The epistolary novel by Charles de Secondat baron de Montesquieu, the “Persian Letters” gives a reflection of the eighteenth century society. It is therefore a critical primary source in regard to eighteenth century history considering the major changes of historical significance that were taking place at the time. One such change was the dawn of the age of enlightenment also referred to as the age of reason. The historical perspective of the novel may be lost because of Montesquieu’s extensive use of satire. However, it is intended to draw the attention of the reader towards the primary themes that Montesquieu intended to focus on.
He does this by focusing on the letters of the two noblemen Usbek and Rica. Their journeys into Europe allow them to make observations about the French society about the various aspects of the age of enlightenment from the perspective of a foreigner. Montesquieu was perhaps induced to use the fictitious characters of foreigners in order to give an impartial historical outlook of the progress of the French society concerning the fulfillment of the age of enlightenment values and principles.
The themes reflected in the letters with respect to history are as extensive as the extent of the philosophies of the age of reason. They touch on philosophy, science, politics, and religion among other spheres of life. Montesquieu gives undue preference to the aspect of religion in the letters. It is a reflection of the central role played by religion in the eighteenth century. As a testament to how religion was a contested issue at the time, not even the philosophers that supported the idea of enlightenment had a unified stand on it.
In his Persian letters, Montesquieu is of the view that logic and reason should become the primary tool with which to address the extremities of religion. It was at a time that the religious practices were more prone to superstition as opposed to reason. In the letters, Montesquieu seeks to lay bare the discrepancies that existed in the religious beliefs, which at the time in France and the entire Europe were predominantly Christian.
In his criticism of the religious beliefs and doctrine, he makes use of the concept of cultural relativism. To him, the religious discrepancies exposed by reason coupled with cultural relativism meant that the only way for the society to remain stable was through religious tolerance.
In one of the letters, Rica castigates the idea of the holy trinity likening it to deep-rooted superstition. The concept of the holy trinity represented a challenge to any philosopher of the enlightenment period Montesquieu included. It is because the concept was based on an inherent faith that could not be explained by reason yet the very purpose of enlightenment was to seek ways to give such superstitious belief a logical reason. It would therefore present one of Montesquieu’s weakness that his failure to explain the logic behind the holy trinity causes him to condemn it all together.
In his criticism of the discrepancies in religious beliefs, he uses the concept of God as an omnipresent being as Christians believed. He was of the view that if God is omniscient, then inherently, human beings do not have a choice since their fate is already predetermined.
However, if human beings have freedom of choice, it then follows that God cannot be all knowing since a person’s life’s fate is determined on a day to day basis. The belief that God is an omniscient being therefore conflicts with the idea of freedom of choice yet the Bible, the primary text imply that Christians rely on purports to offer both conflicting choices to humanity. It was an attempt by Montesquieu to show that religious doctrine was not grounded on any concrete foundation, but rather superstition and magic to which a simple application of reason exposes.
His criticism of religion did not stop at condemning the discrepancies of the religious beliefs, but also the religious leaders. He accuses the religious leadership of lack of consistency in the exposition of religious laws and doctrines. At the time, bishops had the ultimate authority on religious matters. However, rather than following any principled structure in the exposition of religious law and doctrine, the bishops created articles of beliefs as the situations at hand demanded. Such situations were more often than not marred with politics and materialism.
In light of the above, it was not uncommon for bishops to declare their opponents heretics. Usbek gives a reflection of this when he states in his letter “what is true at one time is false another”. Therefore, according to Montesquieu, the blind allegiance to religious doctrine without the application of reason not only affects the individuals in question, but the entire society as well. To him, religion is the source of societal divisions through its inherent lack of fundamental principles especially in the part of the leaders.
He also criticizes religious leaders for using the example of the pope. He accuses the institution of papacy of creating the perception of the pope as the ultimate leader to the extent that the following of the popes has become occultist. He laments that the pope has become “an ancient idol worshipped now from habit” rather than being the mere leader of the Catholics while worshipping God. He sees such practices as an upfront to the Biblical teachings that people should shun against the worship of idols.
The idolization of religious leaders then turns out to be more political than religious to the extent that the religious leaders become men of the law rather than men of the cloak. Consequently, because of the newly found political power, such religious leaders work to ensure the maintenance of the status quo rather than pushing for advancement in the religious doctrine.
Montesquieu argues that the confusion in various aspects of religion further proves the superiority of reason over religious beliefs. Such aspects of religious practices are the formal language of communication as well as the rules and procedures to be followed during religious events. Different denominations of the Christian faith more often than not used different languages for prayer and worship even though they all professed Christianity.
Most of the languages were imported and such there was very little localization of the religious doctrine. It was obvious that both religious leaders and their followers did not understand the proceedings. For Catholics, Latin was the primary language used in their masses.
Furthermore, there was no uniformity on the rules and procedures of worship among the different religious denominations. Such procedures included whether or not people should kneel during prayer. Montesquieu in his letters opines that no one language or procedure should be preferred for he sees all of them as equal based on cultural relativism.
Montesquieu argument stems from the fact that each of the various denominations was making tacit efforts to create the aura of superiority around their denominations, yet such attempts were made without seeking to find out any logical reasoning for doing the same.
Another reason that Montesquieu noted for the religious discrepancies arising out of the lack of application of logic was the lack of coherence between what religious leaders especially the bishops advocated for and what they practiced in real life. He accuses the religious leaders of preaching water but drinking wine. He states, “This religion is burdened with infinity of very difficult observances”.
Montesquieu suggests that it is such hypocrisy that led to the emergence of the Protestant Reformation movement, back in the sixteenth century. It was because of the lack of coherence between religious practices and the morals as well as legal-political guidelines at the time. He is of the view that the gap arose out of the lack of applying reason on some of the religious belief, which would certainly not have passed the test of logic.
Montesquieu criticized the various religious factions for their attempts to create the perception of superiority with respect to their distinct beliefs. He uses the ideals espoused by cultural relativism to expose the fallibility of their arguments. He argues that the definition and distinction of right from wrong rather than being cast in stone is a function of the specific society in which the action being judged takes place.
Montesquieu dwells deeper into cultural relativism in his tenth to thirteenth letters. One example that Montesquieu gives is the acceptability of incest in some societies. To societies that might consider themselves enlightened, incest would appear to be wrong but in the context of the society practicing it, it is not a sin. He extrapolates the ideals of cultural relativism into his views on religion. In one of the letters, Usbek is of the idea that there is no right or wrong religion and that all of them deserve respect. To Usbek, being a good citizen in the society in which one was placed by God was the ultimate form of worship rather than the strict observance of religious doctrine.
The case was based on cultural relativism; the world was bound to have numerous religions with varying doctrines. Montesquieu argues using enlightenment ideas that the world and as such as the society would be safer and stable by tolerating each religion rather than trying to convert the people that practice it. For if, God intended that all people profess to a single religion, he would not have placed people in different societal spheres. Therefore, expecting the society to be symmetrical in terms of religious doctrine would be casting God as an unjust being not worthy of being worshipped.
Montesquieu chooses to communicate his enlightenment beliefs in a satirical manner in an effort to draw the attention of the society towards their destructive habits. Such habits that have been expansively discussed about religion are because of the lack of reason, which he opines is superior to religious beliefs. It is because of such reasons that Montesquieu explains some of the superstitious beliefs that religion was founded on. According Montesquieu, the use of logic allows one to be objective rather than being guided by superstition, which derives its power from fear.
Bibliography
Bronner, Stephen. 2004. Reclaiming the Enlightenment. Newyork, Columbia University Press
Montesquieu, Charles. 1993. Persian Letters. Trans. C. J. Betts. Newyork & London: Penguin Books
