Due Apr 10
Self-Reflection and the Orient
In 1714, the Safavid Shah of Persia sent the Mayor of Erivan, Mohammed Reza Beg, on an ambassadorial mission to the court of Louis XIV of France. The two countries had a common enemy in Ottoman Turkey, and while the visit did not result in a formal alliance, it did cause quite a stir in Paris. As documented in this series of blog entries, Beg’s visit was reported in the press as well as being commemorated by court painter. Of particular interest was Beg’s insistence on daily bathing, necessitating expensive renovations to the Hôtel where he stayed—a practice that the French elite soon imitated.
Just ten years earlier, Antoine Galland generated interest in the “Orient” (what we today call the Middle East) with the publication of the first volume of his 12-volume translation of The Thousand and One Nights, introducing Scheherazade, Aladdin, and Sinbad to an European audience.
This is the context in which we’re going to approach The Persian Letters, written by the political philosopher Charles Montesquieu. Published in 1721, six years after the real-life visit of the Persian ambassador, the volume purports to be a translation of documents left behind by a pair of Persian nobles after their extended stay in Paris. The letters detail the commentary of these fictional visitors regarding French customs, but also goings-on back in Persia. In the words of historian Susan Mokhberi, “With the publication of Montesquieu’s Persian Letters in 1721, Persians moved from objects of curiosity—as witnessed in the reception of Mohammad Reza Beg in 1715—to objects of critical reflection”: a mirror in which the French might examine their own social mores and prejudices.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu presents a second instance of the same trend. The freethinking daughter of the 5th Earl of Kingston, Montagu eloped with a progressive member of Parliament to escape an arranged marriage. After her husband Edward was named ambassador to the Ottoman emperor of Turkey, she spent several years living abroad, during which time she recorded her experiences and observations in correspondence with friends which was later published as The Turkish Letters. Where Montaigne offers a critique of French mores from an imagined foreign perspective, Montagu’s critique is based in real-world observation.
Reading: Montesquieu, The Persian Letters, Preface as well as Letters # 1-4, 45, 55 & 56 (Montesquieu.pdf).
Reading: Montagu, The Turkish Embassy Letters, Letter 26 (Montagu.pdf).
Writing: Respond to ONE of the following prompts. Keep your response short, posting as a reply under the appropriate heading in the comments section:
- Several of Montesquieu’s letters focus on melodrama in Uzbek’s seraglio. Keying on a particular event or detail, comment on this exotic locale. Does Montesquieu strike you as interested, fundamentally, in gender relations or in power?
- Other letters focus on European life and customs from the perspective of these Persian visitors. Keying on a particular event or detail, comment as to one target of Montesquieu’s critique.
- How does Montagu’s cultural critique differ from Montesquieu’s? Rather than listing a bunch of differences, focus on one. Or, better, name an obvious difference, then go into depth with a vital difference.
Melodrama in the Seraglio
⤹Click the reply button just below.
I think he is interested in gender relations, especially those between wife and husband. That’s why he writes about the two wives and their relationship with Usbek, and puts them so early in the text. To me whats particularly striking about them is how bold the women are. They’re not reserved letters at all, they’re very passionate and share information that you probably wouldn’t want others to accidentally read.
I think Montesquieu is interested in gender relations because he speaks from women’s perspectives to highlight their oppression. In some of his early letters, the focus is mainly on the women of the harem. Focusing on Letter 3, Zachi to Usbek, in Tabriz, we get to understand Zachi’s thought process about Usbek and the situation she is in. A particular detail in this letter is when Zachi said, “I confess to you, Usbek, that a passion more powerful than ambition made me long to please you. I saw myself gradually become mistress of your heart; you chose me; you left me; you returned to me, and this time I kept you” (Montesquieu, 6). Zachi seems completely infatuated with Usbek and broken from his departure to the point where it seems like she has no self-respect. It is kind of ironic that it seems that way, because this letter is from her perspective, where she believes she is victorious in this situation, even though Usbek was pleased by her, despite his being pleased by other women also. I think Montesquieu uses Zachi’s character to point out the strict emotional and physical confinement women have in society. She is restricted to one goal because the only way for her to feel whole is if she gains the attention of this one man, the same thing that multiple other women are trying to do. Montesquieu critiques the confinement of women’s physical bodies as they are used for the convenience of men. Furthermore, because of this physical restriction, women’s emotions are confined as well because they are restricted to one desire and goal: the pleasure of a man.
Critique of European Customs
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In letter 55, Montesquieu is explained the occupation of a casuist. A casuist is someone who differentiates between sins that prohibit a person from entering heaven and minor sins which aren’t bad enough to be condemned to hell. Montesquieu’s criticism is that a person can commit a minor sin without facing consequences, and God would not like that. Montesquieu also leaves before getting a response, which is strange. Why couldn’t he want his doubts to be cleared?
I also found this critique very interesting because the occupation of a casuist is unusual for us to see in our own society. As you mentioned, the casuist differentiates sins that send people away from heaven from those that are minor enough to still allow them in. I find this very questionable because how does a person have (or find) the divine authority to be able to say “god is okay with this sin but not another”? I also found it interesting that a part of their job was to talk to the person who committed a sin and convince them of their “goodness” and that their character is untainted even after the act was done. I think this idea of unwavering faith and loyalty to God is different from what we are used to in the United States, but it is also seen as a critique by Montesquieu in European cultures.
Montagu vs. Montesquieu
⤹Click the reply button just below.
A difference in Montagu and Montesquieu’s critiques were their descriptions of women. When describing the women, Montesquieu claimed, “you see that they obey the laws of the seraglio in like manner; you take pride in performing the meanest tasks for them.” He wrote about how the women were more submissive and did as they were told. On the other hand, Montagu described the women as very polite and charming. He said, “Yet there was not the least wanton smile or immodest gesture amongst them.” Their depictions of women is a major difference in their critiques because Montagu captures them in a more positive light while Montesquieu sees them more as servants.