What do you think?
Rate this book
Lettres Persannes
L'étonnement de deux voyageurs persans est prétexte à une peinture sans tabou de la fin du règne de Louis XIV. Les particularismes du temps, tout comme les faiblesses et les inclinations naturelles de la nature humaine, sont observés d'autant plus attentivement qu'ils le sont d'un point de vue extérieur. Usbek, principal locuteur de ce roman épistolaire où les lettres s'entrecroisent pour créer un écheveau d'impressions et d'intrigues, a quitté Ispahan pour des raisons politiques. Il dirige donc son sérail depuis l'Europe et échange ses impressions avec ses amis demeurés en Perse, avec Rhédi, en voyage d'étude à Venise, puis avec son compagnon de route Rica, qui préfèrera le tumulte de Paris et la curiosité qu'il y suscite au calme de la campagne environnante élue par Usbek. Ce dernier, si lucide quant aux vices du royaume de France, si critique quant aux traditions européennes, se laisse pourtant duper par ses femmes. Les Lettres persanes, première oeuvre de Montesquieu, publiées dans l'anonymat en 1721, connurent un succès retentissant et furent rééditées plusieurs fois au cours du XVIIIe siècle.
285 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1721
423 people are currently reading
9830 people want to read
About the author
Montesquieu
1,300 books471 followersCharles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, which is taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms "feudalism" and "Byzantine Empire."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews
October 6, 2024
Cînd, cu ani în urmă, am citit Scrisori persane, opera din 1721 a lui Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brède et Montesquieu (autorul a orbit la sfîrşitul vieţii, ca mai tîrziu Borges), m-a amuzat teribil descrierea sarcastică a vestitei biblioteci a mănăstirii de la Saint-Victor.
Curatorul bibliotecii (un monah luminat!) anunță, de pildă, perfecta inutilitate a cărţilor adunate acolo timp de secole. E vorba, desigur, de lucrări medievale (inclusiv de teologie scolastică) şi de la începutul epocii moderne.
Monahul afirmă, bunăoară, că Scriptura nu a devenit mai limpede prin numeroasele comentarii pe care le-a ocazionat și nici nu va deveni vreodată oricît de mulți teologi și-ar bate capul cu ea. În realitate, exegeţii „au alterat întregul înţeles şi au supus la cazne toate pasajele” (epistola CXXXIV, p.260). Ceea ce este, măcar în parte, perfect adevărat.
În opinia fermă a bibliotecarului (să nu-l uităm nici pe bibliologul lui Musil, din Omul fără însușiri), cărţile de teologie sînt prea verbioase, gramaticienii nu au cîtuşi de puţin bun simţ, misticii expun o evlavie mincinoasă, metafizica e făţarnică, epica e frivolă, poezia e ipocrită, fiindcă meseria poeţilor este „să îngrădească bunul simţ şi să acopere raţiunea” (CXXXVII, p.266).
Eroii scriitorilor de romane sînt la fel de bizari ca „dragonii zburători şi hipocentaurii”. Nici Rica, autorul persan al scrisorilor, nu rămîne mai prejos: „La noi, unui amant îi trebuie zece ani de pasiune înainte de a putea vedea măcar chipul iubitei” (CXXXVII, p.267). Totuşi, poeţii dramatici sînt trataţi cu mai multă îngăduinţă. În fine, epigramiştii, fiind foarte periculoşi, sînt priviţi de toți ceilalți cu multă suspiciune. N-au nici un Dumnezeu...
Din numeroasele cărţi ale monahilor nu mai rămîne, în urma acestei analize franco-persane, mare lucru. Să ne amintim că şi messire François Rabelais oferise un catalog parodic al bibliotecii de la Saint-Victor, cuprinzînd lucrările studiate de uriaşul Pantagruel.
Cîteva fragmente din Caiete:
● „Ce veac și veacul nostru în care există atît de mulți judecători / critici și atît de puțini cititori...” (p.370).
● „Voltaire știe să glumească, dar nu știe să fie vesel. Montaigne știe să fie vesel, dar nu știe să glumească” (p.373).
● „În cei mai mulți autori văd pe cel care scrie, în Montaigne pe cel care cugetă” (p.374).
● „Nu de medici ducem lipsă, ci de medicină” (p.448).
● „Nu numai lecturile serioase [filosofice, matematice, teologice etc.] sînt folositoare, ci și cele agreabile / amuzante [romane, memorii, scrisori, poezii etc.]; vine mereu vremea cînd avem nevoie de o destindere cuviincioasă. Pînă și ostenelile savanților trebuie răsplătite cu plăceri” (p.479).
P. S. Traducerea acestui volum a fost realizată de Ștefan Popescu.
Curatorul bibliotecii (un monah luminat!) anunță, de pildă, perfecta inutilitate a cărţilor adunate acolo timp de secole. E vorba, desigur, de lucrări medievale (inclusiv de teologie scolastică) şi de la începutul epocii moderne.
Monahul afirmă, bunăoară, că Scriptura nu a devenit mai limpede prin numeroasele comentarii pe care le-a ocazionat și nici nu va deveni vreodată oricît de mulți teologi și-ar bate capul cu ea. În realitate, exegeţii „au alterat întregul înţeles şi au supus la cazne toate pasajele” (epistola CXXXIV, p.260). Ceea ce este, măcar în parte, perfect adevărat.
În opinia fermă a bibliotecarului (să nu-l uităm nici pe bibliologul lui Musil, din Omul fără însușiri), cărţile de teologie sînt prea verbioase, gramaticienii nu au cîtuşi de puţin bun simţ, misticii expun o evlavie mincinoasă, metafizica e făţarnică, epica e frivolă, poezia e ipocrită, fiindcă meseria poeţilor este „să îngrădească bunul simţ şi să acopere raţiunea” (CXXXVII, p.266).
Eroii scriitorilor de romane sînt la fel de bizari ca „dragonii zburători şi hipocentaurii”. Nici Rica, autorul persan al scrisorilor, nu rămîne mai prejos: „La noi, unui amant îi trebuie zece ani de pasiune înainte de a putea vedea măcar chipul iubitei” (CXXXVII, p.267). Totuşi, poeţii dramatici sînt trataţi cu mai multă îngăduinţă. În fine, epigramiştii, fiind foarte periculoşi, sînt priviţi de toți ceilalți cu multă suspiciune. N-au nici un Dumnezeu...
Din numeroasele cărţi ale monahilor nu mai rămîne, în urma acestei analize franco-persane, mare lucru. Să ne amintim că şi messire François Rabelais oferise un catalog parodic al bibliotecii de la Saint-Victor, cuprinzînd lucrările studiate de uriaşul Pantagruel.
Cîteva fragmente din Caiete:
● „Ce veac și veacul nostru în care există atît de mulți judecători / critici și atît de puțini cititori...” (p.370).
● „Voltaire știe să glumească, dar nu știe să fie vesel. Montaigne știe să fie vesel, dar nu știe să glumească” (p.373).
● „În cei mai mulți autori văd pe cel care scrie, în Montaigne pe cel care cugetă” (p.374).
● „Nu de medici ducem lipsă, ci de medicină” (p.448).
● „Nu numai lecturile serioase [filosofice, matematice, teologice etc.] sînt folositoare, ci și cele agreabile / amuzante [romane, memorii, scrisori, poezii etc.]; vine mereu vremea cînd avem nevoie de o destindere cuviincioasă. Pînă și ostenelile savanților trebuie răsplătite cu plăceri” (p.479).
P. S. Traducerea acestui volum a fost realizată de Ștefan Popescu.
September 3, 2025
How to sell a book 300 years old to a modern reader? What is the appeal today of the epistolary musings of a couple of Oriental travellers having a first contact with Western civilization at the end of King Louis the 14th reign? Here are some points that I hope will tickle your interest:
1 - The Persian Letters were not written as history, but as a contemporary satire of French civilization, using ridicule and common sense to expose the more unsavoury mentalities and practices of fellow countrymen. Think of Montesquieu as the 1721 version of The Colbert Report or The Daily Show:
I saw a survey here on Goodreads asking what I would do if I had a time machine. One answer would be to go back to early 18 century, pick up Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu, and bring him back to 2012 to do a tour of the talk shows. I'm sure he would be quite at ease and dazzling in his commentaries.
2. According to political scientist Donald Lutz, Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America, cited more by the American founders than any source except for the Bible. So, if you are not ready to tackle his magnum opus (De l'esprit des lois), you might check this lighter material first, one that incorporates the basic tenets of his philosophy in a more entertaining format. Here's a quote that might feel familiar:
All the people of Europe are not equally subject to their princes: for instance, the impatient humour of the English seldom give their king time to make his power heavy. Passive obedience and non-resistance are no virtues in their esteem. They say upon this head very extraordinary things. According to them, there is but one tie that can bind men, which is that of gratitude: a husband, a wife, a father and son, are not bound to each other, but either by the love they bear to one another, or by mutual services: and these different motives of acknowledgement are the origin of every kingdom, and of all societies. But if a prince, very far from making his subjects live happy, endeavours to oppress and ruin them, the foundation of obedience ceases; nothing ties them, nothing attaches them to him, and they return to their natural liberty.
Letter CIV
3. At the time of its publication, The Persian Letters had a success comparable to Twilight and Harry Potter, spawning countless imitations. While it is not technically the first novel to be written entirely in epistolary form, it was the one that made the biggest splash. Some of the appeal may have been in the piquant details about life in a harem (quite tame by modern standards) or in trying to identify the local celebrities lampooned in the text. But I believe the major selling point was the outsider view, the contact of two civilizations that have evolved on parallel tracks : Persian and French. Given that today we see a lot of wilful misunderstandings and distortions about the Muslim versus the Christian heritage, a lecture of the attitudes held by both the Frenchmen and the Orientals might show we were more tolerant three centuries ago.
4. Montesquieu is one of the founding members of the Enlightenment movement, a firm believer in progress, education, science, diversity, justice and the basic decency of humans in their natural state. The parable of the Troglodites in one of the first letters illustrate this point of the difference between a society built solely on greed and one built on respect, fairness, moral rectitude, hard work.
5. You can start a lively debate with direct appliance to the modern day from any of his letters on such diverse subjects as:
- world demographic evolution (Letter CXXX and onward),
- the distribution of wealth (Letter XCVIII),
- economic theory (Letter CVI)
- science as the new religion (Letter XCVII),
- creationism (Letter CXIII)
- religious tolerance (Letter LX)
- good governance (Letter LXXX)
- celibacy (Letter CXVII)
- the right to take your own life (didn't note the number of this letter)
- poligamy (Letter CXIV)
- divorce (Letter CXVI)
- modesty (Letter CXLIV)
- and so on ...
6. While Montesquieu doesn't take a clear stance on women liberation and the injustice of locking them in gilded cages, reading between the lines of the letters dealing directly with Uzbek and his five wives, and considering the final outcome of trying to impose authority from a distance, using brute force, he could still be considered one of the first authors to speak up against genre discrimination.
Before I get to the numerous quotes I selected from the text, I should say a few words about why I didn't give the book the maximum rating, and why it may not work for anyone. The language, especially in the first 20 or 30 letters is archaic, brimming with thee, thy, art, mayest, sayest, etc. I got used to it eventually and stopped noticing the dusty style about a third of the way in. And for readers who expect a plot, characterization, action: this is not it. Excluding the harem pieces, most of the book is in essays and satirical pieces.
First quote is about curiosity and a thirst for knowledge:
They who love to inform themselves, are never idle. Though I have no business of consequence to take care of, I am nevertheless continually employed. I spend my life in examining things: I write down in the evening whatever I have remarked, what I have seen, and what I have heard in the day: every thing engages my attention, and every thing excites my wonder: I am like an infant, whose organs, as yet tender, are strongly affected by the slightest objects.
Letter XLVIII
Next, one about the anti-intellectual attitude:
With regard to those who take pride in their ignorance, they would willingly have all mankind buried in that oblivion to which they are themselves consigned. When a man is destitute of any particular talent, he indemnifies himself, by expressing his contempt for it;
Letter CXLV
A plea for religious pluralism:
I know not, Mirza, but it may be good for a state, that there should be several religions in it. It is observable, that the members of the tolerated 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. Besides, as all religions contain precepts useful to society, it is good that they should be observed with zeal.
Letter LXXXV
Once more, for religious tolerance:
I acknowledge that history is full of religious wars; but we must take care to observe, it was not the multiplicity of religions that produced these wars, it was the intolerating spirit which animated that which thought she had the power of governing. It was the spirit of proselytism, which the Jews contracted from the Egyptians, and which from them hath passed, like an epidemic and popular disease, to Mahometans and Christians. It is, in short, the spirit of enthusiasm, the progress of which can be considered only as a total eclipse of human reason. [...] He who would have me change my religion, no doubt, desires me to do so, because he would not change his own if he was forced to it: he yet thinks it strange, that I will not do a thing which he himself would not do, perhaps, for the empire of the world.
Letter LXXXV
One quote that predicts the principles that will eventually lead to the United Nations:
It seems, Rhedi, there are two kinds of justice entirely different, one which regulates the affairs of private persons, which reigns in the civil law; another which regulates the differences that arise between people and people, which tyrannizes in the law of nations: as if the law of nations was not a civil law, not indeed of a particular country, but of the world. [...] The magistrates ought to administer justice between citizen and citizen, every nation ought to do the same between themselves and another nation. In this second distribution of justice, no other maxims ought to be employed but those in the first.
Letter XCV
How to put down a bigot :
When two persons who were present denied him any of his principles, he presently cried out it is certain, we have so determined it, and we are infallible judges. And how came you, said I to him then, to be infallible judges? Do not you perceive, replied he, that the holy spirit hath enlightened us? That is happy, returned I; for from the manner of your talking to-day I perceive you have great need to be enlightened.
Letter CI
On the legality of war:
There are but two kinds of just wars: one which is waged to repulse the attack of an enemy, the other to succour an ally who is attacked. It would not be justice to enter into a war upon the private quarrel of a prince; unless the case was so heinous as to merit the death of the prince or the people who committed it. Thus, a prince should not engage in a war because he hath been refused an honour which was his right, or for any unsuitable demeanor towards his ambassadors, and such similar cases; no more than a private person ought to kill him who refuses him precedency. The reason is this, as a declaration of war ought to be an act of justice, wherein the punishment should always be in proportion to the fault, it should be inquired whether the party against whom war is declared merits death. For to make war against any person, is to be willing to punish him with death. In the law of nations the severest act of justice is war, since the effect of it is the destruction of society.
Letter XCV
This is uncannily accurate about the progress of weapons of mass destruction:
Thou talkest much to me in one of thy letters, of the arts and sciences cultivated in the west. Thou wilt be ready to regard me as a barbarian: but I know not if the benefit derived from them hath made amends to mankind, for the bad use to which they are daily applied. I have heard say, that the single invention of bombs, hath destroyed the liberty of all the people of Europe. The princes being no longer willing to intrust the guard of towns to the citizens, who would surrender them at the first bomb, made that a pretext for keeping a large body of regular troops, with which they afterwards oppressed their subjects. Thou knowest, that since the invention of gun-powder, there is no place impregnable; that is to say, Usbek, that there is not any longer an assylum upon earth against injustice and violence. I always tremble, lest they should arrive at last at the discovery of some secret which may furnish them with a shorter way to destroy mankind, and to depopulate whole nations and whole kingdoms.
Letter CV
In a lighter mood, but again accurate regarding the fashion slaves:
The caprices of fashion among the French are astonishing; they have forgot how they were dressed in the summer: they are even more ignorant how they shall dress this winter: but, above all, it is not to be believed how much it costs a husband to put his wife in the fashion. What should I get by giving thee a full account of their dress and ornaments? A new fashion would destroy all my labour, as it does that of their works; and before thou hadst received my letter, the whole would be changed. A woman who quits Paris, to go and pass six months in the country, is as antiquated at her return, as if she had been forgotten thirty years.
Letter XCIX
On the distribution of wealth:
The propagation of mankind is vastly promoted by a mild government. All republics are certain proofs of this; and above all others, Swisserland and Holland, which are the two worst countries in Europe, if we consider the nature of their land, and which are nevertheless the best peopled. Nothing invites strangers more than liberty and wealth, which always follow the former: the first is searched after for its own sake; and we are led by our wants into the country where the latter is to be acquired. The species increase itself in a country where the plenty of it supports the children without diminishing the substance of their fathers. The equality of citizens, which commonly produces an equality in their fortunes, brings plenty and life into every part of the body politic, and extends them through the whole. In countries subject to an arbitrary power it is not the same: the prince, the courtiers, and some private persons, possess all the riches, whilst all the rest groan beneath extreme poverty.
Letter CXXII
I left for last my favorite, and sadly, it is a lesson we haven't learned yet:
There are but two kinds of just wars: one which is waged to repulse the attack of an enemy, the other to succour an ally who is attacked. It would not be justice to enter into a war upon the private quarrel of a prince; unless the case was so heinous as to merit the death of the prince or the people who committed it. Thus, a prince should not engage in a war because he hath been refused an honour which was his right, or for any unsuitable demeanor towards his ambassadors, and such similar cases; no more than a private person ought to kill him who refuses him precedency. The reason is this, as a declaration of war ought to be an act of justice, wherein the punishment should always be in proportion to the fault, it should be inquired whether the party against whom war is declared merits death. For to make war against any person, is to be willing to punish him with death. In the law of nations the severest act of justice is war, since the effect of it is the destruction of society.
Letter XCV
[edit for spelling 2025]
1 - The Persian Letters were not written as history, but as a contemporary satire of French civilization, using ridicule and common sense to expose the more unsavoury mentalities and practices of fellow countrymen. Think of Montesquieu as the 1721 version of The Colbert Report or The Daily Show:
I saw a survey here on Goodreads asking what I would do if I had a time machine. One answer would be to go back to early 18 century, pick up Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu, and bring him back to 2012 to do a tour of the talk shows. I'm sure he would be quite at ease and dazzling in his commentaries.
2. According to political scientist Donald Lutz, Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary British America, cited more by the American founders than any source except for the Bible. So, if you are not ready to tackle his magnum opus (De l'esprit des lois), you might check this lighter material first, one that incorporates the basic tenets of his philosophy in a more entertaining format. Here's a quote that might feel familiar:
All the people of Europe are not equally subject to their princes: for instance, the impatient humour of the English seldom give their king time to make his power heavy. Passive obedience and non-resistance are no virtues in their esteem. They say upon this head very extraordinary things. According to them, there is but one tie that can bind men, which is that of gratitude: a husband, a wife, a father and son, are not bound to each other, but either by the love they bear to one another, or by mutual services: and these different motives of acknowledgement are the origin of every kingdom, and of all societies. But if a prince, very far from making his subjects live happy, endeavours to oppress and ruin them, the foundation of obedience ceases; nothing ties them, nothing attaches them to him, and they return to their natural liberty.
Letter CIV
3. At the time of its publication, The Persian Letters had a success comparable to Twilight and Harry Potter, spawning countless imitations. While it is not technically the first novel to be written entirely in epistolary form, it was the one that made the biggest splash. Some of the appeal may have been in the piquant details about life in a harem (quite tame by modern standards) or in trying to identify the local celebrities lampooned in the text. But I believe the major selling point was the outsider view, the contact of two civilizations that have evolved on parallel tracks : Persian and French. Given that today we see a lot of wilful misunderstandings and distortions about the Muslim versus the Christian heritage, a lecture of the attitudes held by both the Frenchmen and the Orientals might show we were more tolerant three centuries ago.
4. Montesquieu is one of the founding members of the Enlightenment movement, a firm believer in progress, education, science, diversity, justice and the basic decency of humans in their natural state. The parable of the Troglodites in one of the first letters illustrate this point of the difference between a society built solely on greed and one built on respect, fairness, moral rectitude, hard work.
5. You can start a lively debate with direct appliance to the modern day from any of his letters on such diverse subjects as:
- world demographic evolution (Letter CXXX and onward),
- the distribution of wealth (Letter XCVIII),
- economic theory (Letter CVI)
- science as the new religion (Letter XCVII),
- creationism (Letter CXIII)
- religious tolerance (Letter LX)
- good governance (Letter LXXX)
- celibacy (Letter CXVII)
- the right to take your own life (didn't note the number of this letter)
- poligamy (Letter CXIV)
- divorce (Letter CXVI)
- modesty (Letter CXLIV)
- and so on ...
6. While Montesquieu doesn't take a clear stance on women liberation and the injustice of locking them in gilded cages, reading between the lines of the letters dealing directly with Uzbek and his five wives, and considering the final outcome of trying to impose authority from a distance, using brute force, he could still be considered one of the first authors to speak up against genre discrimination.
Before I get to the numerous quotes I selected from the text, I should say a few words about why I didn't give the book the maximum rating, and why it may not work for anyone. The language, especially in the first 20 or 30 letters is archaic, brimming with thee, thy, art, mayest, sayest, etc. I got used to it eventually and stopped noticing the dusty style about a third of the way in. And for readers who expect a plot, characterization, action: this is not it. Excluding the harem pieces, most of the book is in essays and satirical pieces.
First quote is about curiosity and a thirst for knowledge:
They who love to inform themselves, are never idle. Though I have no business of consequence to take care of, I am nevertheless continually employed. I spend my life in examining things: I write down in the evening whatever I have remarked, what I have seen, and what I have heard in the day: every thing engages my attention, and every thing excites my wonder: I am like an infant, whose organs, as yet tender, are strongly affected by the slightest objects.
Letter XLVIII
Next, one about the anti-intellectual attitude:
With regard to those who take pride in their ignorance, they would willingly have all mankind buried in that oblivion to which they are themselves consigned. When a man is destitute of any particular talent, he indemnifies himself, by expressing his contempt for it;
Letter CXLV
A plea for religious pluralism:
I know not, Mirza, but it may be good for a state, that there should be several religions in it. It is observable, that the members of the tolerated 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. Besides, as all religions contain precepts useful to society, it is good that they should be observed with zeal.
Letter LXXXV
Once more, for religious tolerance:
I acknowledge that history is full of religious wars; but we must take care to observe, it was not the multiplicity of religions that produced these wars, it was the intolerating spirit which animated that which thought she had the power of governing. It was the spirit of proselytism, which the Jews contracted from the Egyptians, and which from them hath passed, like an epidemic and popular disease, to Mahometans and Christians. It is, in short, the spirit of enthusiasm, the progress of which can be considered only as a total eclipse of human reason. [...] He who would have me change my religion, no doubt, desires me to do so, because he would not change his own if he was forced to it: he yet thinks it strange, that I will not do a thing which he himself would not do, perhaps, for the empire of the world.
Letter LXXXV
One quote that predicts the principles that will eventually lead to the United Nations:
It seems, Rhedi, there are two kinds of justice entirely different, one which regulates the affairs of private persons, which reigns in the civil law; another which regulates the differences that arise between people and people, which tyrannizes in the law of nations: as if the law of nations was not a civil law, not indeed of a particular country, but of the world. [...] The magistrates ought to administer justice between citizen and citizen, every nation ought to do the same between themselves and another nation. In this second distribution of justice, no other maxims ought to be employed but those in the first.
Letter XCV
How to put down a bigot :
When two persons who were present denied him any of his principles, he presently cried out it is certain, we have so determined it, and we are infallible judges. And how came you, said I to him then, to be infallible judges? Do not you perceive, replied he, that the holy spirit hath enlightened us? That is happy, returned I; for from the manner of your talking to-day I perceive you have great need to be enlightened.
Letter CI
On the legality of war:
There are but two kinds of just wars: one which is waged to repulse the attack of an enemy, the other to succour an ally who is attacked. It would not be justice to enter into a war upon the private quarrel of a prince; unless the case was so heinous as to merit the death of the prince or the people who committed it. Thus, a prince should not engage in a war because he hath been refused an honour which was his right, or for any unsuitable demeanor towards his ambassadors, and such similar cases; no more than a private person ought to kill him who refuses him precedency. The reason is this, as a declaration of war ought to be an act of justice, wherein the punishment should always be in proportion to the fault, it should be inquired whether the party against whom war is declared merits death. For to make war against any person, is to be willing to punish him with death. In the law of nations the severest act of justice is war, since the effect of it is the destruction of society.
Letter XCV
This is uncannily accurate about the progress of weapons of mass destruction:
Thou talkest much to me in one of thy letters, of the arts and sciences cultivated in the west. Thou wilt be ready to regard me as a barbarian: but I know not if the benefit derived from them hath made amends to mankind, for the bad use to which they are daily applied. I have heard say, that the single invention of bombs, hath destroyed the liberty of all the people of Europe. The princes being no longer willing to intrust the guard of towns to the citizens, who would surrender them at the first bomb, made that a pretext for keeping a large body of regular troops, with which they afterwards oppressed their subjects. Thou knowest, that since the invention of gun-powder, there is no place impregnable; that is to say, Usbek, that there is not any longer an assylum upon earth against injustice and violence. I always tremble, lest they should arrive at last at the discovery of some secret which may furnish them with a shorter way to destroy mankind, and to depopulate whole nations and whole kingdoms.
Letter CV
In a lighter mood, but again accurate regarding the fashion slaves:
The caprices of fashion among the French are astonishing; they have forgot how they were dressed in the summer: they are even more ignorant how they shall dress this winter: but, above all, it is not to be believed how much it costs a husband to put his wife in the fashion. What should I get by giving thee a full account of their dress and ornaments? A new fashion would destroy all my labour, as it does that of their works; and before thou hadst received my letter, the whole would be changed. A woman who quits Paris, to go and pass six months in the country, is as antiquated at her return, as if she had been forgotten thirty years.
Letter XCIX
On the distribution of wealth:
The propagation of mankind is vastly promoted by a mild government. All republics are certain proofs of this; and above all others, Swisserland and Holland, which are the two worst countries in Europe, if we consider the nature of their land, and which are nevertheless the best peopled. Nothing invites strangers more than liberty and wealth, which always follow the former: the first is searched after for its own sake; and we are led by our wants into the country where the latter is to be acquired. The species increase itself in a country where the plenty of it supports the children without diminishing the substance of their fathers. The equality of citizens, which commonly produces an equality in their fortunes, brings plenty and life into every part of the body politic, and extends them through the whole. In countries subject to an arbitrary power it is not the same: the prince, the courtiers, and some private persons, possess all the riches, whilst all the rest groan beneath extreme poverty.
Letter CXXII
I left for last my favorite, and sadly, it is a lesson we haven't learned yet:
There are but two kinds of just wars: one which is waged to repulse the attack of an enemy, the other to succour an ally who is attacked. It would not be justice to enter into a war upon the private quarrel of a prince; unless the case was so heinous as to merit the death of the prince or the people who committed it. Thus, a prince should not engage in a war because he hath been refused an honour which was his right, or for any unsuitable demeanor towards his ambassadors, and such similar cases; no more than a private person ought to kill him who refuses him precedency. The reason is this, as a declaration of war ought to be an act of justice, wherein the punishment should always be in proportion to the fault, it should be inquired whether the party against whom war is declared merits death. For to make war against any person, is to be willing to punish him with death. In the law of nations the severest act of justice is war, since the effect of it is the destruction of society.
Letter XCV
[edit for spelling 2025]
Read
May 22, 2023I think it said in the introduction that this was the first novel in letters, which does leave me wondering where Montesquieu got the idea from. The concept is that two Persians, Usbek and Rica, have left Persia to travel to France, and they write letters to each other, and to their acquaintances in Persia, they receive letters from other Persians, Usbek also receives letters from his wives and eunuchs in his harem.
The format of a novel in letters keeps the text light, because of the frequent changes of topic and theme. The two travellers are interested in the nature of the countries and societies that they travel through this is countered by the letters from the harem which get steadily worse threatening of a decline in discipline and dishonourable goings on. The occasional details about Persian life were drawn from French books about Persia, the accuracy of which I felt was alluded to by the front cover of my edition which shows a Turkish Ottoman Sultan. Montesquieu pokes fun at this by having one of his Persians have a conversion with a Frenchman who has read one of these books and appears to know more about Persia than the traveller - but maybe there is a serious point that the traveller has some perspective which does allow them to perceive a place more sharply that its native inhabitants.
This as you might have guessed is both the great strength and the weakness of this book. Writing anonymously the fictional letters of fictional Persian travellers allows Montesquieu to distance himself from what he writes, so he can be as wild as an eighteenth century French nobleman would want to be in criticising contemporary French society, equally one can't be certain exactly where he stands, the benefit of this in a novel in letters is that you can express contradictory opinions. For instance in one letter Rica fears that scientific developments will give rise to evermore frightening and destructive weapons, in response Usbek reasons that this is possible but that people - well specifically governments - will regulate and control them through international agreements.
Perhaps I might add that of course Montesquieu doesn't really have the perspective that an eighteenth century Persian might have had, he has the perspective of a French nobleman who has social prestige and dignity but is excluded from formal participation in the politics of his country. I expected this to develop in the contrast between the "oriental harem" and the occidental mistresses of the king or of his ministers, but he is not interested in exploring such networks of informal power, though as an aristocrat who is perfectly well aware that across the channel in Britain, men a bit like him - just rather less talented - are running the country and managing the king - you get the sense that he is much more interested in formal, as an aside I can add masculine or male dominated, power structures which is how eventually Montesquieu feeds in to influence the constitution of the USA - through not so much through the Persian letters but through later writings.
He is, as a upstanding intellectual figure of the Enlightenment, interested in a range of issues including the relationship between geography and human character or environment and culture, whether human population is growing or shrinking and if so why (in Persia he thinks it is shrinking as a consequence of polygamy) , the superiority of ancient or modern authors, criticism of society - to some extent, forms of government and the origins of government of social orders.
Religion is an important theme - there is nothing to lose from religious toleration, say Montesquieu's Persians because all religions preach subservience and obedience to the secular authorities, Montesquieu over looks, possibly out of ignorance, possibly deliberately the not so distant history of the French wars of religion during which first Protestant then Catholic writers argued it was necessary to over throw ungodly rulers. Intolerance, argue the Persians rids the kingdom of its best and most productive subjects referencing the Armenians (meaning the Huguenots) but that productivity was a function of intolerance and the exclusion of the religious minority from full and equal citizenship (or subjectivity in this case). Priests and members of religious orders, as you might expect from an Enlightenment text are not positively portrayed.
Originally the book was published anonymously and Montesquieu added additional letters to later editions, some of these are integrated into the text, others stand apart in an appendix - most of these develop the story of what is happening in the harem while Usbek is in France.
It is an approachable, something for everybody kind of book with the bonus that France at the close of the reign of Louis XIV and the beginning of the regency administration for his great-grandson Louis XV is as alien to us as it was meant to be for Montesquieu's fictional Persians.
The format of a novel in letters keeps the text light, because of the frequent changes of topic and theme. The two travellers are interested in the nature of the countries and societies that they travel through this is countered by the letters from the harem which get steadily worse threatening of a decline in discipline and dishonourable goings on. The occasional details about Persian life were drawn from French books about Persia, the accuracy of which I felt was alluded to by the front cover of my edition which shows a Turkish Ottoman Sultan. Montesquieu pokes fun at this by having one of his Persians have a conversion with a Frenchman who has read one of these books and appears to know more about Persia than the traveller - but maybe there is a serious point that the traveller has some perspective which does allow them to perceive a place more sharply that its native inhabitants.
This as you might have guessed is both the great strength and the weakness of this book. Writing anonymously the fictional letters of fictional Persian travellers allows Montesquieu to distance himself from what he writes, so he can be as wild as an eighteenth century French nobleman would want to be in criticising contemporary French society, equally one can't be certain exactly where he stands, the benefit of this in a novel in letters is that you can express contradictory opinions. For instance in one letter Rica fears that scientific developments will give rise to evermore frightening and destructive weapons, in response Usbek reasons that this is possible but that people - well specifically governments - will regulate and control them through international agreements.
Perhaps I might add that of course Montesquieu doesn't really have the perspective that an eighteenth century Persian might have had, he has the perspective of a French nobleman who has social prestige and dignity but is excluded from formal participation in the politics of his country. I expected this to develop in the contrast between the "oriental harem" and the occidental mistresses of the king or of his ministers, but he is not interested in exploring such networks of informal power, though as an aristocrat who is perfectly well aware that across the channel in Britain, men a bit like him - just rather less talented - are running the country and managing the king - you get the sense that he is much more interested in formal, as an aside I can add masculine or male dominated, power structures which is how eventually Montesquieu feeds in to influence the constitution of the USA - through not so much through the Persian letters but through later writings.
He is, as a upstanding intellectual figure of the Enlightenment, interested in a range of issues including the relationship between geography and human character or environment and culture, whether human population is growing or shrinking and if so why (in Persia he thinks it is shrinking as a consequence of polygamy) , the superiority of ancient or modern authors, criticism of society - to some extent, forms of government and the origins of government of social orders.
Religion is an important theme - there is nothing to lose from religious toleration, say Montesquieu's Persians because all religions preach subservience and obedience to the secular authorities, Montesquieu over looks, possibly out of ignorance, possibly deliberately the not so distant history of the French wars of religion during which first Protestant then Catholic writers argued it was necessary to over throw ungodly rulers. Intolerance, argue the Persians rids the kingdom of its best and most productive subjects referencing the Armenians (meaning the Huguenots) but that productivity was a function of intolerance and the exclusion of the religious minority from full and equal citizenship (or subjectivity in this case). Priests and members of religious orders, as you might expect from an Enlightenment text are not positively portrayed.
Originally the book was published anonymously and Montesquieu added additional letters to later editions, some of these are integrated into the text, others stand apart in an appendix - most of these develop the story of what is happening in the harem while Usbek is in France.
It is an approachable, something for everybody kind of book with the bonus that France at the close of the reign of Louis XIV and the beginning of the regency administration for his great-grandson Louis XV is as alien to us as it was meant to be for Montesquieu's fictional Persians.
August 24, 2022
Перед нами замечательный образец прозы XVIII века, эпохи Просвещения, философский роман, облеченный в эпистолярную форму. Письма от разных адресатов позволяет смотреть на обсуждаемые вопросы с разных точек зрения, создаётся диалогичность подачи информации, что было новаторством. Письма от персов (хотя имя Узбек, вообще-то, тюркское), далёких от европейской культуры, позволяет выворачивать вещи и явления наизнанку, где-то называть их своими именами, что в те времена было невозможно, или подвергать беспощадному сатирическому осмеянию, как он сделал с папой, королем Людовиком XIV, великосветской публикой в театре. Казалось бы, что нового можно почерпнуть в книге XVIII века? Но, для меня было откровением узнать о демографической убыли населения в Европе в Средние века. Критика Монтескье колониального захвата Америки на фоне демографического кризиса в самой Европе звучит очень логично - зачем им земли, если в своей стране не хватает населения? Но важно и то, что он выступает именно как гуманист, порицая уничтожение коренного населения и ввоз чернокожих рабов из Африки. Монтескье весьма справедлив, проводя исторические параллели и заметив о татарах (конечно, название исторически неточное, поскольку, это всё-таки монголы), что завоевав большую часть мира и превзойдя Александра Македонского, зародив некоторые народы, они нуждаются в своем историке, который бы прославлял их победы.
Для Монтескье идеалом является Древняя Греция, единственная свободная и культурная страна среди варваров. Он также приводит притчу о троглодитах, в которой создаётся утопический образ справедливого общества, с равноправными и довольными жителями. Из реальных государств похвал Монтескье удостаиваются Голландия и Швейцария, страны с недостатком или плохим качеством земель, которые тем не менее, уже тогда добились успеха.
Ну и, наконец, эпистолярный роман заканчивается бунтом женщин в серале.С одной стороны, это и прямая критика положения женщин, а с другой стороны, образ сераля символизирует деспотию государства.
Для Монтескье идеалом является Древняя Греция, единственная свободная и культурная страна среди варваров. Он также приводит притчу о троглодитах, в которой создаётся утопический образ справедливого общества, с равноправными и довольными жителями. Из реальных государств похвал Монтескье удостаиваются Голландия и Швейцария, страны с недостатком или плохим качеством земель, которые тем не менее, уже тогда добились успеха.
Ну и, наконец, эпистолярный роман заканчивается бунтом женщин в серале.С одной стороны, это и прямая критика положения женщин, а с другой стороны, образ сераля символизирует деспотию государства.
February 19, 2014
Montesquieu may not be known to you, but he is largely responsible for the system of checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. The Founding Fathers of our country were deeply influenced by Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, which he wrote later in life.
The Persian Letters, however, was written a quarter century earlier and was one of the most popular books of its time. Montesquieu has, in effect, created an epistolary novel about two Persians who spend some ten years in Europe from 1711-1720, closely observing the strangeness of French institutions and customs from the point of view of Persians of the time.
It was a rough time in France, roughly comparable to our own recession due to the Mississippi Bubble and the "system" of John Law, who had been appointed Controller General of Finances of France under King Louis XV. Law was brilliant but exceedingly unorthodox, with the result that many fortunes were lost. In Letter 146, the narrator Usbek writes:
This is an interesting book to dip into from time to time, not only to see what was troubling France in the early 1700s, but to see a highly original mind at work with a penetrating intellect in matters relating to culture and governance.
The Persian Letters, however, was written a quarter century earlier and was one of the most popular books of its time. Montesquieu has, in effect, created an epistolary novel about two Persians who spend some ten years in Europe from 1711-1720, closely observing the strangeness of French institutions and customs from the point of view of Persians of the time.
It was a rough time in France, roughly comparable to our own recession due to the Mississippi Bubble and the "system" of John Law, who had been appointed Controller General of Finances of France under King Louis XV. Law was brilliant but exceedingly unorthodox, with the result that many fortunes were lost. In Letter 146, the narrator Usbek writes:
I saw contractual honour dismissed, the most sacred conventions annihilated, every law of the family overthrown. I saw debtors full of avarice, proud and insolent in their poverty, worthless instruments of the ferocity of the law and the harshness of the time, pretending to pay their debts, not doing so, but stabbing their benefactors instead.At the same time that Usbek is observing France, we are observing his seraglio back in Persia falling to pieces, as his prolonged absence from his wives results in the disorder of his married life.
More shamefully still, I saw others buying notes for almost nothing, or rather picking up oak-leaves from the ground and putting them in the place of the subsistence of widows and orphans.
I saw an insatiable lust for money suddenly springing up in every heart. I saw the instantaneous development of a hateful conspiracy to get rich, not by honourable work and unstinting behaviour, but by ruining the king, the state and other citizens.
This is an interesting book to dip into from time to time, not only to see what was troubling France in the early 1700s, but to see a highly original mind at work with a penetrating intellect in matters relating to culture and governance.
July 15, 2020
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 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 the 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 religions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism in the US? What better description of Jews as minority, making themselves the most useful, and opulent?
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 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 the 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 religions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism in the US? What better description of Jews as minority, making themselves the most useful, and opulent?
March 15, 2016
این کتاب نام ایرانیان را چنان بلند آوازه ساخت که فرانسویان مدتی دراز، ترک و عرب و چینی و هندی و ژاپنی و سیامی را به فراموشی سپردند. دیگر همه جا صحبت از ایرانیان بود و همه از فضایل ایرانیان سخن می راندند و کار به جایی رسید که ناشران و کتابفروشان در برخورد با هر نویسنده ای از او می خواستند که داستانی شبیه به نامه های ایرانی برایشان بنویسد.
کتاب "نامه های ایرانی" در همان نخستین سال انتشار ده بار و در زمان حیات مونتسکیو 29 بار به چاپ رسید. چنین موفقیتی تا آن زمان در تاریخ ادبیات فرانسه سابقه نداشت. ولتر نویسنده و فیلسوف بزرگ فرانسه در این باره می گوید: "فرانسویان از خواندن نامه های ایرانی مست شدند".
نویسنده دیگر اظهار می دارد: "مردم نامه های ایرانی را مانند نان می خریدند".
شخصی به نام اوزبک به منظور کسب دانش قدم در راه سفر از اصفهات به پاریس میگذارد.کتاب مجموعه ای از نامه هایی است که بین معشوقه ها و دوستان اوزبک با وی رد و بدل میشود.منتسکیو در این کتاب گاه به نقد اخلاقیات مردم پاریس و ستایش اخلاق ایرانیان میپردازد.به نظر میرسد او با سفرنامه های خارجیان از ایران عصر صفویه بویژه سفرنامه شاردن آشنایی داشته و مجذوب فرهنگ ایرانیان شده است.اوزبک از ثروتمندان اصفهان بوده و حرمسرای بزرگی نیز داشته است و بیشتر نامه ها با مضمون مسائل و اتفاقات حرمسراست.
June 1, 2018
One of my first thrills of enthusiasm for "classical books" vintage.
What a legendary satire, my friends! The link between you and Montesquieu feels fresh as a glass of beer, as if the French writer was having casual talk with you over a drink about the relevance of privatizing SNCF (French National Railway Company)!
------------------------------
Un de mes tous premiers coups de cœur pour des auteurs du cru "classique".
Ce livre est tout simplement un monstre de satire. On croirait que Montesquieu est là, juste à côté, à bavasser plaisamment sur les travers du gouvernement d'Édouard Philippe, sur l'utilité de privatiser la SNCF, et de faire une comparaison rapide avec les pays voisins ou plus loin des conséquences de la privatisation du transport public, de l'énergie, de l'enseignement, des services de santé, avec les pays étrangers, comme ça, en passant.
What a legendary satire, my friends! The link between you and Montesquieu feels fresh as a glass of beer, as if the French writer was having casual talk with you over a drink about the relevance of privatizing SNCF (French National Railway Company)!
------------------------------
Un de mes tous premiers coups de cœur pour des auteurs du cru "classique".
Ce livre est tout simplement un monstre de satire. On croirait que Montesquieu est là, juste à côté, à bavasser plaisamment sur les travers du gouvernement d'Édouard Philippe, sur l'utilité de privatiser la SNCF, et de faire une comparaison rapide avec les pays voisins ou plus loin des conséquences de la privatisation du transport public, de l'énergie, de l'enseignement, des services de santé, avec les pays étrangers, comme ça, en passant.
April 22, 2017
کتاب چندان جذابی نبود، ولی خوندنش خالی از لطف نیس!
میشه تفاوت طرز تفکر آسیایی ها و اروپایی ها رو درک کرد، البته ممکنه مثل من توی قسمت هایی از کتاب از نگرش مردها نسبت به زن ها عصبانی بشید!
میشه تفاوت طرز تفکر آسیایی ها و اروپایی ها رو درک کرد، البته ممکنه مثل من توی قسمت هایی از کتاب از نگرش مردها نسبت به زن ها عصبانی بشید!
May 18, 2016
„ E o mare întrebare pe care și-o pun bărbații și anume : e mai bine să le iei femeilor libertatea sau să le-o lași ? Mi se pare că sunt destule motive și pentru și contra. Dacă europenii spun că nu e o dovadă de generozitate să nefericești persoanele pe care le iubești, asiaticii noștri răspund că e o josnicie ca bărbații să renunțe la puterea pe care le-a dat-o natura asupra femeilor. Dacă le spui că numărul mare de femei închise e stânjenitor ei răspund că zece femei supuse stânjenesc mai puțin decât una nesupusă. Când li se obiectează că europenii nu pot fi fericiți cu femei ce nu le sunt credinociase, li se răspunde că această credință atât de mult lăudată nu împiedică dezgustul care urmează întotdeauna după satisfacerea pasiunilor. Femeile noastre țin prea mult la noi. O pasiune atât de liniștită, te face să nu mai dorești nimic nici să nu mai ai temeri. Spun că puțină cochetărie e o sare care dă gust și care previne corupția. Poate că unui om mai înțelept decât mine i-ar fi greu să hotărască : pentru că, dacă asiaticii fac foarte bine căutând mijloace potrivite ca să le potolească neliniștile, și europenii fac foarte bine că nu au aceste neliniști.
La urma urmei, zic ei, când suntem nefericiți în calitate de soți, sădim întotdeauna mijlocul de a ne despăgubi în calitate de amanți. Pentru ca un bărbat să se poată plânge pe drept de necredința soției, ar trebui să nu existe decât trei persoane ; dar ar fi chit când ar exista patru.
O altă problemă e de a afla dacă legea naturală le supune pe femei bărbaților.
- Nu, îmi zicea mai zilele trecute un filozof foarte galant ! Natura n-a dictat niciodată o asemenea lege. Stăpânirea noastră asupra lor e o adevărată tiranie. Ne-au lăsat să le subjugăm numai pentru că sunt mai blânde decât noi și deci mai umane și mai înțelepte. Avantajele acestea care ar fi trebuit fără îndoială să le dea superioritatea, dacă noi am fi fost oameni de înțeles, le-au făcut să și-o piardă pentru că n-am fost. Ori dacă e adevărat că n-avem asupra femeilor decât o putere tiranică, nu e mai puțin adevărat că ele au asupra noastră o putere naturală, acea a frumuseții, căreia nimic nu-i rezistă. Puterea noastră nu se exercită în toate țările, dar cea a frumuseții e universală. De ce să avem noi vreun privilegiu ? Pentru că suntem mai tari ? Dar asta e o adevărată nedreptate. Folosim tot felul de mijloace ca să le slăbim curajul. Forțele ar fi egale dacă și educația ar fi aceeași. Să le măsurăm talentele pe care educația nu le-a slăbit și o să vedem dacă suntem atât de tari.
Trebuie să recunoaștem, deși asta ne cam jugnește moravurile, că la popoarele cele mai civilizate femeile s-au bucurat întotdeauna de autoritate în fața bărbaților lor. Autoritatea le-a fost stabilită prin lege la egipteni în cinstea zeiței Isis, iar la babilonieni în cinstea Semiramidei. Despre romani se spune că porunceau tuturor popoarelor, dar ascultau de soțiile lor.
Văd pe aici oameni care discută la nesfârșit despre religie, dar în același timp se pare că se întrec în a o respecta cât mai puțin.
Nu numai că nu sunt mai buni creștini, dar nici măcar mai buni cetățeni și tocmai asta mă surprinde : pentru că, în orice credință ai trăi, respectarea legilor, dragostea de oameni, cinstirea părinților sunt totdeauna primele fapte religioase.
Într-adevăr, primul scop al unui credincios n-ar trebui oare să fie acela de a face pe placul divinității ce a întemeiat religia în care crede ? Dar mijlocul cel mai sigur pentru a ajunge la asta e fără îndoială acela de a respecta legile societății și datoriile față de oameni. Deoarece, indiferent de credință, de îndată ce ai una, trebuie să deduci că Dumnezeu îi iubește pe oameni din moment ce a întemeiat o religie ca să-i facă fericiți. Și că, adcă el îi iubește pe oameni, poți fi sigur că-i faci pe plac iubindu-i și tu, practicând față de ei toate cele pe care iubirea și omenia le cere, neîncălcând legile lor.
Ești mai sigur că vei fi prin aceasta plăcut lui Dumnezeu decât asistând la cutare sau cutare ceremonie. Pentru că ceremoniile nu au prin ele însele nici un grad de bunătate. Ele nu sunt bune decât prin comparație și numai în măsura în care le-ar fi oradonat Dumnezeu. Te poți ușor înșela pentru că ai de ales ceremoniile unei singure religii dintre cele ale altor două mii.
Există două categorii de păcate : păcate de moarte, care exclud cu totul Paradisul și păcate venale care îl supără pe Dumnezeu, dar nu-l înfurie până într-atâta încât să ne refuze fericirea veșnică. Or, toată treaba noastră este să deosebim bine aceste două felurite păcate ; căci cu excepția câtorva deșuchiați, toți creștinii vor să ajungă în rai. Dar, nu găsești pe nici unul care să nu vrea să ajungă în rai cât mai ieftin cu putință. Când cunoști bine păcatele de moarte, te străduiești să nu comiți de-astea și îți aranjezi treburile.
Nu judecăm lucrurile decât în legăturile lor tainice cu noi înșine. Nu mă miră că negrii îl zugrăvesc pe drac de o albeață strălucitoare, iar pe zei negri ca tăciunele. Nu mir că Venus la anumite popoare are sânii atârnând până la coapse și că, în sfârșit, toți cei ce se închină la idoli îi reprezintă pe zeii lor cu figuri omenești, atribuindu-le toate înclinările lor. S-a spus, pe drept cuvând, că dacă triunghiurile și-ar face un zeu acesta ar avea desigur trei laturi.
Dacă există Dumnezeu, trebuie neapărat ca el să fie drept, pentru că dacă n-ar fi așa, ar fi cel mai rău și mai imperfect din toate făpturile. Dreptatea este un raport de conveniență ce se găsește în mod real între două lucruri. Acest raport întotdeauna același, oricine l-ar lua în considerare, fie Dumnezeu, fie un înger, fie, în sfârșit, un om.
Dreptatea ridică glasul, dar îi vine greu să se facă auzită, în tumultul pasiunilor.
Oamenii pot comite nedreptăți pentru că au interes să le săvârșească și pentru că preferă să se satisfacă pe ei, nu pe alții. Oamenii acționează întotdeauna în funcție de ei înșiși. Nimeni nu e rău pe degeaba. Trebuie să existe o cauză care-l determină și aceasta e totdeauna un interes.
Chiar dacă n-ar exista Dumnezeu, ar trebui să iubim totuși dreptatea. Cu alte cuvinte să ne străduim să semănăm cu ființa despre care avem o idee atât de frumoasă și care dacă ar exista ar fi cu necesitate dreaptă. Deși suntem liberi de jugul religiei, nu ar trebui totuși să fim și de cel al dreptății.
Suntem înconjurați de oameni mai puternici decât noi. Ei ne pot distruge în mii de chipuri. Pe trei sferturi pot s-o facă fără a fi măcar pedepsiți. Câtă mângâiere pentru noi să știm că în inima tuturor acestor oameni se găsește un principiu lăuntric care luptă în favoarea noastră și ne pune la adăpost de faptele lor. Fără asta ar trebui să ne fie într-una frică. Am trece pe lângă oameni ca pe lângă niște lei. N-am fi niciodată siguri, măcar o clipă, de viața, avutul și cinstea noastră.
Toate gândurile acestea mă ațâță împotriva acelor învățați care-l înfățișează pe Dumnezeu ca pe o ființă ce își încearcă puterea în mod tiranic. Îl fac să săvârșească fapte pe care n-am vrea să le făptuim noi înșine temându-ne să nu-l jignim. Îl împovărează cu toate defectele pedepsite de el la noi și, în părerile lor care se bat cap în cap, îl reprezintă pe Dumnezeu când ca pe o ființă rea, când ca pe una care urăște răul și îl pedepsește. ”
La urma urmei, zic ei, când suntem nefericiți în calitate de soți, sădim întotdeauna mijlocul de a ne despăgubi în calitate de amanți. Pentru ca un bărbat să se poată plânge pe drept de necredința soției, ar trebui să nu existe decât trei persoane ; dar ar fi chit când ar exista patru.
O altă problemă e de a afla dacă legea naturală le supune pe femei bărbaților.
- Nu, îmi zicea mai zilele trecute un filozof foarte galant ! Natura n-a dictat niciodată o asemenea lege. Stăpânirea noastră asupra lor e o adevărată tiranie. Ne-au lăsat să le subjugăm numai pentru că sunt mai blânde decât noi și deci mai umane și mai înțelepte. Avantajele acestea care ar fi trebuit fără îndoială să le dea superioritatea, dacă noi am fi fost oameni de înțeles, le-au făcut să și-o piardă pentru că n-am fost. Ori dacă e adevărat că n-avem asupra femeilor decât o putere tiranică, nu e mai puțin adevărat că ele au asupra noastră o putere naturală, acea a frumuseții, căreia nimic nu-i rezistă. Puterea noastră nu se exercită în toate țările, dar cea a frumuseții e universală. De ce să avem noi vreun privilegiu ? Pentru că suntem mai tari ? Dar asta e o adevărată nedreptate. Folosim tot felul de mijloace ca să le slăbim curajul. Forțele ar fi egale dacă și educația ar fi aceeași. Să le măsurăm talentele pe care educația nu le-a slăbit și o să vedem dacă suntem atât de tari.
Trebuie să recunoaștem, deși asta ne cam jugnește moravurile, că la popoarele cele mai civilizate femeile s-au bucurat întotdeauna de autoritate în fața bărbaților lor. Autoritatea le-a fost stabilită prin lege la egipteni în cinstea zeiței Isis, iar la babilonieni în cinstea Semiramidei. Despre romani se spune că porunceau tuturor popoarelor, dar ascultau de soțiile lor.
Văd pe aici oameni care discută la nesfârșit despre religie, dar în același timp se pare că se întrec în a o respecta cât mai puțin.
Nu numai că nu sunt mai buni creștini, dar nici măcar mai buni cetățeni și tocmai asta mă surprinde : pentru că, în orice credință ai trăi, respectarea legilor, dragostea de oameni, cinstirea părinților sunt totdeauna primele fapte religioase.
Într-adevăr, primul scop al unui credincios n-ar trebui oare să fie acela de a face pe placul divinității ce a întemeiat religia în care crede ? Dar mijlocul cel mai sigur pentru a ajunge la asta e fără îndoială acela de a respecta legile societății și datoriile față de oameni. Deoarece, indiferent de credință, de îndată ce ai una, trebuie să deduci că Dumnezeu îi iubește pe oameni din moment ce a întemeiat o religie ca să-i facă fericiți. Și că, adcă el îi iubește pe oameni, poți fi sigur că-i faci pe plac iubindu-i și tu, practicând față de ei toate cele pe care iubirea și omenia le cere, neîncălcând legile lor.
Ești mai sigur că vei fi prin aceasta plăcut lui Dumnezeu decât asistând la cutare sau cutare ceremonie. Pentru că ceremoniile nu au prin ele însele nici un grad de bunătate. Ele nu sunt bune decât prin comparație și numai în măsura în care le-ar fi oradonat Dumnezeu. Te poți ușor înșela pentru că ai de ales ceremoniile unei singure religii dintre cele ale altor două mii.
Există două categorii de păcate : păcate de moarte, care exclud cu totul Paradisul și păcate venale care îl supără pe Dumnezeu, dar nu-l înfurie până într-atâta încât să ne refuze fericirea veșnică. Or, toată treaba noastră este să deosebim bine aceste două felurite păcate ; căci cu excepția câtorva deșuchiați, toți creștinii vor să ajungă în rai. Dar, nu găsești pe nici unul care să nu vrea să ajungă în rai cât mai ieftin cu putință. Când cunoști bine păcatele de moarte, te străduiești să nu comiți de-astea și îți aranjezi treburile.
Nu judecăm lucrurile decât în legăturile lor tainice cu noi înșine. Nu mă miră că negrii îl zugrăvesc pe drac de o albeață strălucitoare, iar pe zei negri ca tăciunele. Nu mir că Venus la anumite popoare are sânii atârnând până la coapse și că, în sfârșit, toți cei ce se închină la idoli îi reprezintă pe zeii lor cu figuri omenești, atribuindu-le toate înclinările lor. S-a spus, pe drept cuvând, că dacă triunghiurile și-ar face un zeu acesta ar avea desigur trei laturi.
Dacă există Dumnezeu, trebuie neapărat ca el să fie drept, pentru că dacă n-ar fi așa, ar fi cel mai rău și mai imperfect din toate făpturile. Dreptatea este un raport de conveniență ce se găsește în mod real între două lucruri. Acest raport întotdeauna același, oricine l-ar lua în considerare, fie Dumnezeu, fie un înger, fie, în sfârșit, un om.
Dreptatea ridică glasul, dar îi vine greu să se facă auzită, în tumultul pasiunilor.
Oamenii pot comite nedreptăți pentru că au interes să le săvârșească și pentru că preferă să se satisfacă pe ei, nu pe alții. Oamenii acționează întotdeauna în funcție de ei înșiși. Nimeni nu e rău pe degeaba. Trebuie să existe o cauză care-l determină și aceasta e totdeauna un interes.
Chiar dacă n-ar exista Dumnezeu, ar trebui să iubim totuși dreptatea. Cu alte cuvinte să ne străduim să semănăm cu ființa despre care avem o idee atât de frumoasă și care dacă ar exista ar fi cu necesitate dreaptă. Deși suntem liberi de jugul religiei, nu ar trebui totuși să fim și de cel al dreptății.
Suntem înconjurați de oameni mai puternici decât noi. Ei ne pot distruge în mii de chipuri. Pe trei sferturi pot s-o facă fără a fi măcar pedepsiți. Câtă mângâiere pentru noi să știm că în inima tuturor acestor oameni se găsește un principiu lăuntric care luptă în favoarea noastră și ne pune la adăpost de faptele lor. Fără asta ar trebui să ne fie într-una frică. Am trece pe lângă oameni ca pe lângă niște lei. N-am fi niciodată siguri, măcar o clipă, de viața, avutul și cinstea noastră.
Toate gândurile acestea mă ațâță împotriva acelor învățați care-l înfățișează pe Dumnezeu ca pe o ființă ce își încearcă puterea în mod tiranic. Îl fac să săvârșească fapte pe care n-am vrea să le făptuim noi înșine temându-ne să nu-l jignim. Îl împovărează cu toate defectele pedepsite de el la noi și, în părerile lor care se bat cap în cap, îl reprezintă pe Dumnezeu când ca pe o ființă rea, când ca pe una care urăște răul și îl pedepsește. ”
January 18, 2024
درسته که ایرانیهای مونتسکیو بیشتر عثمانیان، شاید هم حتی عرب؛ ولی خداوکیلی عجب کتابی، عجب ذکاوتی!!
January 1, 2020
This book (from 1721, written during and set at the beginning of that licentious interregnum between the death of Lou #14 and the majority of boytoy #15, & known as the Regency) took me a while to read, considering its brevity, possibly because it lent itself to reading in small morsels which could be chewed upon slowly and digested in repose. Or perhaps because its many tasty tidbits were interspersed with an equivalent amount of unappealing chaff which needs must be sorted through somewhat laboriously. Nevertheless, it was a feast for the mind whose courses were carefully arranged to stimulate an appetite for philosophical reflection on topics as varied as human nature, sexual politics, moral and customary relativity, and especially reason vs superstition as our two Persian travelers write home to their friends and wives about the curious practices and prejudices of the Europeans, which causes them to reflect, sometimes seriously, upon their own meurs.
All of this is written with a witty tongue which is often placed, with various degrees of firmness, somewhere in the vicinity of the cheek, e.g.:
Highly recommended for anyone who wishes to encounter the birth of France's Enlightenment the way the French themselves did at the time—the book was such a scandale de succès that its anonymous author dined out (not so anonymously) on its repute for some years, through a clutch of printings, and always with a wary eye out for the censor, of course.
In the end, I would say of it what Montesquieu himself says of "The University of Paris [which] is the eldest, and very elderly, daughter of the kings of France, for she is more than nine hundred years old; consequently, she is occasionally confused"(147)—and, I would add, occasionally boring, often outrageous, but always very, very learned.
All of this is written with a witty tongue which is often placed, with various degrees of firmness, somewhere in the vicinity of the cheek, e.g.:
‘They have their little courteous ways which in France would seem inappropriate; for example, a captain never flogs his soldier without asking his permission, and the Inquisition never condemns a Jew to be burnt at the stake without apologizing to him. ‘Spaniards who are not burnt at the stake seem to be so fond of the Inquisition, that it would seem peevish to deprive them of it; I only wish that another Inquisition could be established, not against heretics, but against heresiarchs, who attribute the same efficacy to trivial monastic practices as they do to the seven sacraments, who worship everything they venerate, and are so pious that they are barely Christians.(*That one good book, full of all of the humours of humankind is, of course, Cervantes' Don Quixote!)
‘You can find wit and common sense among Spaniards, but do not seek these in their books; take a look at a Spaniard’s library: one half novels, and the other half works of scholasticism; you’d say that the parts had been chosen and the whole thing put together by some secret enemy of human reason.
‘The only one of their books* that is good, is the one that makes fun of all the others.(107)
Highly recommended for anyone who wishes to encounter the birth of France's Enlightenment the way the French themselves did at the time—the book was such a scandale de succès that its anonymous author dined out (not so anonymously) on its repute for some years, through a clutch of printings, and always with a wary eye out for the censor, of course.
In the end, I would say of it what Montesquieu himself says of "The University of Paris [which] is the eldest, and very elderly, daughter of the kings of France, for she is more than nine hundred years old; consequently, she is occasionally confused"(147)—and, I would add, occasionally boring, often outrageous, but always very, very learned.
April 26, 2024
les romans épistolaires sont vraiment juste des tiktoks de romans quoi: chaque page une autre lettre qui traite un sujet différent que la précédente; de temps en temps une lettre plus longue qui nous rappelle de notre capacité d’attention limitée…
October 11, 2023
مونتسکیو، فیلسوف فرانسویِ عصر روشنگری، هرگز به ایران سفر نکرده اما همانطور که مترجم هم در پاورقیها توضیح داده بسیار دقیق سفرنامهها و هرآنچه مربوط به فرهنگ ایران بوده است را مطالعه کرده و گفتنی است این فیلسوف فرانسوی از شدت مطالعاتش در زمینههای گوناگون در اواخر عمر دچار نابینایی شده است.
هنگام مطالعه این کتابِ نامهنگارانه نباید دچار این سوءبرداشت شد که نویسنده سعی در تحقیر فرهنگ ایران و تمجید از فرهنگ فرانسه دارد، چراکه با صبوری در مطالعه و همچنین مطالعه کتاب روحالقوانین که بیست و هفت سال بعد از نامههای ایرانی از همین مولف منتشر شده متوجه میشویم ایدهآلِ او در فرانسه نیز وجود ندارد بلکه در انگلستان است؛ چراکه انگلستانِ دورانِ مونستکیو با تقسیم قوای سیاسی به سه بخش و در نتیجه دستیابی به آزادیهای سیاسی و مدنی به ایدهآلِ سیاسیِ او تبدیل شده بوده است، یک بخش دربار و پادشاه، یک بخش مردم و یک بخش سه قوهی سیاسی یعنی قوهی مقننه، مجریه و قضائیه.
مونتسکیو مانند متفکران دیگر در دوره خودش، نظیر ولتر، در این کتاب تلاش کرده تا مفاهیم مهم فلسفی، سیاسی و فرهنگی را در معرض مطالعه و توجه عوام قرار دهد و به نوعی برای این قشر روشنگری کند.
مونتسکیو با مقایسه انتقادی فرهنگ شرق و غرب میتواند برای هر کسی حتی خارج از فرهنگ ایران و فرانسه مفید واقع شود به طوری که علیرغم تاریخی بودنش بوی کهنگی از آن حس نشود.
اگر سیصد سال قبل و همزمان با انتشار این اثر در فرانسه، در ایران نیز منتشر میشد، کشورمان امروز حال و روز بهتری داشت چراکه این کتاب ما را در مقابل آینهای تمام قد قرار میدهد و کمک میکند به خودمان نگاه منتقدانه و روشنگرانهای بیندازیم.
همچنین در تلگرام از صد و شصت و یک نامهی این کتاب، بخشی از شش نامهٔ روشنگرانهتر و مهمتر برای امروزمان را قرار دادم که در صورت علاقه همه میتوانند مطالعه کنند.
هنگام مطالعه این کتابِ نامهنگارانه نباید دچار این سوءبرداشت شد که نویسنده سعی در تحقیر فرهنگ ایران و تمجید از فرهنگ فرانسه دارد، چراکه با صبوری در مطالعه و همچنین مطالعه کتاب روحالقوانین که بیست و هفت سال بعد از نامههای ایرانی از همین مولف منتشر شده متوجه میشویم ایدهآلِ او در فرانسه نیز وجود ندارد بلکه در انگلستان است؛ چراکه انگلستانِ دورانِ مونستکیو با تقسیم قوای سیاسی به سه بخش و در نتیجه دستیابی به آزادیهای سیاسی و مدنی به ایدهآلِ سیاسیِ او تبدیل شده بوده است، یک بخش دربار و پادشاه، یک بخش مردم و یک بخش سه قوهی سیاسی یعنی قوهی مقننه، مجریه و قضائیه.
مونتسکیو مانند متفکران دیگر در دوره خودش، نظیر ولتر، در این کتاب تلاش کرده تا مفاهیم مهم فلسفی، سیاسی و فرهنگی را در معرض مطالعه و توجه عوام قرار دهد و به نوعی برای این قشر روشنگری کند.
مونتسکیو با مقایسه انتقادی فرهنگ شرق و غرب میتواند برای هر کسی حتی خارج از فرهنگ ایران و فرانسه مفید واقع شود به طوری که علیرغم تاریخی بودنش بوی کهنگی از آن حس نشود.
اگر سیصد سال قبل و همزمان با انتشار این اثر در فرانسه، در ایران نیز منتشر میشد، کشورمان امروز حال و روز بهتری داشت چراکه این کتاب ما را در مقابل آینهای تمام قد قرار میدهد و کمک میکند به خودمان نگاه منتقدانه و روشنگرانهای بیندازیم.
همچنین در تلگرام از صد و شصت و یک نامهی این کتاب، بخشی از شش نامهٔ روشنگرانهتر و مهمتر برای امروزمان را قرار دادم که در صورت علاقه همه میتوانند مطالعه کنند.
December 7, 2015
شاید حکمت آن بوده که انسانها جان بسپارند و حماقتهایشان در دوران گذرای عمر فراموش شود، اما کتابها بمانند و جاویدان شوند و با این حساب یک آدم احمق باید خوشحال باشد که بعد از مرگ اثری از حماقتهای او باقی نخواهد ماند و عجیب آن است که بعضی از این احمقها نمیخواهند فراموش شوند. و اصرار دارند که کتابی بنویسند و نسلهای آینده را هم با شرح حماقتهای خود عذاب بدهند، تا آنها هم بدانند که چنین احمقهایی پیش از آنها زندگی میکردهاند
(نامهی 66)
April 7, 2022
How I love the 18th century novels, in letter form: they are informative, offer different perspectives and almost always are entertaining. The true force of this one is the evolution of the characters that Montesquieu gives a forum to. And, of course, the up-till-then very unusual focus on eastern culture, even though there's definitely an upstart in the direction of orientalism (like Edward Said indicated). There's also a good variation between the serail-correspondence (exotic and juicy) and the more boring philosophical letters (they serve as counterpoint). The general message is the relativisation of the absolute validity of costums and views, quite a novelty in those days. As a satire, this is a real historical document, against despotism and absolutism, against religious fanaticism and social hypocrisy, culminating in universal relativism. Gorgeous read. (3.5 stars)
August 15, 2016
به هرکس که نامه های ایرانی رو نخونده توصیه میشه. قهرمانان کتاب که از اصفهان به اروپا سفر میکنن همان قدر که فرهنگ غربی را نقد میکنن از اون تاثیر میگیرن.پایان تراژیک این رمان مکاتبهای به ماندگاریش توی ذهن خواننده بسیار کمک میکنه.و رابطهی زنان حرمسرای ازبک و ریکا و نامه هایی که برای هم میفرستن بسیار جالبه.(یادداشت شتاب زده :)
May 7, 2014
برای ایرانی ها ، کتاب خیلی جالبیه . خصوصا اینکه نویسنده ش هم آدم مهمیه . عنصر خیال تپی این کار به خوبی با واقعیت هماهنگ شده و برای داشتن و فهمیدن دیدی درست از غرب نسبت به ایران در اون زمان خیلی مفیده
September 17, 2020
در قرون قديم نوشتن اثار ادبي در سبك مكاتبه اي مورد عجيب و غريبي نبوده است. اثاري كه مخصوصا از ديد يك شرقي روايت ميشدند. مونتسكيو اولين نفري نبود كه از اين سبك براي نوشتن رمانش استفاده كرد و البته اخرين نفر هم نبود. با اينحال او تغييراتي در اين ژانر ايجاد كرد. او گاها به نامه هايش لحن طنز ميدهد و مهم تر اينكه مضمون و محتواي نامه ها تنها درباره كشور نويسنده (فرانسه) نيست و درباره كشور و شرايط زندگي مسافري (ايران) كه به انجا سفر كرده نيز هست.
كتاب نامه هاي ايرانيِ مونتسكيو به صورت غير قانوني و بدون نام نويسنده در چاپخانه اي در هلند بچاپ رسيد و به صورت غير قانوني در فرانسه دست به دست ميشد. همين كتاب بود كه باعث شد او به شهرت زيادي دست پيدا كند.
كتاب نامه هاي ايراني درباره سفر دو ايراني اشرافي و با نفوذ است كه از اصفهان به پاريس سفر ميكنند. اين دو ازبك و ريكا نام دارند. ازبك حرمسرا و ٥ همسر دارد و بنا به دلايل سياسي از اصفهان خارج ميشود و در واقع دست به نوعي تبعيد خود خواسته ميزند. ريكا كه مترجم انرا به رضا تغيير داده است جواني ست كه غرق تجمل و ازادي پاريس ميشود.
مونتسكيو ايران و اصفهان را تنها از طريق سفرنامه هاي شاردن، تاورنيه و ..ميشناخته و دليل انتخاب اين اسامي عجيب نيز همين بوده است. با اين حال بخشهايي در كتاب وجود دارد كه بايد به شناخت نسبتا خوب او از ايران و ساير كشورهاي شرقي كه از طريق سفرنامه ها كسب كرده افرين گفت.
مونتسكيو در اين اثر از زبان مهمانان ايراني اش انتقادهاي بسياري به حكومت و پادشاهي فرانسه، به تجملات درباري، فساد جاري در روابط مردم، به عدم مساوات زنان و مردان، به مذهب و كليسا و..ميكند و البته در اين ميان فراموش نميكند از ايران و علي الخصوص وضعيت زنان، دربارهاي ايران و رقابت بين زنان ارباب و خواجه ها براي محبوب شدن بيشتر نزد او نيز انتقاد كند.
مونتسكيو در نامه اي از زبان ريكا درباره اينكه چطور پادشاه فرانسه باوجود اينكه ذخاير طلاي پادشاه اسپانيا را ندارد ولي از او ثروتمند تر است مينويسد؛
اين پادشاه اين مال و ثروت را از خود پسندي هاي رعايايش به دست مي اورد..براي تامين اين هزينه سرسام اور (ارتش و دربار) جز فروش لقبهاي اشرافي راه ديگري نيست و پادشاه از اين راه با ارضاي خس خودخواهي ادميان وجوه لازم را بدست مي اورد.
انتقاد از پادشاه فرانسه (لويي چهاردهم)؛
اين پادشاه افسونگر كه حتي بر فكر و روح رعايايش حكومت ميكند مردم را وادار ميسازد كه به دلخواه او بينديشند و اگر موجودي خزانه بيش از يك ميليون اكو نباشد و او دو ميليون اكو نيازمند باشد مردم را متقاعد ميكند كه يك اكو معادل دو اكو ست و انها حرفش را باور ميكنند.
انتقاد از كليسا و پاپ؛
از اين قضايا كه شرح دادم زياد تعجب نكن. زيرا افسونگري وجود دارد كه از او قوي تر است و بيش از او بر فكر و بر روح مردم تسلط دارد و اين افسونگر بزرگ پاپ نام دارد كه به مردم قبولانده است كه سه همان يك است (كنايه به تثليث: پدر، پسر، روح القدس) و ناني كه ميخورند نان نيست و شرابي كه ميخورند شراب نيست.
يا
پرسيدم، پدر روحاني كار شما در اين صومعه چيست؟ با خشنودي در جوابم گفت: من به درجه بندي گناهان مشغولم
فساد اخلاقي مردم؛
اين عده (مردان هوسباز و فريبكار) با بي وفايي و خيانت و زن فريبي و بي تقوايي به شهرت و محبوبيت رسيده اند. واقعا عجيب مينمايد كه يك مرد دختري را از پدرش و زني را از شوهرش بربايد و ارامش جامعه را به هم ميريزد و با اين وصف نام اور شود و همه از او قدر شناسي كنند.
يا
مردان فرانسوي تقريبا هرگز درباره همسرانشان حرف نميزنند زيرا ميترسند كه مخاطبشان در اين مورد بيش از انها اطلاع داشته باشد.
انتقاد از مد و علاقه عجيب فرانسوي ها به ان؛
به نظر من علاقه هوس الود فرانسوي ها ��ه مد عجيب مينمايد. انان فراموش ميكنند كه در تابستان چه جور لباس مي پوشند و نميدانند كه در زمستان چه جور لباس خواهند پوشيد. چه فايده دارد كه براي تو بنويسم كه در حال حاضر زنهاي فرانسوي چه جور لباس مي پوشند و چگونه خود را مي ارايند؟ چون تا وقتي كه اين نامه به دست تو برسد همه چيز عوض شده است.
كتاب نامه هاي ايرانيِ مونتسكيو به صورت غير قانوني و بدون نام نويسنده در چاپخانه اي در هلند بچاپ رسيد و به صورت غير قانوني در فرانسه دست به دست ميشد. همين كتاب بود كه باعث شد او به شهرت زيادي دست پيدا كند.
كتاب نامه هاي ايراني درباره سفر دو ايراني اشرافي و با نفوذ است كه از اصفهان به پاريس سفر ميكنند. اين دو ازبك و ريكا نام دارند. ازبك حرمسرا و ٥ همسر دارد و بنا به دلايل سياسي از اصفهان خارج ميشود و در واقع دست به نوعي تبعيد خود خواسته ميزند. ريكا كه مترجم انرا به رضا تغيير داده است جواني ست كه غرق تجمل و ازادي پاريس ميشود.
مونتسكيو ايران و اصفهان را تنها از طريق سفرنامه هاي شاردن، تاورنيه و ..ميشناخته و دليل انتخاب اين اسامي عجيب نيز همين بوده است. با اين حال بخشهايي در كتاب وجود دارد كه بايد به شناخت نسبتا خوب او از ايران و ساير كشورهاي شرقي كه از طريق سفرنامه ها كسب كرده افرين گفت.
مونتسكيو در اين اثر از زبان مهمانان ايراني اش انتقادهاي بسياري به حكومت و پادشاهي فرانسه، به تجملات درباري، فساد جاري در روابط مردم، به عدم مساوات زنان و مردان، به مذهب و كليسا و..ميكند و البته در اين ميان فراموش نميكند از ايران و علي الخصوص وضعيت زنان، دربارهاي ايران و رقابت بين زنان ارباب و خواجه ها براي محبوب شدن بيشتر نزد او نيز انتقاد كند.
مونتسكيو در نامه اي از زبان ريكا درباره اينكه چطور پادشاه فرانسه باوجود اينكه ذخاير طلاي پادشاه اسپانيا را ندارد ولي از او ثروتمند تر است مينويسد؛
اين پادشاه اين مال و ثروت را از خود پسندي هاي رعايايش به دست مي اورد..براي تامين اين هزينه سرسام اور (ارتش و دربار) جز فروش لقبهاي اشرافي راه ديگري نيست و پادشاه از اين راه با ارضاي خس خودخواهي ادميان وجوه لازم را بدست مي اورد.
انتقاد از پادشاه فرانسه (لويي چهاردهم)؛
اين پادشاه افسونگر كه حتي بر فكر و روح رعايايش حكومت ميكند مردم را وادار ميسازد كه به دلخواه او بينديشند و اگر موجودي خزانه بيش از يك ميليون اكو نباشد و او دو ميليون اكو نيازمند باشد مردم را متقاعد ميكند كه يك اكو معادل دو اكو ست و انها حرفش را باور ميكنند.
انتقاد از كليسا و پاپ؛
از اين قضايا كه شرح دادم زياد تعجب نكن. زيرا افسونگري وجود دارد كه از او قوي تر است و بيش از او بر فكر و بر روح مردم تسلط دارد و اين افسونگر بزرگ پاپ نام دارد كه به مردم قبولانده است كه سه همان يك است (كنايه به تثليث: پدر، پسر، روح القدس) و ناني كه ميخورند نان نيست و شرابي كه ميخورند شراب نيست.
يا
پرسيدم، پدر روحاني كار شما در اين صومعه چيست؟ با خشنودي در جوابم گفت: من به درجه بندي گناهان مشغولم
فساد اخلاقي مردم؛
اين عده (مردان هوسباز و فريبكار) با بي وفايي و خيانت و زن فريبي و بي تقوايي به شهرت و محبوبيت رسيده اند. واقعا عجيب مينمايد كه يك مرد دختري را از پدرش و زني را از شوهرش بربايد و ارامش جامعه را به هم ميريزد و با اين وصف نام اور شود و همه از او قدر شناسي كنند.
يا
مردان فرانسوي تقريبا هرگز درباره همسرانشان حرف نميزنند زيرا ميترسند كه مخاطبشان در اين مورد بيش از انها اطلاع داشته باشد.
انتقاد از مد و علاقه عجيب فرانسوي ها به ان؛
به نظر من علاقه هوس الود فرانسوي ها ��ه مد عجيب مينمايد. انان فراموش ميكنند كه در تابستان چه جور لباس مي پوشند و نميدانند كه در زمستان چه جور لباس خواهند پوشيد. چه فايده دارد كه براي تو بنويسم كه در حال حاضر زنهاي فرانسوي چه جور لباس مي پوشند و چگونه خود را مي ارايند؟ چون تا وقتي كه اين نامه به دست تو برسد همه چيز عوض شده است.
December 26, 2010
لا أعرف ما شعوري تجاه هذا الكتاب ..
في الصفحات الاولى شعرت بالملل، ولم أفهم فائدة هذا الكتاب، ولكن مع تقدمي قي القراءة أصبحت لا أستطيع مفارقته وأصبحت أختلس لحظات صغيرة من هنا وهناك لأقرأ رسالة جديدة من رسائل الكتاب البالغة 161 رسالة
فهذه الرسائل تشكل رواية فلسفية كُتبت على طريقة الرسائل المتبادلة بين أشخاص الرواية، منها ما هو جد شيق ويحبس الأنفاس، ومنها ما هو على شكل مقالة أدبية إجتماعية سامية، لو حذفنا العنوان واسم المرسل إليه، لما خالجني شك بأنها قطعة من مقالة مفردة لا رسالة
أهم ما في هذه الرسائل ومربط فرسها، هو ما جاء على لسان هذا الفارسي في رسائله إلى صديقه الذي يتجول في أوربا أيضًا يصف بهذه الرسائل المجتمع الفرنسي وأفراد الشعب الفرنسي وقتذاك، وتاريخ الجمهوريات وقيامها، فقط، أما ما جاء من الحديث حول ديانة الشرق الإسلامية والتقاليد العربية الإسلامية، فجميعه تقريبا مبالغ فيه وكذب صريح، ولا أدري هل كتب مونتسكيو هذه النظرة إلى العالم الإسلامي بشكل متعمد أم هو جاهل وحسب بالإسلام ..
فصورة الإسلام في هذه الرسائل سيئة جدا، ويزيد من بشاعتها أنها على لسان شخص مسلم، أي ان مونتسكيو بحيلته الأدبية في وضع هذه المعاني على لسان الشخصية المسلمة الفارسية، جعل بذلك تقبلها كحقيقة واقعة أكثر سهولة من قبل المجتمع الفرنسي والغربي
في الصفحات الاولى شعرت بالملل، ولم أفهم فائدة هذا الكتاب، ولكن مع تقدمي قي القراءة أصبحت لا أستطيع مفارقته وأصبحت أختلس لحظات صغيرة من هنا وهناك لأقرأ رسالة جديدة من رسائل الكتاب البالغة 161 رسالة
فهذه الرسائل تشكل رواية فلسفية كُتبت على طريقة الرسائل المتبادلة بين أشخاص الرواية، منها ما هو جد شيق ويحبس الأنفاس، ومنها ما هو على شكل مقالة أدبية إجتماعية سامية، لو حذفنا العنوان واسم المرسل إليه، لما خالجني شك بأنها قطعة من مقالة مفردة لا رسالة
أهم ما في هذه الرسائل ومربط فرسها، هو ما جاء على لسان هذا الفارسي في رسائله إلى صديقه الذي يتجول في أوربا أيضًا يصف بهذه الرسائل المجتمع الفرنسي وأفراد الشعب الفرنسي وقتذاك، وتاريخ الجمهوريات وقيامها، فقط، أما ما جاء من الحديث حول ديانة الشرق الإسلامية والتقاليد العربية الإسلامية، فجميعه تقريبا مبالغ فيه وكذب صريح، ولا أدري هل كتب مونتسكيو هذه النظرة إلى العالم الإسلامي بشكل متعمد أم هو جاهل وحسب بالإسلام ..
فصورة الإسلام في هذه الرسائل سيئة جدا، ويزيد من بشاعتها أنها على لسان شخص مسلم، أي ان مونتسكيو بحيلته الأدبية في وضع هذه المعاني على لسان الشخصية المسلمة الفارسية، جعل بذلك تقبلها كحقيقة واقعة أكثر سهولة من قبل المجتمع الفرنسي والغربي
July 19, 2021
Une des pires œuvres de fiction que j'ai lues de ma vie. L'intrigue n'est qu'un prétexte de critique sociale mais l'objectif faute puisque rien n'est crédible. Le style est quasi uniforme tout au long du roman alors qu’on est censé passer d’un grand seigneur persan à des esclaves (eunuques / femmes). C’est misogyne à un point inimaginable ; l’éloge de l’esclavage et du viol n’est pas vraiment contrebalancé par une quelconque forme d’ironie… Les discussions pseudo-philosophiques sont manichéennes au possible. En bref, je ne retire rien de cette lecture si ce n’est de l’aigreur.
Read
September 21, 2022Мога само да съм благодарна, че живея във време и място, където повечето писма да ми се струват смешни, а не страшни. Но дори днес има убито момиче там, защото не е носило забрадка...
Но както писмата го доказват много е лесно да разсъждаваш и да стигаш до изводи колко е безсмислена е чуждата жестокост, но после дойде ли до теб веднага почваш да я прилагаш.
Родината на първата монотеистична религия напълно победена от мохамеданите, както и на Запад не може да се пребори с християнството, но въпреки това оставя следи в себе си и двете религии.
Но както писмата го доказват много е лесно да разсъждаваш и да стигаш до изводи колко е безсмислена е чуждата жестокост, но после дойде ли до теб веднага почваш да я прилагаш.
Родината на първата монотеистична религия напълно победена от мохамеданите, както и на Запад не може да се пребори с християнството, но въпреки това оставя следи в себе си и двете религии.
July 21, 2011
Un classique toujours aussi agréable.
January 31, 2017
Kadın-erkek, din ve siyaset konuları üzerinde yoğunlaşmış, dönemine göre oldukça özgün okunmaya değer başarılı bir kitap.
April 1, 2009
This book, "a sort of novel", is an epistolary story of two Persian travelers, Usbek and Rica, who travel to Europe. Usbek leaves behind five wives and a handful of eunuchs to watch over them. The letters are sent from and to a variety of the people, and each of them reflect on some form of culture, whether the men's perspective of Western civilization or Usbek's wives' opinions on their own society and their place within it.
What makes this particularly interesting for me is that while the novel is meant to be a satire (and I haven't had much luck with the "genre" - boo on Candide!) there is an extensive amount of information about Paris in the early eighteenth century and the end of Louis XIV's reign as seen through the eyes of Persian men and women. Discussion of sexual freedom, religion, government, marriage, suicide, etc. are covered, all of which is detailed in these letters from each of the characters, giving a nicely rounded vision of important issues in two very different societies.
This was a great read with plenty of notes on the text and appendices in the back of the book shedding light on some of the more obscure points and references made by Montesquieu.
What makes this particularly interesting for me is that while the novel is meant to be a satire (and I haven't had much luck with the "genre" - boo on Candide!) there is an extensive amount of information about Paris in the early eighteenth century and the end of Louis XIV's reign as seen through the eyes of Persian men and women. Discussion of sexual freedom, religion, government, marriage, suicide, etc. are covered, all of which is detailed in these letters from each of the characters, giving a nicely rounded vision of important issues in two very different societies.
This was a great read with plenty of notes on the text and appendices in the back of the book shedding light on some of the more obscure points and references made by Montesquieu.
August 5, 2016
I enjoyed this so much more than I could have anticipated. But I don't really feel like reviewing it in a thoughtful way. My apologies. I have always loved the correspondence technique for storytelling. It allows for digressions and timeline manipulations you can't get away with in a regular narrative. I liked the "parables". A person probably gets more from the book on a subsequent reading or with more time to devote to really contemplating the parables. Fantastic. Looking forward to reading more Montesquieu another time.
April 18, 2023
This is elegantly written 18th-century social & philosophical commentary masquerading as the correspondence of two Persian noblemen living in France. Montesquieu uses these “letters” as vehicles to express his comparatively modern and liberal opinions on many subjects, including religion, government and statecraft, history, marriage & sexual morality, and much more. We are thereby given an interesting glimpse into both historical eastern and western society & culture. 4 stars.
October 29, 2024
fragment din scrisoarea CXLIV:
“Oh! dragă Usbec, cât de rău le face vanitatea celor care au o doză mai mare decât e nevoie pentru conservarea naturii! Oamenii aceștia vor să fie admirați, străduindu-se să displacă. Caută să fie superiori, dar nu-s nici măcar mediocri.
Oameni modești, veniți să vă îmbrățișez. Voi sunteți dulceața și farmecul vieții! Voi credeți că n-aveți nimic și eu vă spun că aveți totul! Vă gândiți că nu întreceți pe nimeni și voi întreceți toată lumea. Când vă compar în mintea mea cu acei oameni superiori pe care îi văd pretutindeni, îi răstorn de pe piedestalele lor și îi pun la picioarele voastre.”
Corespondența între Usbec și Rica, doi persani care pleacă din îndepărtatul lor Ispahan tocmai pentru a întâlni alte culturi formează scopul pentru care Montesquieu a întocmit “Scrisorile persane”, scop pe care îl accentuează Irina Eliade în prefața ediției din 1970 a editurii Minerva: “[…] însemnările intime ale lui Montesquieu pot fi definite drept jurnalul de bord al unui savant devorat de o unică pasiune, aceea de a afla adevărul.” E foarte interesantă diferența pregnantă dintre cei din religia islamică și europeni; adesea corespondența are accente comice tocmai din cauza diferenței ce se stabilește în cadrul respectării unor aspecte religioase. Cei doi persani sunt uimiți de libertatea (și libertinajul) europenilor și, în ciuda imaginii femeilor care populează Parisul, rămân la ideea că tot soțiile lor închise în harem sunt mai libere (!)
Cred că “Scrisorile persane” ar trebui să fie MĂCAR în wishlist ul oricărui cititor, dacă nu în topul cărților preferate. Îmi pare rău că acestui autor nu i se acordă atenția pe care o merită, nici în liceu și cu atât mai mult în cadrul facultății. Dar îmi pare bine că l-am descoperit și vă îndemn și pe voi să-l citiți, nu veți regreta!
“Oh! dragă Usbec, cât de rău le face vanitatea celor care au o doză mai mare decât e nevoie pentru conservarea naturii! Oamenii aceștia vor să fie admirați, străduindu-se să displacă. Caută să fie superiori, dar nu-s nici măcar mediocri.
Oameni modești, veniți să vă îmbrățișez. Voi sunteți dulceața și farmecul vieții! Voi credeți că n-aveți nimic și eu vă spun că aveți totul! Vă gândiți că nu întreceți pe nimeni și voi întreceți toată lumea. Când vă compar în mintea mea cu acei oameni superiori pe care îi văd pretutindeni, îi răstorn de pe piedestalele lor și îi pun la picioarele voastre.”
Corespondența între Usbec și Rica, doi persani care pleacă din îndepărtatul lor Ispahan tocmai pentru a întâlni alte culturi formează scopul pentru care Montesquieu a întocmit “Scrisorile persane”, scop pe care îl accentuează Irina Eliade în prefața ediției din 1970 a editurii Minerva: “[…] însemnările intime ale lui Montesquieu pot fi definite drept jurnalul de bord al unui savant devorat de o unică pasiune, aceea de a afla adevărul.” E foarte interesantă diferența pregnantă dintre cei din religia islamică și europeni; adesea corespondența are accente comice tocmai din cauza diferenței ce se stabilește în cadrul respectării unor aspecte religioase. Cei doi persani sunt uimiți de libertatea (și libertinajul) europenilor și, în ciuda imaginii femeilor care populează Parisul, rămân la ideea că tot soțiile lor închise în harem sunt mai libere (!)
Cred că “Scrisorile persane” ar trebui să fie MĂCAR în wishlist ul oricărui cititor, dacă nu în topul cărților preferate. Îmi pare rău că acestui autor nu i se acordă atenția pe care o merită, nici în liceu și cu atât mai mult în cadrul facultății. Dar îmi pare bine că l-am descoperit și vă îndemn și pe voi să-l citiți, nu veți regreta!
July 24, 2025
j’étais pas motivée en l’ouvrant, pas motivée en le lisant, mais très motivée d’en finir. maintenant que c’est fait, je suis contente.
#je recommande parce que c’est la littérature française quand même mais accrochez vous
#je recommande parce que c’est la littérature française quand même mais accrochez vous
July 8, 2013
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 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.
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews