Due Apr 8
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.
Montesquieu presents the seraglio as dramatic and emotional, but what stands out is how tightly it’s controlled by power. For example, Usbek tells the eunuch he must ensure the women “lose all hope” of disobedience and reminds him of their “total dependence,” which shows that even love and intimacy are structures by authority. So while the letters are full of jealousy and desire, I think Montesquieu is ultimately more interested in power than gender itself, using the seraglio to show how control can shape and distort personal relationships.
I completely agree with this, it does seem that Montesquieu was more so preoccupied with power rather than specifically which gender one has power over. Expanding on the idea that power can distort personal relationships, it seems that this power dynamic doesn’t just harm women, but men as well. This can be seen in letter 2 when it says, “always remember the abyss from which I raised you, when you were the least of my slaves, by placing you in this post and entrusting you with the delights of my heart” (page 5). The eunuch is given power over women, however he is reminded that he was only just a slave before. This showcases how regardless of perceived power, everyone within this power structure lives in fear, creating strained relationships.
I completely agree with your point on Montesquieu and how he views gender relations as a way to consolidate power instread of actually shaping personal connections. In the Persian Letters the relationships between characters are a key focus but the political authority and power dynamics behind them overshadow any glimmer of actual relations. Gender roles seem to continously serve Montesquieus stubborn ideas of gender relations and the power structures at play.
I feel like both agree and disagree with you. I agree that power is central, but it feels like Montesquieu belives power and gender to be inseparable when it comes to relations between men and women. The system depends on women being kept in “total dependence,” so having power over them isn’t just abstract authority—it’s specifically gendered authority. Whilst I think Montesquieu is ultimately interested in power, the letters shows that in his mind it was simply not possible to separate that from gender, because gender is seen as the main way of power geting enforced in this “exotic” space.
Targets of Montesquieu’s Critique
⤹Click the reply button just below.
By using an outsider’s view, ““If I went out, people would gather at the windows to see me.” (Letter 1) Montesquieu critisizes the Persian lifestyle in which he thinks they are blinded by the obsession with vanity and appearances without any profound meaning of life. They often chase new fashions and judge others by superficial things like clothing. He purposely makes their lifestyle look irrational and ridiculous
Contrasting Montesquieu with Montagu
⤹Click the reply button just below.
In one sense, Montagu’s cultural critique differ from Montesquieu’s because it focuses mainly on observed customs rather than imagined inner lives of foreign people. In my opinion this leads to a much more pronounced exoticizing from Montesquieu. He views his Persian subjects with a prurient and dramatic eye, focusing on lurid passions and dramas of the lives of the fictionalized letter writers, while Montagu, through her observations of real people and behavior, paints a much more humanizing portrait of the Turkish women she encounters. She even goes as far as to commend their behavior as being superior conduct to that of European women, saying, “I know no European court, where the ladies would have behaved themselves in so polite a manner to such a stranger. I believe, upon the whole, there were two hundred women, and yet none of those disdainful smiles, and satirical whispers, that never fail in our assemblies, when any body appears that is not dressed exactly in the fashion” (Montagu). She emphasizes the kindness and civility of these women when faced with foreignness, while Montesquieu paints a much less flattering and humanizing portrait of his own subjects.