Customer Reviews

Persian Letters

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Persian Letters (Lettres Persanes) was first published in 1721 when Montesquieu was 32 years old. The book is about three Persians: Usbek, Rica, and Rhedi, who set out for Europe to study it's manners and institutions. Rhedi stops at Venice, while Usbek and Rica continue on to Paris. Very soon after their departure, there begins a brisk exchange of letters between the Persian visitors, and their wives, servants, and friends at home, as well as between the visitors themselves.One visitor, Usbek, a Persian lord, must keep in close contact with his harem of wives in his seraglio, as well as the eunuchs who guard the wives. When disorders break out in the seraglio, the eunuchs try to restore discipline by administering to two of the wives, "that chastisement which begins by shocking one's modesty, involving the deepest humiliation and takes one back to the time of her childhood." Montesquieu however, uses this framework to comment on a very wide amount of subjects. The book also attacks errors and vices that will last as long as humanity. It is sometimes witty, sometimes profound.

This was one of the books I read in my History of the Enlightenment Class my junior year of college. Our brilliant professor didn't assign all of the letters to read, though, and later I went back and read all of the book, not just the ones we'd been assigned to read for class. A lot of books about the politics and philosophy of a certain period in time don't age well, but this one, for the most part anyway, sounds just as fresh and entertaining today as it did in the eighteenth century. And using the pretence of this being a collection of real letters he intercepted from some Persian houseguests, Montesquieu was able to communicate the new exciting beliefs of his age by having them be told through the so-called eyes of Usbek, Rica, and Ibben, who were experiencing this all for the very first time and having to get adjusted to a real clash of values. This also worked to his advantage in a few cases, like where Usbek is talking about how there is a magician even greater than the King of France, saying "This magician is called the Pope" and going into a whole scathing litany about the Pope. He was able to attack the King and the Church by pretending that foreign travellers were writing and believing these things.

The subplot is very interesting too. While Usbek and his friend Rica are away in France for seven years soaking up the Enlightenment, Usbek's wives, concubines, and slaves are getting more and more restless. While the cat's away, the mice will play, and the guiltiest party is the one the reader least suspects. This brings up the Enlightenment question about personal freedom, and how someone might react in such a situation. These women, and these male slaves, have never questioned their total subservience to Usbek until it becomes clear he's not going to be back for quite some time. They give in to their natural human instincts, wanting greater personal freedom and realising they don't have to be these obedient little automatons with no personal wishes or desires of their own apart from absolutely pleasing Usbek in all things. And by the time Usbek gets wind of this from his faithful eunuchs, the women and the slaves have already tasted freedom and will not go back to how things used to be without a fight. (Though I was surprised that the eunuchs never got into this rebellion against the restrictive rules too, and wondered where Zephis and Fatme, two of the other five main wives, went, since they aren't mentioned in the Chief Eunuch's first letter to Usbek telling him of the "horrible sins" which his women and slaves have been engaging in without him around.)

This book is great not only as history, but also as fiction and philosophical, political, and religious commentary, ringing as true today in many respects as it did nearly three hundred years ago.

There are many reasons one might choose to read this work, including reasons associated with one's studies at University, or for its historical interest, or for its views on law and justice. But, the compelling reason for me is that it provides a level of elegant discourse with such wit and charm that I would recommend it for its value as an entertainment alone. On the Spanish " Those Spaniards who do not get burnt seemed to be so attached to the Inquisition that it would be churlish to take it away from them.(p156)" On History " Here are the books on modern history. First you will see the historians of the church and the papacy, books which I read for edification, and which often have exactly the opposite effect on me.(p241)" " I observe that people here argue about religion interminably: but it appears that they are competing at the same time to see who can be the least devout.(P.101)" "There is not a single Protestant ruler who does not raise more taxes from his people than the Pope from his subjects; yet the latter are poor, while the former live in opulence. With them, commerce brings everything to life, while with the others monastacism carries death with it everywhere.(p213)" This book in short is a wonderful antidote to the protestations, statements, and self-righteousness of most living politicians and religious leaders. Relax and enjoy.

Montesquieu's "Persian Letters" consist primarily of the collected correspondence of Usbek and Rica, two Persian travelers abroad in Europe in search of knowledge. For those familiar with Said's theories of Orientalism, this is an exemplary text to see how 18th century France thought of its Ottoman rivals, and how those views reflect the state of French society.

Usbek, Rica, and their various correspondents discuss matters touching on gender, politics, the nature of the self, history, religion, and culture. While these letters make up the majority of the novel, the few letters Montesquieu inserts from Usbek's wives and eunuch servants are by far the novel's most interesting pieces, and unfortunately, the most frequently overlooked.

As Usbek sojourns across Europe over the course of many years, contemplating universal issues, his wives and eunuchs bring a sense of stark reality to the "Persian Letters". In these letters, we see all too clearly the domestic unrest arising out of even enlightened monarchy. The neglected wives, locked away from society in the harem, and the pitiable eunuchs, who must guard them, offer profoundly personal opinions on the causes and effects of a rigid class structure.

"Persian Letters" is a valuable text for the layman interested in gauging the currents of thought in the early 18th century. A best-seller in its own time, Montesquieu's most abstracted philosophies are rendered accessible through story and fable, showing his authorial range. For the casual reader, the letters are for the most part very short and quite entertaining. For the scholarly-minded, this is a work with seemingly limitless critical appeal.

With the psuedo naive eyes of Persian tourists, Montesquieu depicts the French society of the beginning of the 18th century through a correspondance with relatives and relations who stayed in Persia. As a modern Socrates, he plays the innocent to challenge nobles and courtisans of the French court. The most surprising element of this book is the accuracy of the underneath analysis of the French society. Those "letters", written about two hundred years ago, always seem to be up to date.

This enlightenment work is hard to peg. In some ways, it is a novel; in some ways a philosophical treatise; in some ways, a 'travelogue'. It works well as all three, to tell the truth.

Montesquieu - who later wrote 'Spirit of the Laws" - published this collection of fictional letters between two Persian brothers roaming Europe, anonymously. And, yes, the book did cause a decent amount of controversey as M was denounced as an unbeliever. To be sure, this book is some of the most thrilling satire on Western European ideosyncracies I've ever seen and, to be fair, christianity - religion in general - is not exempt from M's jibes.

While the novel can be read as quasi-fiction, there is no story line between the letters (161 letters and 6 unpublished fragments in all). Each letter, is more like a condensed essay reflecting on some subject - the nature of governments, some religious tradition, a behavioral trait of a certain people; there are even some letters thrown in from the brothers relatives, wives, and eunuchs pertaining to the goings on in Persia. Truth be told, one could read these letters in a random order and be fine (with exception of a few necessarily linear 'chunks').

All in all, the 'theme' is the quest for universals, as these Persian brothers are seeing the Western world through Persian eyes (hence the ability for satire on Western traditions). While I'm not sure there is an answer made to this question (as Montesquieu is always talking through his characters which may be right or wrong), it is an entertaining effort, and a brilliant encapsulation of some enlightenment ideas, particularly on religion and government. Even his later "Spirit of the Laws" is prefigured here.

Any book that has the staying power that this title has had will have merit. Published nearly three hundred years ago (in 1721), Persian Letters by Montesquieu is an epistolary novel that traces the fictional correspondence between two eighteenth-century Persians and their countrymen as they travel through the occidental world for the first time, eventually settling in Paris for a decade during the remaining years of Louie XIV's reign. The book illustrates what we would now call today culture shock for the two main characters as they try to make sense of their new surroundings and the colorful people that enliven their day-to-day soirées and sojourns into European life at the onset of the Enlightenment.

This compellation has more than a few witticisms and biting criticisms of the times. Reading it today, three-hundred years later, it is obvious that Montesquieu used the fictional characters as a cover for his own criticisms. Though which critiques actually parallel his thoughts is open to question, this ambiguity, I think, actually making the piece more enjoyable to read. I cannot verify the accurateness of Montesquieu's portrayal of these Persians--would they have really have reacted the way they had?--but a quick glance at the introduction to any modern reprinting of the text will tell you that Montesquieu used the best available resources at the time to capture what they would have likely reacted. Sometimes, you have to wonder though if he is working off imaginative stereotypes more than anything. The character development of the Persians is slight and the plot that Montesquieu throws us is light until the last few letters when events seem to pick up and then rush towards an interesting finale. However, I think it is better to judge the book on its playful musings and witticisms. I can imagine that much of what this Frenchman wrote would have been shocking, maybe even scandalous at the time.

The most entertaining features of the book come from the main Persian's communiqué with his seraglio back home. His many wives under lock and key in his desert harem, their hinted-at misadventures in lesbianism and infidelity, and the dictatorial African eunuchs who relentlessly keep watch over them--all of that fun stuff kept the book moving forward, and, consequentially, was my favorite part as well.

Another entertaining element to the piece was, of course, Montesquieu's musings on everything from government, virtue, law, morality, taxation, metrology to religion, particularly the Catholic Church. The best quotes from the book come from his thoughts on religion. One of my favorites:

"I believe in the immortality of the soul periodically. My opinions depend entirely on my physical condition. According to whether I have greater or less vitality, or my digestion is functioning well or badly...I know how to prevent religion from disturbing me when I am well, but I allow it to console me when I am ill."

Speaking of quotes, that is one thing that I feel I ought to warn against. I imagine that I am not the only one who will be reading this text in anticipation of Montesquieu's treatise The Spirit of the Laws. I found myself enjoying the book much more when I read it as literature and not when I was hunting for witty quotes to be used later on for the inevitable research paper I will have to write for my political theory class.

I think it is best to compare the novel to something from its own era, and the person's writing that first comes to mind to someone who is largely ignorant of that time period in French literature is, naturally enough, Voltaire. Like me, you will have probably have read Voltaire before tackling Montesquieu, which there is good reason for since I believe that Voltaire is much more readable than Montesquieu. If we compare Candide to Persian Letters, Candide comes out the winner easily: stylistically, for it imaginativeness, and hilarity. That said, I did enjoy the Persian Letters and recommend it for anyone who wants an entertaining reflection on early eighteenth-century France.

Persian Letters is a political satire written in a form of correspondence between Usbek and Rica (two Persians who decide to leave Persia and discover the Occident with all its faults and glories) and their eunuchs, wives and friends back home. They travel through the Ottoman Empire and Venice to arrive in Parris as the centre of knowledge and progress. Through Usbek and Rica, Montesquieu unveils his take on the socio-political environment of the time - which must have been the most interesting aspect of the satire at the time it was published. However the Lettres Persanes have become somewhat of a historical source on which Saidian Orientalists refer their arguments to describe Western imaginary perceptions of the Orient and the creation of the Eastern 'Other'. In reality, Montesquieu's knowledge of Persia was certainly not a pure product of the imagination, he was inspired and borrowed heavily from Jean Chardin who visited Persia in the seventeenth century and left a very vivid account of his travels there. Easy read, funny and entertaining.

Mr Montesquieu poked fun at French socity. He held a mirrior for them see how shallow and silly they were.

How much fun he would have writing Persian Letters in 1998 at Washington D.C.

This book is well written. This book illustrates how Persian Letters contributes to the Enlightment Movement in Europe.

Last, when Uzbek left home and his harem fall apart. Perhaps, the book was making a point that European society was falling apart.