Persian Letters

Montesquieu was one of the first major proponents of individual thought during an era when education, information, and scholarship became the prerogative of the cultural system. Whereas the Renaissance and Humanism were primarily responses to the Middle Ages in terms of liberating all thought from the strictures of church and state, the Enlightenment period most valued the process of individual reasoning facilitated by a growing reliance on scholarly pursuit.

Although the first universities grew out of monastic schools, the major point was that new thinkers could liberate learning from the church’s dictum and release it from strictures of dogma (a set of concepts presented by a higher authority as unquestionably true).

Throughout Persian Letters, Montesquieu emphasizes the power of individual, critical, and rational thinking, and contrasts it with traditional thought through numerous examples represented in long-standing systems of belief and age-old political and cultural precepts. Montesquieu largely accomplishes this by using the epistolary form to give us a multitude of voices. This achieves two goals: It removes the onus of argumentative reasoning from a single person embodied in the persona of the author, thereby giving the argument more credibility, and it makes the material more enjoyable to read, which helps it become more widely dispersed.

Usbek and Rica’s letters are like essays in nature, but they allow a thought to develop without the necessary detailed argumentation and strictness of form. This helps the author highlight the differences between one mind’s questioning an idea or a conceit and a traditionally accepted view that often falsely implies the force of the mass psychology behind it. It is important for readers today, who may take their many freedoms of expression for granted, to understand that this was especially momentous during a time when the church’s hold was still extremely strong.

This theme in Persian Letters is therefore of major historical prominence. It marks the beginning of a long battle of learned, curious men, who are not ready to accept petrified opinions from the Middle Ages, to gain the right to think freely, for themselves. Furthermore, they fight for the ability to express those thoughts and conclusions in ways that they think will most beneficially influence society, which is in turn free to form its own ideas about what it has read.

Deliberation of religious belief and the church as the organized institution putting such beliefs into practice is one of the novel’s most significant themes. Usbek and Rica from Paris, Rhedi from Venice, Ibben from Smyrna, and several other figures all contribute their opinions and judgments on religious life both in Europe and in the East. Montesquieu utilizes direct argumentation, discussion, allegory, storytelling, and anecdotes to convey several attitudes and outlooks, often ranging in tone from serious and philosophical to comedic and sharply satirical. What they each have in common, however, is that they represent thoughts typical of the time.

The Enlightenment continued the thought process, begun during the Renaissance, that used critical reasoning to question church-dictated thought and the nature of faith, religious belief, and dogma. Usbek’s pondering of his own Islamic faith allowed Montesquieu to compare how two seemingly different religious systems stem from similar roots and issue similar demands to believers. Ibben’s comments on the division between the body and the soul mark a significant parallel to the concept of Holy Trinity. Rica’s contemplations on the rewards offered to those who observe religion by following complex, church-prescribed rules brings into question the whole concept of the afterlife.

These issues are just some of the examples through which Montesquieu, as an enlightened man of his age, questions whether religious belief and practice actually have a place beside reason and rationality—a question that is still a matter of strong debate today. We know that Montesquieu suffered consequences for his opinions concerning suicide and divorce (both strictly forbidden by the Catholic Church), as well as his defense of Protestantism and its attitude toward similar issues. Even though he published Persian Letters anonymously, the work’s popularity made him a figure of considerable interest. People were intrigued by what learned men had to say on matters of religion, and the church tried vehemently to suppress such dissenting opinions.