Persian Letters

Persian Letters is one of the first novels where foreignness/otherness is used as a two-pronged, often distressingly ambiguous symbol of alienating “monstrosity” (used in a metaphorical sense of unaccepted and scary non-belonging) and welcomed observational objectivity. Both the French and the Persians are positioned as others to each other, and therefore both have the capacity to represent either a monster or a wise advisor. Thus, Rica’s encounters with professions unfamiliar to a Persian, such as clairvoyants, beauticians, alchemists, and newsmongers, provoke reactions that range from amusement to irritation to fear. His Persian clothes also provoke responses of curiosity or amazement; this is why it is significant that he becomes almost invisible when he removes his native clothes.

On the other hand, Montesquieu clearly positions the Persians as thoughtful observers. He invites readers to accept the symbolic nature of the Easterners’ wisdom and wit, as they carry the main thrust of his themes and observations through their letters.

We use the word “fidelity” here in its widest meaning, as in Persian Letters it comes to represent symbolic transactions that range from literal faithfulness to a spouse, to devotion to a religion, to commitment to enlightened ideas. Being faithful (or fidelitous) symbolizes a whole gamut of behaviors depicted in Persian Letters. Usbek’s worry over his wives’ fidelity exemplifies his homesickness and insecurities as a man and master. His questioning of his fidelity to the holy books demonstrates the change wrought by time, gained knowledge, and his experiences among different cultures. His faithfulness to the philosophical idea of the necessary existence of a virtuous and righteous man represents the nature of Enlightenment embodied in an individual.

Similarly, Rica is consistent in character and disposition. This signifies a modern, young man’s ability to accept change and stay true to himself, which is also very much an Enlightenment-era concept. Finally, the faithful subservience of the slaves denotes the acceptance of a higher, evolved authority, at least from their perspective. Conversely, we could say that the betrayal of Usbek’s wives and slaves symbolizes the frailty of fidelity that is built upon false hierarchies.

The symbol of the mutilated male is one of the most poignant and potent in this novel. The loss of sexuality has long been a source of terror, be it physical, as is the case of the black and white eunuchs, or emotional and rational, as described by Usbek in the “enfeebling” of men through the demands of their religion.

The eunuchs also signify a repressed nature or suppressed intelligence. A man who cannot fully be his own unique self cannot reach his potential, and one of the Enlightenment’s main tenets was self-realization.

Furthermore, Montesquieu depicts the eunuchs as symbolizing something distorted out of natural order: men in servitude to a higher power, men who have not learned to think for themselves, men who obey without question. This goes against everything Montesquieu believed in as a social thinker (and today many consider him one of the founders of anthropology, the science that studies humans and their societies)—that man must be free to think, to decide, and to act.

Several kinds of tolerance (and intolerance) appear throughout the novel, as it is one of the great Enlightenment preoccupations. Thus, the Ottomans are intolerant of Europeans for their diligence; the king tolerates fools but does not tolerate men of high moral scruple. Usbek tolerates his wives’ indiscretions as well as Rhedi’s opposing opinions.

Montesquieu also persistently asks how a country can tolerate various intolerable behaviors. In this manner, he allows the motif of tolerance to gain in ambiguous meaning, one shown in its obverse and reverse like two sides of a coin: The new, modern man learns to be tolerant to replace the spirit of intolerance that ruled the Middle Ages.

A tolerant government promotes rationality and economy of rule, which in turn inspires its people to benevolent obedience. A tolerant religion (in the novel only Protestantism comes close) recognizes the needs of its believers and incorporates those needs in its precepts. Finally, the state by long-standing habit tolerates only its official religion, but should tolerate minority beliefs (once again, Montesquieu’s beliefs resonate with our world today).