Montesquieu (1689–1755)

A remarkable book. Its topics read as if written in 2010: Persian/ "Iranian" Islam trying to convert Armenian Christians and Zoroastrians because of the new Shah's edict. Hence, all the Armenians fled, emptying with a stroke of the pen "all the skilled workmen, and all the businessmen of Persia."
Then there are the gender issues, letters written by favorite wives in the seraglio to their husband in Paris; or, the chief eunuch's letters on the difficulty of guarding the seraglio, especially show more Roxanne. Then there's the historical, comparatist reflections, say on slavery in Rome versus slaves guarding the seraglio. Roman slaves were very productive, and could grow very rich: from tours of Roman tombs and Neapolitan tombs from teh Roman era, I know this to be true; their wealth sometimes grew because Senators, for example, were debarred from money-making except as land-owners and patrons.
One of the fictitious letter-writers compares Roman slaves in their industry and eventual wealth--enough to buy their and their families' freeedom--to the lazy luxuriousness of Persian slaves whose only "job" is to guard the seraglio.
This is a stunner, to read a work from 60 years before the Declaration of Independence that addresses many issues that populate our evening news, as well as some issues (Roman slavery) that would be discussed if we TV watchers were smarter.
The reflections on religion are astute and timeless. For instance,
"It is observable, that the members of the minority religions commonly make themselves more useful to their country, than those of the established religion; because, being excluded from all honours, they can only render themselves considerable by their opulence; they are led to acquire it by their industry, and to embrace the most toilsome employments in the society." What better argument for varieties of religions, and against majority rligions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism in the US? show less

The nice thing about reading early 'novels' is that they so often have nothing in common with a typical contemporary novel. That's definitely the case for PL, of which only the first dozen and the last half dozen pages are are connected in any kind of narrative. Not only that, the narrative is immensely dull, unless you're the sort of person who gets off on descriptions of Harem life. Such people are, I'm sure, less common now than they were in the 18th century. A general warning: if you're show more prone to crying with rage any time a European shows curiosity in Oriental (sic) culture, you'll have to be very, very careful with this book. Some of it smacks of crazy ethnocentrism. On the other hand, the book is much more critical of French society than it is of 'Persian' society.

The meat of the book consists in letters written to and from various 'Persians,' seeing France and some other parts of Europe for the first time. Like all good satire, it takes the normal (well, normal for 18th century French novel readers), views it from another perspective, and finds it to be both hilarious and horrifying. If you've read other 18th century moralists, you'll know what to expect: freedom, intelligence, stoicism, nature good; tyranny, love of money, theology bad.

But I oversimplify, because easily the best thing about the book is how free-floating it is. I found it virtually impossible to tell when Montesquieu wanted his authors to agree with the letter writers and when to disagree. Which had the awful, depressing effect of making me think about things. For that I knock off two stars, because thinking about things is way too hard work for me. show less

A remarkable book. Its topics read as if written in 2010: Persian/ "Iranian" Islam trying to convert Armenian Christians and Zoroastrians because of the new Shah's edict. Hence, all the Armenians fled, emptying with a stroke of the pen "all the skilled workmen, and all the businessmen of Persia."
Then there are the gender issues, letters written by favorite wives in the seraglio to their husband in Paris; or, the chief eunuch's letters on the difficulty of guarding the seraglio, especially show more Roxanne. Then there's the historical, comparatist reflections, say on slavery in Rome versus slaves guarding the seraglio. Roman slaves were very productive, and could grow very rich: from tours of Roman tombs and Neapolitan tombs from teh Roman era, I know this to be true; their wealth sometimes grew because Senators, for example, were debarred from money-making except as land-owners and patrons.
One of the fictitious letter-writers compares Roman slaves in their industry and eventual wealth--enough to buy their and their families' freeedom--to the lazy luxuriousness of Persian slaves whose only "job" is to guard the seraglio.
This is a stunner, to read a work from 60 years before the Declaration of Independence that addresses many issues that populate our evening news, as well as some issues (Roman slavery) that would be discussed if we TV watchers were smarter.
The reflections on religion are astute and timeless. For instance,
"It is observable, that the members of the minority religions commonly make themselves more useful to their country, than those of the established religion; because, being excluded from all honours, they can only render themselves considerable by their opulence; they are led to acquire it by their industry, and to embrace the most toilsome employments in the society." What better argument for varieties of religions, and against majority rligions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism int he US? show less

In some ways, you've read one epistolatory 18th-century novel satirizing Europeans through the eyes of the Oriental Other, you've read 'em all--and I must be getting kind of close to literally having read them all. But if I could only recommend one, the Persian Letters would surely be it. Usbek and Rica hit Paris, learn, listen, wonder, evaluate, scoff, ask questions, wile the time away in this Shangri-La, until word comes that the home front has been neglected too long, the seraglio is in show more disorder, the wives are poisoned and the eunuchs stabbed. It's a neat way of undermining the wise and evenhanded Usbek and squeezing some more play out of the form--much as he admires certain of the European institutions and seems to pass judgment on others from an eminently reasonable place, at home his only task was to embrace the velvet glove or the iron fist, and it is vacillating that sinks him.


The politics can get tedious when they turn to disquisition, and the satire can be a bit heavy, as it is with these things, and sometimes the crackpot theories on e.g. climate or the extinction of the human race are elaborated on at too much length. But we have to recognize that this is an eruption in its way of the same exuberance we love in these Enlightenmen, and take the bad with the cool allegories about the Troglodytes, perfection out of purgation, and the idea that Adam might have been the last survivor of a dying world; or the Christian fetishing of virginity as parallel to the Muslim fetishing of the female body (such a telling difference from Mary Wortley Montagu's fecund Turks, these constructed Persians feeling the loss of virginity as life's central shame and hard knock); the deft way Montesquieu has Usbek encompass two powerful but problematic positions on affairs of the heart:


"Nothing had made a greater contribution to mutual attachment than the possibility of divorce. A husband and wife were inclined to put up with domestic troubles patiently, because they knew that it was in their power to bring them to an end, and often they had this power at their disposal all their lives without using it, for the unique reason that they were free to do so."


v.


"I find something very sincere, and very great as well, in the words of a king who, on the point of falling into enemy hands, saw his courtiers weeping around him and said "from your tears, I realize that I am still your king."


Perhaps not contradictory, but two true things, in 18th-century France, imaginary Iran, or here and now. show less