MontesquieuRezensionen

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DETAILS:
Print: COPYRIGHT: (1748/Translated to English 1750) ) 3/1/2005; PUBLISHER: Kessinger Publishing, LLC; 1st edition; ISBN 978-1432620790; PAGES 448; Unabridged

Digital: COPYRIGHT: 1/2/2019; PUBLISHER: e-artnow; ISBN B07MBFHWK2; 446 pages; Unabridged

*Audio (MP3): COPYRIGHT: 8/18/2011; ISBN: 9781483073712; PUBLISHER: Blackstone Publishing; DURATION: 22:24:24; PARTS: 22; File Size: 646023 KB; Unabridged

Feature Film or tv: No

SUMMARY/ EVALUATION:
How I picked it: I don’t think I sought this one out, but just came upon it. I don’t recall for sure.
What it’s about: Customs, economics, laws of nature, government, religions, philosophies, and the effect of the interplay of all that on individuals. He discusses the ways that countries, past and present have governed themselves and prescribes what he believes is best suited for establishing a government. Wikipedia mentions that subsequent British and American governmental systems took many queues from this work, such as having three separate but interdependent administrative branches (executive, legislative, judicial) with the intent of maintaining governmental balance with the least susceptibility to tyranny and corruption.
What I thought: The vocabulary is such, and the concepts, that much of it requires longer consideration than allowed by reading straight through at the normal pace, so this took quite some time to get through, and some reversing/replaying. And it’s the kind of book that I would learn more from with each re-reading.
People of the author’s current time are often mentioned by first name only, as though the readers would know who is referred to.
I felt here that what was often considered a law of nature, was actually a law of religion (as evidenced in the statement that they are laws established by God—in his presumption that God, as he understood him, was the creator of nature). I also felt that the Baron was not all that familiar with “brutes”, as he says they are not affected by our fears—perhaps he was only referring to certain fears, such as those related to keeping up our good image, but I had the impression he meant fears in general—which would completely dismiss their obvious fears around survival—he also says they don’t have our hopes—again, not a pet owner. You can’t tell me my dogs weren’t hoping to go for a walk, go for a car ride, receive treats, see me returning home soon after a long day away. He also states that animals have no positive laws (by which, he refers to legislations, or regulations. I disagree. Obviously, they have no written laws, but I believe many animals receive teachings from their parents that I would consider their version of laws. Despite this, I found the books (it was written as 31 books – here they are gathered together.) exceedingly informative.

AUTHOR:
Baron de Montesquieu
From Wikipedia___ “Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (/ˈmɒntəskjuː/;[3] French: [mɔ̃tɛskjø]; 18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755), generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French judge, man of letters, historian, and political philosopher.
He is the principal source of the theory of separation of powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He is also known for doing more than any other author to secure the place of the word despotism in the political lexicon.[4] His anonymously published The Spirit of Law (1748), which was received well in both Great Britain and the American colonies, influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States in drafting the U.S. Constitution.”

TRANSLATOR:
Thomas Nugent
From Wikipedia____ “Thomas Nugent (c. 1700 – 27 April 1772 in Gray's Inn, London) was an erudite Irish historian and travel writer. Today he is known most of all for his travelogue of the Grand Tour, which was at that time popular particularly among English noblemen taking educational tours through Europe. His detailed descriptions of the France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands of the time provide a rich source for historians of the situation in the second half of the 18th century.”

EDITOR:
J. V. Prichard
(I found no biographical info.)

NARRATOR:
Wanda McCaddon
From AudioFile.com___ “When Wanda McCaddon began narrating audiobooks in the early 1980s, the famous publisher for which she worked paid female narrators less than men--$15 per recorded hour versus $25. "I just accepted it! Can you believe that? Times do change, thank heavens."
What hasn't changed is the quality of McCaddon's performances. This year, she turned in stellar renditions of Barbara Tuchman's THE PROUD TOWER and THE GUNS OF AUGUST , Thackeray's VANITY FAIR , and Austen's SENSE AND SENSIBILITY .
English-born McCaddon, who also narrates under the names Donada Peters and Nadia May, has an unerring ear for British and colonial accents, and most European ones. Occasionally, though, she has to go in search of the right sound. When she needed an accent from Sligo, a small northwestern pocket of Ireland, for Sebastian Barry's new novel, THE SECRET SCRIPTURE , she found help in an audio archive of international English dialects. It yielded 90 seconds of a Sligo voice, which, she says, "I played every half hour or so as I was recording to remind me of the right sound."”

GENRE:
Law, Politics, Nonfiction

SAMPLE QUOTATION: From Book I, Chapter 1:
“God is related to the universe as creator and preserver; the laws by which he created all things, are those by which he preserves them. He acts according to these rules because he knows them; he knows them because he made them; and he made them because they are relative to his wisdom and power.
As we see that the world, though formed by the motion of matter, and void of understanding, subsists through so long a succession of ages, its motions must certainly be directed by invariable laws: and could we imagine another world, it must also have constant rules, or must inevitably perish.
Thus the creation, which seems an arbitrary act, suppose the laws as invariable as those of the fatality of the Atheists. It would be absurd to say, that the Creator might govern the world without those rules, since without them it could not subsist.
These rules are a fixt and invariable relation. In bodies moved the motion is received, increased, diminished, lost, according to the relations of the quantity of matter and velocity, each diversity is uniformity, each change is constancy.
Particular intelligent beings may have laws of their own making, but they have some likewise which they never made. Before there were intelligent beings, they were possible; they had therefore possible relations, and consequently possible laws. Before laws were made, there were relations of possible justice. To say that there is nothing just or unjust but what is commanded or forbidden by positive laws, is the same as saying that before the describing of a circle all the radii were not equal.
We must therefore acknowledge relations of justice antecedent to the positive law by which they are established: as for instance, that if human societies existed, it would be right to conform to their laws; if there were intelligent beings that had received a benefit of another being, they ought to be grateful; if one intelligent being had created another intelligent being, the latter ought to continue in its original state of dependance; if one intelligent being injures another, it deserves a retaliation of the injury, and so on.
But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical. For though the former has also its laws which of their own nature are invariable, yet it does not conform to them so exactly as the physical world. This is because on the one hand particular intelligent beings are of a finite nature, and consequently liable to error; and on the other, their nature requires them to be free agents. Hence they do not steadily conform to their primitive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe.
Whether brutes be governed by the general laws of motion, or by a particular movement, is what we cannot determine. Be that as it may, they have not a more intimate relation to God than the rest of the material world; and sensation is of no other use to them, than in the relation they have either to other particular beings, or to themselves.
By the allurement of pleasure they preserve the being of the individual, and by the same allurement they preserve their species. They have natural laws, because they are united by sensations, positive laws they have none, because they are not connected by knowledge. And yet they do not conform invariably to their natural laws; these are better observed by vegetables, that have neither intellectual nor sensitive faculties.
Brutes are deprived of the high advantages which we have, but they have some which we have not. They have not our hopes, but they are without our fears, they are subject like us to death, but without knowing it, even most of them are more attentive than we to self-preservation, and do not make so bad a use of their passions.
Man, as a physical being, is, like other bodies, governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those which he himself has established. He is left to his own direction, though he is a limited being, subject like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error; even the imperfect knowledge he has, he loses as a sensible creature, and is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion. Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil laws confined him to his duty.”

RATING:.
4

STARTED READING – FINISHED READING
8/30/22 – 10/16/22

A French aristocrat spent his life looking at the laws of various people, though mostly those of his native country, to develop political theories related to different governments that would influence the coming “Age of Revolution”. The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu is a treatise on political theory that covers a large range of topics including law, social life, and the study of anthropology that would change the way people would look at the development of government.

In a little over 700 pages Montesquieu covers a lot of material but three major themes throughout this treatise that influenced readers of his time and up to the modern day. Those three themes were the classification of political systems and the “principles” that motivate them and that the lack of means they don’t endure, the political liberty that is defined as personal security especially that provided by system of dependable and moderate laws, and the development of political sociology in which geography and climate interact with particular cultures to produce a spirit of the people that influences their politics and laws. Based on these themes Montesquieu pleads for a constitutional system of government with separation of powers, the preservation of legality and civil liberties, and the end of slavery. At times the material Montesquieu covers could be somewhat tedious especially close to the end of the treatise as he covered the transition of French institutions from the Frankish conquest of Gaul to the medieval French monarchy. Yet even with that tediousness the reader gets the thoroughness in which Montesquieu dedicated a lifetime of study to produce this treatise, which influenced the American Founding Fathers, French republicans, and others around the world.

The Spirit of the Laws is the life’s work of Montesquieu, a pioneering work on comparative law, but a treatise on political theory that would be influential almost immediately after it’s publication and be relevant to this day.

Entrada

FBB-2

Lettere persiane è l’esposizione attraverso la corrispondenza di due persiani in viaggio in Europa della visione innovativa della società del filosofo francese. La comparazione di due civiltà diverse, resa con una semplicità disarmante, è l’occasione per riflettere sulle strutture sociali, sui concetti di giustizia, di governo dei popoli. Dalle lettere sui trogloditi, prima massima espressione del danno sociale di condotte individualistiche e egoistiche e poi del bene che deriva da un’organizzazione sociale basata sull’interesse collettivo, alle riflessioni sullo spopolamento del mondo come testimonianza del declino delle società civili, le riflessioni di Montesquieu sono di un’attualità e di una grandezza disarmante. La considerazione finale della storia dei trogloditi che preferiscono vivere sotto un re despota, piuttosto che liberi e regolati solo dalla legge del bene comune, è, ad esempio, da considerare con grande attenzione in questo periodo in cui i nazionalismi imperano nel mondo. Il concetto centrale della riflessione di Montesquieu sulla necessità di far prevalere sempre l’interesse generale su quello individuale richiederebbe oggi una attenta riflessione sul futuro della politica e della società, a livello globale. Una lettura bella, appassionante ed istruttiva.½

FG5

Romalıların Yücelik ve Çöküşünün Nedenleri Üzerine Düşünceler'ini okudum.
Montesquieu'nun Kanunların Ruhu Üzerine adlı kalın kitabına başlamadan önce yazarla ilgili fikir edinmek adına bu kitabını okudum.

Yazarın her görüşüne katılmasam da Roma Cumhuriyeti hakkındaki tespitlerini çok başarılı buldum. Yazarın beğenmediğim yönü Hristiyanlık dönemine kadar olan dönemleri gayet tarafsız bir şekilde değerlendirirken, Hristiyanlık sonrası dönemlerde tarafgirliğe kapılması oldu. Özellikle Katolik Kilisesi'ni övüp Ortodoks Kilisesi'ni ve Doğu Roma İmparatorlarını eleştirmesi kitabın değerini azaltan bir faktör oldu.

Coleção Os Pensadores

In this classic of Enlightenment Thought, Montesquieu, Charles Louis Secondat de la Brède discusses Laws and the thought behind them. Montesquieu divides governments into three primary categories; the Republic, the Monarchy, and the Despotic Government. Going through all of the governments, he discusses the pros and cons of each. It is quite informative in some ways, but looking back from now it really makes one think. While he talks about the dangers of each government it is difficult to avoid making comparisons of our current world situation. In that sense, Montesquieu was far ahead of his time in political thought.

Originally I took this out from the Library, but I found an old copy of it and was able to finally finish it. It seems that the bulk of the book is contained in other people discussing the book.

« Rien n'a plu davantage dans les lettres persanes, que d'y trouver, sans y penser, une espèce de roman. On en voit le commencement, le progrès, la fin : les divers personnages sont placés dans une chaîne qui les lie. À mesure qu'ils font un plus long séjour en Europe, les mœurs de cette partie du monde prennent, dans leur tête, un air moins merveilleux et moins bizarre : et ils sont plus ou moins frappés de ce bizarre et de ce merveilleux, suivant la différence de leurs caractères. Dans la forme de lettres, l'auteur s'est donné l'avantage de pouvoir joindre de la philosophie, de la politique et de la morale, à un roman ; et de lier le tout par une chaîne secrète et, en quelque façon, inconnue. »
Montesquieu
(Catalogue de l'éditeur)
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 préférera 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 œuvre de Montesquieu, publiées dans l'anonymat en 1721, connurent un succès retentissant et furent rééditées plusieurs fois au cours du XVIIIe siècle. - Sana Tang-Léopold Wauters -

> « 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 préférera 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. »
—Sana Tang-Léopold Wauters

> Par Adrian (Laculturegenerale.com) : Les 150 classiques de la littérature française qu’il faut avoir lus !
07/05/2017 - Le siècle des romans épistolaires commence en 1721 ! Derrière les échanges d’Usbeck et Rica se dessine une critique des moeurs de ce XVIIIeme siécle naissant, mais aussi tout le programme des Lumières : critique de l’arbitraire royal, de l’intolérance religieuse, plaidoyer pour la modération, réflexion sur la condition féminine…Un programme toujours en devenir.

Davidson’s notes to the text (Broadway Translations, Routledge & Sons, London, 1891?) are useful; a few examples:
XI, note 2 to 1st line: „essayer la mienne“ - an Gascon expression meaning ‘in deference to mine’, not ‘to test mine’;
LXXIII, note 3: „un bâtard / a bastard“ : i.e. ‘the dictionary of Furetière; being accused of having profited from the work of fellow -Academicians, F. was expelled from the Academy in 1685.’;
LIX: „détruire l’Hérésie“ : ‘The Revocation of the Edict fo Nantes in 1685’; „l’abolition des duels“ : ‘Edicts of 1654 and 1679’;
CXLII, p.318: ’In an island near the Orcades, a child was born …’ The Scotch financier, Law, of whose system this allegory is a satire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)

Davidson uses words and expressions that now sound somewhat dated. Examples: ‘liker’ for ‘like’ (XI, p-56, line 5); …

The préface par Jacques Roger of this edition (Flammarion, Paris 1964) is as spirited as Montesquieu’s writing and describes the political and social context - the lettre persanes were published 1721 six years after the death of Louis XIV - and their place in Montesquieu’s life.
What a ‘free spirit’ Montesquieu is! : like Usbek: „Je passe ma vie à examiner, […] Tout me intéresse, tout m’étonne : je suis comme un enfant, …“ (XLVIII); about Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions: Usbek pleas for tolerance (LX); … (VI-18)

One of the best books I have ever read and ever shall hope to read at least three more times in my lifetime... if only all books were only a slight fraction of the merit of this (and all of M's works I have read) book then I daresay I would never stop reading.

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.

Un classique donc difficile de critiquer. Mais je n'ai pas été emballée par le récit.

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 teh 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 rligions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism in the US?

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 teh 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 rligions, whether Islam in Iran or Evangelicalism int he US?

Fiction, Charles–Louis de Sécondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu (La Brède 1689 - Parigi 1755), A fictional correspondence between two Persians to reflect on the meaning of government and social customs, Satirical attack on existing institutions, Politics and government, "Le roi de France est le plus puissant prince de l'Europe. Il n'a point de mines d'or comme le roi d'Espagne son voisin; mais il a plus de richesses que lui, parce qu'il les tire de la vanité de ses sujets, plus inépuisable que les mines. On lui a vu entreprendre ou soutenir de grandes guerres, n'ayant d'autres fonds que des titres d'honneur à vendre; et, par un prodige de l'orgueil humain, ses troupes se trouvaient payées, ses places munies, et ses flottes équipées. D'ailleurs ce roi est un grand magicien: il exerce son empire sur l'esprit même de ses sujets; il les fait penser comme il veut. S'il n'a qu'un million d'écus dans son trésor et qu'il en ait besoin de deux, il n'a qu'à leur persuader qu'un écu en vaut deux, et il le croient. S'il a une guerre difficile à soutenir, et qu'il n'ait point d'argent, il n'a qu'à leur mettre dans la tête qu'un morceau de papier est de l'argent, et ils en sont aussitôt convaincus. Il va même jusqu'à leur faire croire qu'il les guérit de toutes sortes de maux en les touchant, tant est grande la force et la puissance qu'il a sur les esprits. Ce que je dis de ce prince ne doit pas t'étonner: il y a un autre magicien plus fort que lui, qui n'est pas moins maître de son esprit qu'il l'est lui-même de celui des autres. Ce magicien s'appelle le pape: tantôt il lui fait croire que trois ne sont qu'un; que le pain qu'on mange n'est pas du pain, ou que le vin qu'on boit n'est pas du vin, et mille autres choses de cette espèce. Et, pour le tenir toujours en haleine et ne point lui laisser perdre l'habitude de croire, il lui donne de temps en temps, pour l'exercer, de certains articles de croyance. Il y a deux ans qu'il lui envoya un grand écrit qu'il appela constitution, et voulut obliger, sous de grandes peines, ce prince et ses sujets de croire tout ce qui y était contenu. Il réussit à l'égard du prince, qui se soumit aussitôt, et donna l'exemple à ses sujets; mais quelques-uns d'entre eux se révoltèrent, et dirent qu'ils ne voulaient rien croire de tout ce qui était dans cet écrit. Ce sont les femmes qui ont été les motrices de toute cette révolte qui divise toute la cour, tout le royaume et toutes les familles. Cette constitution leur défend de lire un livre que tous les chrétiens disent avoir été apporté du ciel: c'est proprement leur Alcoran. Les femmes, indignées de l'outrage fait à leur sexe, soulèvent tout contre la constitution: elles ont mis les hommes de leur parti, qui, dans cette occasion, ne veulent point avoir de privilège.", First published, under the title: "Lettres persanes", Cologne, chez Pierre Marteau, 1721, 2 tomes en un volume petit in-12, veau brun, dos orné aux fleurons et petits fers dorés, pièce de titre verte (W.H. Langerveld Boekb.), According to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/exhibitions/printerex/antistate..., "Printers used various devices to evade the censor. One of the most common in the seventeenth century was the use of an "accommodation address", a fictitious imprint statement designed to make it hard for officers of the state to discover where and by whom a book had been printed. The printer of this book used the accommodation address, "Cologne: chez Pierre Marteau". This fictitious imprint, believed to have been devised by the Leiden printer Jan Elzevir in 1660, was widely adopted by printers of works that were theologically or politically contentious in nature, as well as by printers of pornography. Thus, the use of this accommodation address in a book's imprint gradually came to act almost as a badge of controversial status. It was still in use in the nineteenth century, when the German publishing firm of F.A. Brockhaus adopted it in its German form ("bei Peter Hammer in Köln") when issuing works likely to offend the Prussian censor.", Italian edition, Rizzoli, Milano, November, 1996, BUR, introduction by Jean Starobinski, translated by Giuseppina Alfieri Todaro-Faranda, 400 pp.½

1721 utkom en märklig, anonym, skrift från tryckeriet, under titeln Persiska brev: en föregiven samling epistlar mellan två persiska landsflyktiga och deras vänner, som redogör för hur de reser mot och tillbringar ett par år i Paris, storögt betraktande européernas märkliga beteenden samtidigt som Usbek, den äldre av dem, försöker styra sitt harem på distans. Snart framkom dock att bokens författare var Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, som på detta sätt för första gången lät tala om sig på allvar.

Montesquieu är idag troligen mest känd som den ytterst ansvarige för USA:s lätt paranoida statsskick, där maktens tre armar är tänkta att balansera varandra, möjligen också för klimatläran (som i princip säger att karaktären beror på var man bor): båda dessa tankar finns också i outvecklad form i boken, som annars mest ägnar sig åt tvenne saker: exotisk sensualism från haremet, med såväl nakna skönhetstävlingar som en paradisskildring där en dygdig kvinna finner sig ägandes ett harem, samt vildsint satir av samtidens Frankrike. Den senare riktar sig mot – bland annat – usla ministrar, kyrkan, lättingar, filosofer, diktare, hovmän; inte mycket undgår Montesquieus vassa penna. Till en början är det mest frågan om okunnigas förvåning över allt nya: Usbek och Rika går på teatern och tittar lika mycket på publiken som skådespelarna, och anser dem båda vara en del av pjäsen. Med tiden blir det dock mer och mer en fråga om mer eller mindre initierade skildringar av hur dåraktiga fransmännen är, med någon gång ett balanserande erkännande.

I allmänhet är också de satiriska bitarna de bättre. Man får dock vänta länge på dem, för många av de inledande breven handlar om den idag rätt tama sensualismen. Ibland skjuts också in en del noveller, men även de är i allmänhet rätt långtråkiga. Detta är också den inledning som översättaren försett boken med: att en sådan träig person har fått i uppgift att översätta ett stundom så roligt verk är obegripligt: samhällsanda och medborgardygd må ha legat Montesquieu varmt om hjärtat, men det är inte därför man läser Persiska brev. Översättaren borde ha lyssnat på vad Montesquieu skrev i sitt eget förord, och avstått

ett lovtal över originalet [som framhåller] dess nytta, dess förtjänster och dess företräden. […] Ett av de mest vägande [skälen] är att detta skulle vara att placera något mycket tråkigt på en plats som är tråkig redan i och för sig, nämligen ett förord.

Nåväl, förutom just detta verkar översättaren i allmänhet gjort ett gott arbete med ett verk där tyvärr hälften av vad som från början gjorde det intressant mestadels eroderats bort. Persiska brev kan dock fortfarande förtjusa, ty till skillnad från vad som anses som exotiskt spännande förändras den mänskliga naturen endast långsamt.½

Typische roman in brievenvorm
Kracht: evolutie van de personages; variatie tussen harem-correspondentie (exotisch, sappig) en saaiere filosofische brie-ven (dienen ook als contrapunt); relativering van de absolute geldigheid van gebruiken en inzichten
personages
- usbek: gericht op wijsheid; inzicht in relativisme en dikwijls sceptisch, maar twijfelaar; meer en meer gericht op rede en deugd; maar niet toegepast op eigen harem; eerder pessimistisch
- Rica: jonge, vitale man; sterk ironiserend en satirisch over westerse samenleving; sneller aan het twijfelen en relativeren
Sterke kracht is de satire: tegen despotisme en absolutisme; tegen godsdienstig fanatisme
- tegen sociale hypocrisie
uitlopend op universeel relativisme

Vol. 1

Imagine the pleasure of finding Voltaire, Samuel Johnson, Rousseau and Gibbon between one set of covers! Each author is prefaced by a couple of paragraphs explaining the significance of the piece and then, they are given free rein.

If there is any man brave enough to give this collection of the World's great thinkers less than five stars, its not I! Superb reading of people just beginning to exercise their new found right to question everything.

In some ways, you've read one epistolatory 18th-century novel satirizing Europeans through the eyes of the Oriental Other, you've read 'em all--and I must be getting kind of close to literally having read them all. But if I could only recommend one, the Persian Letters would surely be it. Usbek and Rica hit Paris, learn, listen, wonder, evaluate, scoff, ask questions, wile the time away in this Shangri-La, until word comes that the home front has been neglected too long, the seraglio is in disorder, the wives are poisoned and the eunuchs stabbed. It's a neat way of undermining the wise and evenhanded Usbek and squeezing some more play out of the form--much as he admires certain of the European institutions and seems to pass judgment on others from an eminently reasonable place, at home his only task was to embrace the velvet glove or the iron fist, and it is vacillating that sinks him.


The politics can get tedious when they turn to disquisition, and the satire can be a bit heavy, as it is with these things, and sometimes the crackpot theories on e.g. climate or the extinction of the human race are elaborated on at too much length. But we have to recognize that this is an eruption in its way of the same exuberance we love in these Enlightenmen, and take the bad with the cool allegories about the Troglodytes, perfection out of purgation, and the idea that Adam might have been the last survivor of a dying world; or the Christian fetishing of virginity as parallel to the Muslim fetishing of the female body (such a telling difference from Mary Wortley Montagu's fecund Turks, these constructed Persians feeling the loss of virginity as life's central shame and hard knock); the deft way Montesquieu has Usbek encompass two powerful but problematic positions on affairs of the heart:


"Nothing had made a greater contribution to mutual attachment than the possibility of divorce. A husband and wife were inclined to put up with domestic troubles patiently, because they knew that it was in their power to bring them to an end, and often they had this power at their disposal all their lives without using it, for the unique reason that they were free to do so."


v.


"I find something very sincere, and very great as well, in the words of a king who, on the point of falling into enemy hands, saw his courtiers weeping around him and said "from your tears, I realize that I am still your king."


Perhaps not contradictory, but two true things, in 18th-century France, imaginary Iran, or here and now.

Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu was an intellectual giant of early 18th-century France. His Persian Letters were composed under the conceit of correspondence written by Persian travelers in Europe. In an early series of these letters, he presents the fable of the Troglodytes. In Letter 11, this remote Arabian people is introduced as "so wicked and ferocious that there were no principles of equity or justice among them." The consequent Ayn Rand-style faux-libertarian dystopia (alarmingly similar in many details to our mass society today) leads to a substantial decline in population. The subject of Letter 12 involves the regeneration of society by the efforts of two men and their households, who broke with Troglodyte custom in realizing

"...that the individual's self-interest is always to be found in the common interest; that wanting to cut oneself off from it is the same as wanting to ruin oneself; that virtue is not such as to cost us anything, and should not be considered as wearisome exercise; and that justice to others is charity for ourselves."

Letter 13 extols the virtues of the new order of society that followed from these revised ideals, and Letter 14 discusses the beginnings of that polity’s decline, as they chose to subject themselves to a monarch. The Betts edition appends an additional letter on the Troglodytes written by Montesquieu, but not published by him in the Letters. The entire Troglodyte series deserves to be studied in connection with the utopias of Plato and Rabelais alike.

Alchemy and occultism feature prominently in letters 45, 58, and 134, where they tend to be disparaged. Letter 46 contains a precursor of the Discordian sacrament of eating a hot dog on Friday.

After 40 years in print over dozens of editions, the Letters were put on the Vatican's Index of Prohibited books. The Penguin Classics edition translated by C. J. Betts includes a sage introduction and an apparatus documenting Montesquieu's likely sources for many details of Oriental culture.

One of the first moderns explicitly to ask a core political question: what is the hidden recipe behind a visibly successful society? And as corollary: when this society goes in decline, what factors are then at play? Montesquieu answers, almost like a Cicero, Sallust or Tacitus, that the causes of Rome's greatness & decline were mainly moral. Roman citizens expressed & upheld a series of simple, common-sense habits & virtues - cultivating each soldier's physical endurance, adopting foreign inventions whenever advantageous, willingly embracing every necessary conflict, & many more. Exactly as long as these habits were in use, Rome prospered.

A luminous, terse & rather remarkable focus on each citizen's responsibility & morals, by this founding father of institutional politics, partial to aristocratic oligarchies of which republican Rome remains the classic example.