says, “when his importunities exceeded all bounds,
giving way to taunts and aspersions on my faith, religion and native mores …, I began to fear
that I could not rely on the Captain’s … friendship …” (I’tesamuddin 138). In these mean
spirited jokes and bullying remarks, I’tesamuddin believes that the captain is treating him as the
comedic figure, Harlequin. I’tesamuddin says to Swinton, “I would much rather live in poverty
in my own country than in affluence in yours, and to me the dusky Indian women are dearer
than the fairy-faced Firinghee damsels” (I’tesamuddin 138). He, quite bluntly, verbalizes his
rejection of the Harlequin role in this statement through the rejection of the fairy English
women. According to I’tesamuddin, however, the captain continues to treat him as the
character of a pantomime after this denunciation, for he says “The Captain must have thought I
was being foolish and bigoted” (I’tesamuddin 139 emphasis added). It becomes clear to him
that as long as he lives in the Occident, he will be the black trickster and Other, the Harlequin,
in the eyes of others regardless of the identity he claims.
However, it is important to note that, although he rejects the Harlequin identity, its
adoption allows him to better develop his identity as an Muslim Indo-Persian in Christian
England. The Harlequin identity allows him the literary and personal agency to strengthen his
national identity as an Indian man and to reclaim his faith as a devout follower of Allah and
descendent of Muhammed. Without first adopting the performative identity of the trickster
Other, he may not have had the outlet to maintain his agency and therefore reclaim these nonWestern identities. This experience and performative hybridity is not limited to I’tesamuddin,
as will be seen in an examination of Abu Taleb’s travels in the subsequent section.
20
Mirza Abu Taleb Khan: Performing as the Turkish Noble and the Hafez
In 1799, after a brief literary career in Calcutta, Mirza Abu Taleb Khan, an Indo-Persian
Muslim bureaucrat and former revenue collector of the Asaf ud-Daula court, departed from
India for the British Isles with his English friend Captain David Richardson. For the next three
years, Abu Taleb Khan immersed himself into the British political, social, and cultural spheres,
attending elite galas and living among prostitutes. He recorded his experiences in his travel
narrative, The Travels of Mirza Abu Taleb Khan. Within his work, much like I’tesamuddin does,
Abu Taleb makes note of an encounter with English theatre and the Harlequin and adopts his
own performative art identity. However, the character and artistic role Abu Taleb emulates is
not the comedia dell’arte figure; rather, he adopts the role of a new age Hafez. This section
explores the political and social implications of Abu Taleb’s rejection of the Harlequin identity,
which are then furthered by the Hafez performance.
Abu Taleb Khan first encounters British theatre in his port of arrival to the British Iles ,
Dublin, Ireland. In contrast with I’tesamuddin, Abu Taleb begins his description of the theatre
with an objective examination, detailing the number of theatres in the city, the seat delineation
within the theatres, the cost of admission, and the standard, physical layout of the stage. It is
not until he has described the light fixtures of the playhouse he visits that he allows a
description of the performances he viewed. Here, his narrative both parallels and contrasts
with that of I’tesamuddin. The performance he opens with is a Harlequinade, but the details he
provides are largely objective. He dedicates a paragraph to the production, calling it “the
exhibition which afforded … [him] the greatest amusement” (Taleb Khan 110) . In this
21
Harlequinade, titled The Ethiopian4, “the actors spoke in some barbarous language,” and
Harlequin plays the role of an “Ethiopian magician … with whom the daughter of a nobleman
falls desperately in love” (110). Harlequin “conveys her, while asleep in her bed, to his own
country … [where] she is visited by the Queen of the Fairies, and several of her attendants …
they reproach her for her partiality to such a wretch [Harlequin], and advise her to discard him”
(110). Harlequin then visits and reconciles with her, convincing her to escape with him. Here
the typical struggle between Harlequin and his lover’s father commences until the “father is
wounded … [and] visited by the Angel of Death … who tells him he must either marry his
daughter to Harlequin, or accompany him [Death]” (110). The father, as is standard in English
Harlequinades, consents and hosts a grand celebration for the couple, and “thus ends the
farce” (110). As one may observe, this description is emotionally detached from the
performance, offering little commentary beyond that it greatly amused him. There is little to
no reflection upon its significance or meaning, and not once does he later, directly or indirectly
in the manner of I’tesamuddin, mention the pantomime players or the drama. He moves onto
a description of the next performance as if the Harlequinade has no impact beyond temporary
divertissement. His lack of identification and fascination with the Harlequin character may be
attributed to the fact that Abu Taleb represented an elite Indo-Persian literati culture. Because
he identified with the aristocracy and nobility, it would then not make sense for him to also
identify with someone beneath him, Harlequin, the “Ethiopian magician” who speaks in
“barbarous” tongues (110).
4
The script of this Harlequinade may no longer exist and is part of an incomplete record.
22
Furthermore, because the conceptions of ethnicity and geography had become so
deeply intertwined by the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Abu Taleb’s racial biases may also
be partially grounded in the perception of national identities (Wheeler 2-6). While it can be
said that this ethno-racism was largely a European, and especially English, construct, certain
textual evidence within Abu Taleb’s travel narrative suggests that he was not only aware of this
worldview but that he also subscribed to it. Before arriving in Dublin, Abu Taleb and Captain
Richardson port in Cape Town, Africa, where they explore the city and mingle with the white
European locals and immigrants. Abu Taleb notes the beauty of the female Dutch nationals and
their daughters. He says, “All the European Dutch women whom I saw, were very fat, gross,
and insipid, but the girls born at the Cape are well made, handsome, and sprightly” (Taleb Khan
84). It is entirely possible that the daughters of the female Dutch nationals are prettier than
their mothers because they still have their youth. Nevertheless, it is unlikely and difficult to
fathom, considering genetics, that extremely unattractive women would all give birth to
beautiful daughters. An explanation for this may lie in national imperial rule during the time of
Abu Taleb’s visit. While Cape Town was under Dutch control through the Dutch East India
Company throughout a greater part of the 17th century, the city was seized by the British in
1795 and was not returned to the Dutch until 1803 (Taelb Khan 81; McCracken 1). It may be,
then, that the polar difference between the ugly Dutch nationals and their Cape Town
daughters is a matter of perceived ethnicity during a time of severe ethno-racism. The Dutch
women are ugly because they are Dutch, a disliked and distrusted peoples by both the English
and Abu Taleb. In fact, he blatantly exhibits this hostility towards the Dutch when he attributes
23
being cheated by a Dutchman to the man’s nationality, calling him a “blackguard Dutchman”
(Taleb Khan 82). The Cape Town daughters are then more beautiful than their mothers simply
because their national identities go beyond their Dutch descent . They are also Capetonians
under British imperial rule. These moments of ethno-racism can then be used to analyze Abu
Taleb’s rejection of the Harlequin. Not only would an Ethiopian Harlequin be socially and
financial lower5 than Abu Taleb was, but the Ethiopian Harlequin also came from an ethnicity
and race perceived far beneath that of the noble Indo-Persian Abu Taleb. Therefore, adopting
the persona of a lower class, black African who cannot convey himself civilly or eloquently
would not serve Abu Taleb well as a high class, professional writer. This rejection then acts a
perpetuation of English imperial ideals and ethno-racism.
However, Abu Taleb’s rejection of the Harlequin identity may also be a critique of the
English ethno-racism and xenophobia. In his introduction to Abu Taleb’s travel narrative, Daniel
O’Quinn astutely points to this possibility. He says:
The almost painful detailing of the plot of the pantomime reads in two
directions, for he could be demonstrating the depths of meretricious racist
display to critique the audience’s self-justifying pleasure, or he could be claiming
some kind of affiliation with the racist gaze that places civilised subjects like
himself above the “barbarous Ethiopians.” (O’Quinn 36)
In other words, in his description of the Harlequin performance, Abu Taleb could either be
critiquing or subscribing to the ethno-racism demonstrated in the Harlequinade. Under the
latter reading of this reaction to the Harlequinade, we are left to interpret Abu Taleb’s
5
The terms low and high here are used specifically in terms of the socially constructed hierarchy of wealth and 18 th
century ethno-racism, not in modern perceptions of personal worth or value.
24
amusement to not be with the performance itself. Rather, his amusement is with the racism
expressed in the pantomime and by the Irish audience’s enjoyment of the racism. Abu Taleb is
well known for these moments of ambivalent critique and subscription. During his description
of the beauty of the Capetonian Dutch women, for instance, he says:
They [the Dutch daughters] … require costly presents. Even the married women
are suspected; and each of the Englishmen of rank had his particular lady, whom
he visited without any interruption from the husband, who generally walked out
when the admirer entered the house. (Taleb Khan 84).
In this section, he eludes to the fact that the young Dutch daughters whom he just praised for
their beauty are essentially prostitutes. While they may not advertise themselves as prostitutes
and explicitly offer their bodies up in exchange for money, they do allow men to become
intimate with them in order to receive presents. Abu Taleb makes note of the commercial
nature of this exchange when he says, “The consequences was, that the English spent all the
money they got; while the Hollanders became rich, and more affluent than when under their
own government” (84). In this moment, Abu Taleb is subscribing to English ethno-racism and
dislike for the Dutch by conceding that, although they are beautiful and kind, the Dutch
descendants are little more than prostitutes. On the other hand, is also critiquing the ethnoracist English society as they are not only impoverishing themselves at the hands of prostitutes ,
but they are also doing so with women who are currently subjects of an English colony .
Therefore, the Englishmen are lustful squanderers, and the young Capetonian women, as quasiEnglish subjects, are glorified prostitutes. This moment of ambivalence, as discussed in the
25
previous section concerning I’tesamuddin, acts a moment of hybridity and therefore subversion
of colonial power.
This ambivalence continues and is especially evident in the performative identities he
does adopt, which are irrespective of the theatrical productions he views in Dublin. One of
these identities is that of a Turkish nobleman, which he adopts while at a party in Cape Town.
He says that, although does not know the Dutch language and therefore cannot speak with the
pretty, young women of the city, they throw “wanton airs,” communicating with body language
and flirtatious glances. They make him blush and move to the other side of the room (Taleb
Khan 85). These corporeal flirtations and the inability to communicate verbally are what lead
him to adopt the Turkish noble identity, as a group of these flirtatious females “attack” him and
steal his handkerchief. He says:
One of them, who was the handsomest and most forward, snatched away my
handkerchief, and offered it to another girl of her own age; upon which they all
began to laugh aloud; but as the young lady did not seem inclined to accept the
handkerchief, I withdrew it, and said I would only part with it to the handsomest.
As this circumstance was an allusion to a practice among the rich Turks of
Constantinople, who throw their handkerchief to the lady with whom they wish
to pass the night, the laugh was turned against my fair antagonist, who blushed
and retreated to some distance. (Taleb Khan 85)
In this moment, Abu Taleb adopts a role in a tradition, a performance of culture, and in doing
so, he demonstrates his subscription to English ethno-racism and Orientalism. On one hand
Abu Taleb, once again illustrates the Dutch daughters to be prostitutes , women with which
26
noblemen will pass their night, demonstrating the English disdain for the Dutch culture and
peoples.
On the other hand, this cultural performance is highly sexualized and distinctly Turkish,
suggesting that Abu Taleb may be perpetuating the very Orientalism that he represents in the
eyes of the Occident. His subscription to Orientalism and ethno-racism is further proven after
he departs from England and upon his arrival in Constantinople. There, he describes the
people, the food, and the architecture. However, he does not describe these items in purely
positive or objective terms. The picture he paints is that of an idle, hyper-erotic, exotic, weak,
and primitive peoples. When describing their typical day, he says, “The Turks, though very
indolent, are not fond of retirement or solitude: they therefore … go to … [the coffee houses],
where they sit smoking, drinking coffee or sherbet, and listening to idle stories, the whole day”
(Taleb Khan 280). According to Abu Taleb, then, the Turks of Constantinople exert themselves
very little and, like contemporary women, lounge around and chat for most of the day. Not
only are they idle, but they are also therefore feminine. This perpetuates Orientalist ideas of
the effeminate East.
Furthermore, the Turks are primitive peoples who pay no attention to math or
intelligent building practices. His first description of the homes is that they are neither as solid
and beautiful as those in India, nor are they as comfortable as English ones (285). This
comparison instantly puts the quality of the Constantinople dwellings below that of both his
English and Indian audiences. He then continues to say:
The greatest defects of these houses is, the constant danger of their catching
fire …. They however continue to rebuild them with wood; and assign as a
27
reason their apprehension from earthquakes: this, however, is a mere idle
excuse; and the real fact is, that they do not wish to expend such a sum of
money as would requisite to build a brick or stone house, not considering that
the rebuilding a wooden one, with the loss of furniture, &c. is, in the end, more
expensive (Taleb Khan 285).
By making this statement, Abu Taleb once again calls attention to the feminine idleness of the
Turks as well as demonstrates that they are unable to properly perceive cost-benefit ratios. He
paints them as a backward peoples, as a culture lacking what Said terms “power intellectual,”
or superiority in “reigning sciences” (Said 13). He therefore not only perpetuates the Orientalist
approach to the Turkish Other in his description of the Constantinople culture , but he also
subscribes to the Orientalist identity in his adoption of the handkerchief Turkish performance .
He is allowing those ideals and perceptions to be cast upon him when he acts as the Turkish
nobleman. Even more interesting, due to the lack of verbal communication with the Dutch
girls, it is more than possible that they did not interpret his grand performance as Turkish .
Rather, they simply viewed his handkerchief presentation as a flirtatious token, meaning Abu
Taleb alone casts an Oriental Other identity upon himself. The ethno-racism would then be
entirely self-imposed.
Regardless of who imposes said Othering, however, Abu Taleb’s adoption of the Turkish
nobleman identity is also an act of subversion and of reclaiming agency. In taking his
handkerchief from him without permission and playfully passing it among themselves, the
Dutch girls exert a sort of power over Abu Taleb that is exacerbated by the fact that he cannot
verbally communicate and is left speechless and seemingly consenting. In adopting the role of
28
Turkish nobility, Abu Taleb effectively reclaims his stolen property and embarrasses the young
thief. Homi Bhabha’s theory of hybridization can then be applied to this use of a dramatic
Oriental role to subvert the power asserted by the girls. While Abu Taleb demonstrates ethnoracist Orientalism in his trip to Constantinople, the ideas he expresses about their femininity
and backwardness are largely Occidental constructs. That is, he appropriates the Occidental
views of the East when he visits the Turks of Constantinople. This moment of appropriation of
the Orientalist role then acts as a moment of hybridization6, for he uses an outlook meant to
marginalize and control the Eastern Other—himself—in order to subvert the hegemony of the
Westerners—the girls. In becoming a Turkish noble, he is able to assert agency in a land that
wishes to take it away from him.
The second performative identity that Abu Taleb adopts is that of Indo-Persian and
Arabic origin, that of a writer of a writer of ghazals. Ghazals are an Eastern form of poetry that
are heavily dependent upon improvisation and performed in song with musical instruments ,
making it, much like the Harlequin, the narrator, and the Turkish nobleman identities, a
performance centered identity ("Ghazal, n"). Among Abu Taleb’s most famous ghazals, he
writes in England are “Ode7 to London,” “Extemporary Ode,” and “Poem in Praise of Miss Julia
Burrell.” In perhaps one of his most well-known ghazals, “Ode to London,” Abu Taleb explores
his experiences in the city of London, drawing on images of women, wine, and revelry to
describe it, opening with the line, “Henceforward we will devote our lives to London, and its
6
Please see Bhabha’s hybridization and subversion theory in previous section
Abu Taleb wrote a number of ghazals that remain untranslated. However, in many that were translated, the
word “ode” was used in place of ghazal.
7
29
heart-alluring Damsels” (Taleb Khan 130). While the title and the first line of the ghazal suggest
that the work is about London and its women, that is not entirely the case. It is also about
himself and his place in London as a Muslim, Oriental man. This becomes especially apparent in
the second stanza of the poem: “We have no longing for the Toba, Sudreh or other trees of
Paradise: / We are content to rest under the shade of these terrestrial Cypresses” (130). Then,
in stanza four he says: “Fill the goblet with wine! If by this I am prevented from returning / To
my old religion, I care not; nay I am the better pleased” (130). In these lines, he states that he
and the Londoners no longer care to go to Heaven to be with Allah, and to prove it, they will
drink and be merry beneath the earthly cypresses. However, the Londoners are Christian and
do not, unlike Muslims, believe that they will be refused from Paradise for consuming wine . In
fact, wine is served in moderation, as part of the Christian Eucharist during church services. It
is, to some extent, considered holy. Therefore, Abu Taleb’s use of the word “we” in the second
stanza does not necessarily refer to the Christian Londoners; rather it is a means of
demonstrating his identification with them. For this reason, “we” becomes “I” in the fourth
stanza.
His sense of identification with the English peoples may also be used to explain the oversexualization of self in this poem. From, the line “I am now rewarded by the smiles of the
British Fair” to the lines “Adorable creatures! whose flowing tresses, whether of flaxen or of
jetty hue, / Or auburn gray, delight my soul, and ravish all my senses!” the entire work seems to
be dedicated to enjoying London’s beautiful women. These overtly sexual images of tempting
women and wine contribute to a perpetuation of the Orientalist idea that the Eastern Other is
30
an erotic and hypersexual being, effeminately dominated by the beauty of women. In the
poem, Abu Taleb is so controlled by, so infatuated with, the sexual appeal of the English
women that he no longer cares to go to Paradise. He plays into the Orientalist stereotypes.
He continues to perpetuate these tropes in his other ghazals. For instance, after being
made to wait for his late female friends at the Opera, Abu Taleb writes “Extemporary Ode.”
The poem is as follows:
Although no person ever experienced the truth of your promises,
Yet are we ever deceived by those eloquent and ruby lips.
Sin against me as much as you please; you need not ask forgiveness;
For I am your slave, and shall pay implicit obedience to your wishes.
Fear not to enter the ranks at the day of judgement unveiled ;
For, should some of your murdered lovers demand retribution,
The Angels, ordered to drive you from Paradise, captivated by your looks,
Will offer themselves, as an atonement for your errors.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
As long as Abu Taleb can behold your charming countenance;
He will not sigh for the bowers of the garden of Eden. (Abu Taleb 191-192)
Again, as he did in “Ode to London,” Abu Taleb puts himself beneath the English women, going
so far as to claim servitude to their beauty. Even the heavenly angels are slaves to them, and as
long as he has the ability to look upon the women, he cares not for the Garden of Eden, for
eternal life in Heaven. Abu Taleb, much like I’tesamuddin does on the streets of London, paints
himself as the feminine and erotic Other.
These ghazals, however, also act as hybridized critiques of the English females. At first
glance, his blatant disregard for the Islamic doctrine and blasphemous language found within
31
the poems seem to suggest that Abu Taleb has merely become irreligious at the hands of
London’s women. However, Abu Taleb’s poetic style too closely resembles that of Hafez for
that to be the case. Moḥammad Shams al-Dīn Ḥāfeẓ, known under the penname Hafez for his
memorization of the entire Qur’an, was an Iranian Sufi poet who wrote about drunkenness,
alcohol, earthly love, and the beauty of women in order to discuss the divine. As a Sufi, he
believed that using these blasphemous images brought him closer to Allah through the
transcendence of earthly sin (“Hafez”). To emulate the works of Hafez then requires the use of
secular imagery and irreverent verses. Therefore, in “Ode to London,” the lines “If the prime of
my life has been spent in the service of an Indian Cupid, / It matters not: I am now rewarded by
the smiles of the British Fair,” are actually a vehicle through which Abu Taleb becomes closer to
Allah and a better Sufi Muslim man. This form of poetry, while arguably perpetuating
Orientalist ideas, is then a uniquely Indo-Persian and Arabic art form that encourages a
devotion to Allah.
It is in this cultural and spiritual uniqueness that the ambivalence and hybridity takes
place. In both “Ode to London” and “Extemporary Ode,” Abu Taleb draws attention to the fact
that the women of England are not veiled. In “Ode to London,” he praises their “flowing
tresses” while making note of the fact that he will not go to Paradise because he is partying
with them (Taleb Khan 130). In “Extemporary Ode,” he tells the women not worry about being
denied entrance at the pearly gates even though their heads are uncovered: “Fear not to enter
the ranks at the day of judgment unveiled” (191). This preoccupation with beauty and the lack
of veils in relation to sin may go beyond an emulation of Hafez, and may point to a critique of
32
the English society. This is especially easy to consider when remembering that Abu Taleb wrote
“Extemporary Ode” in order to scold the women for being so late that they almost missed the
entire show. Under this reading, in bringing up their tresses and unveiled faces in relation to
Paradise, Abu Taleb is chastising the women for openly displaying their sexuality and
attempting to make them feel subconscious about it. “Fear not to enter the ranks at the day of
judgment unveiled” is actually a reminder that they should fear it (191). By scolding the women
and shaming them for their uncovered heads and heathenism, Abu Taleb claims what Said
terms a “power moral,” or a superiority in virtue, over them (Said 13). This idea, that he
morally knows better than they do, is a reversal of Orientalism. Yet, he uses a distinct genre of
poetry that also perpetuates Orientalism. In simultaneously subverting and perpetuating
Orientalism, Abu Taleb creates a moment of hybridity and ambivalence that ultimately
destabilizes the hegemony of the Occident.
Therefore, it is through the adoption of the Turkish nobleman and Hafez performative
identities that Abut Taleb is able to create moments of hybridity through the perpetuation and
critique of Orientalist and British imperial thought. While he rejects the Harlequin identity for
ethno-racist and classist reasons, his rejection also allows him to choose identities that allow
him to reclaim his identity as a Sufi Muslim man and maintain agency within a colonial space.
33
Conclusion
Through the adoption of performative art identities, Mirza Sheikh I’tesamuddin and
Mirza Abu Taleb Khan were able to produce an ambivalence and hybridity, as defined by Homi
Babha, that subverted English hegemony and Orientalism. These ambivalent identities allowed
them to assert and maintain agency within a culture that would otherwise render them
marginalized. While I’tesamuddin adopted the liminal characters of the Harlequin and the
Parabolic Narrator, Abu Taleb adopted the ambivalent identities of the Turkish Nobleman and
the Ghazal-Writer-Hafez. Without their encounters with the Harlequin and the adoption of
these performative roles, made necessary by their experiences and occasional struggles in the
streets of England, these two men may never have developed such strong cultural and spiritual
identities. Their simultaneous appropriation and resistance of the colonial stereotypes of the
Eastern Other therefore empowered them as colonial subjects and Indo-Persian men.
34
Works Cited
Bhabha, Homi K. “Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree outside
Delhi, May 1817.” The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 12, No. 1, "Race," Writing, and Difference (Autumn, 1985):
144-165. Web. 08 April 2015.
Brewer, John. The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century. London,
England: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1997. Print.
Gay, Jonh. The Beggar’s Opera. London, England: Penguin Classics, 1986. Print.
"Ghazal, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 10 April 2015.
"Hafez". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015.
Web. 10 Apr. 2015
"houri, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. 15 April 2015.
I’tesamuddin, Mirza Sheikh. The Wonders of Vilayet: Being the Memoir, Originally in Persian, of a Visit to
France and Britain in 1765. Trans. Kaisar Haq. Leeds, England: Peepal Tree Press Ltd, 2002. Print.
McCracken, J. L. The Cape Parliament, 1854-1910. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1967. Print.
O’Brian, John. Harlequin Britain: Pantomime and Entertainment, 1690-1760. Baltimore, Maryland: The
John Hopkins University Press, 2004. Print.
O’Quinn, Daniel. Introduction. The Travels of Abu Taleb Khan. By Mirza Abu Taleb Khan. Claremont,
Canada: Broadview Editions, 2009. Print.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. London, England: Penguin Books, 1977. Print.
Taleb Khan, Mirza Abu. The Travels of Abu Taleb Khan. Ed. Daniel O’Quinn. Claremont, Canada:
Broadview Editions, 2009. Print.
Thurmond, John. Harlequin Sheppard a Night Scene in Grotesque Characters as Perform’d at the TheatreRoyal in Drury-Lane. London, England: 1724. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Web. 30 Jan. 2015
Wheeler, Roxann. New Cultural Studies : Complexion of Race : Catagories of Difference in EighteenthCentury British Culture. Philadelphia, PA, USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 9
April 2015.
35