Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Montesquieu, _Persian Letters_ (1)
In our discussions of Montaigne's Essays, we considered the form and genre of the text (essay) as mirroring the author's project of discovery (self-discovery, discovery of the New World). Montesequieu adopts the conventions of a different genre -- that of the epistolary novel. What is the significance of the letter in the Persian Letters? What does the letter do, communicate, perform, signify (...)? You might consider the notions of movement, distance, alterity, authorship, spectatorship, contact.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Each one of the letters distinctively provide a glimpse of the historical setting that the writers were a part of. Moreover, the letters reveal the internal conflicts and reactions caused by the external events taking place. They reveal a lot about the character of each writer.
ReplyDeleteThese epistles provide and elaborate on the geographical, cultural, political, and religious contexts the writers were in. Even though characters, like Usbek, isn't present in the seraglio, he would provide a lot of details and context.
The letters help paint the picture of the journeys embarked by each individual to provide overall movement and form to the story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe letter is the reader's primary source of information in the story. In each letter, the writer leaks a part of their view of the world. For instance, when Usbek talks about the Troglodytes, he praises the virtues (eg humbleness, sharing, fear of God etc.) of the survivors and presents their society as a model Utopian government for the world. As mentioned by Kernan, the letters also unveil information about the culture and society of Usbek's home country. For example, Usbek's relationship with his wives and slaves show that slavery and polygamy are normal in Usbek's society. The letters also show how all these characters feel about their situations. The wives are unhappy that Usbek left. One slave hates dealing with the wives. And Usbek seeks a greater truth. All this information is important for understanding the story.
ReplyDeletePS. wow, so many minor revisions, sorry.
I agree with Patrick's comment on how the letter gives us extended visibility into the mind and perceptions of the author. Particularly, because letters are often written with only one audience member (this seems to always be the case in Persian Letters), the letter reveals completely a one-sided relationship between the author and reader. When one writes a letter, he/she is required to expand upon one's topics, explain issues fully, and guess or make assumptions to the reader's reactions in order to combat the slow nature of this form of communication. Both Rica and Usbek let their minds open when they write. When they write to Ibben, a friend and host they met along their travels through Smyrna (Diplomacy anyone?) they speak openly of their love and affection for him (74-75).
ReplyDeleteAs analytical readers of the Persian Letters, we can use the format to our advantage. For example, if we wanted to analyze the possible sexism in the Persian culture and compare the status of women to those of servants/eunuchs and those of men, we could compare the tone, word choice, and subject matter Usbek uses with Mirza to those he discusses with Rustan or Nessir and discern whether Usbek holds less respect for his wives than his friends. By studying the letters, we can answer the question who is in a position of more power? The First Eunuch, or the First Wife?
I strongly agree that the letter provides a window into the relationship between authors and addressee, creating a sort of secrecy in which true feelings can be expressed. The letters add authenticity to the Persian Letters, in that the reader is put in a position of observing the private, intimate conversations of others.
ReplyDeleteThe letters provide great emotional expression; far from simply stating "the wives felt deprived from him," we hear one wife describe the emotional agony of the separation to the point she struggles to even express herself (L7). We also see, as mentioned, the great feelings of resentment felt by the Eunuch against the harem in L9. He would surely never provide this sort of account to Usbek himself.
As a whole, the reader is left with the assumption that the letters contain emotions and thoughts in their most raw sense, unclouded by censorship or self-imposed limits when one writes to a large audience. Their writers are as we discussed in class, made to seem as "true witnesses" to the world around them, allowing Montesquieu to better create the image of vastly distant worlds as we follow Usbek's journey later in the book and follow the comparisons he makes between Persia and France.
When reading an epistolary novel, we are introduced to numerous perspectives. This is advantageous in observing the social dynamics between each character. For example, we can perceive Usbek’s pain as he writes to the many wives he left behind or the desperation of the Eunuch who confesses his sin to Usbek’s companion Ibbi. As there are multiple viewpoints, the events are perceived differently which allow the reader to make judgments about the characters. This is enhanced by the fact that the characters write without knowledge that an outside party will be reading their letters; we can see past the front one may put up and catch a glimpse into the private thoughts of the characters.
ReplyDeleteThis format differs significantly from that of an essay or novel where the presentation is melded together by one dominant perspective. The realism of the epistolary format allows for a more subtle way of presenting a clash of cultures. For example, as Usbek writes to the Mullah Mohammed Ali, Usbek reflects upon his own customs because of his exposure to the outside. Whereas an essay or novel would most likely state this directly, a composition of letters leaves the idea in its raw, untainted form so that it may be refined later on. In this way, an epistolary novel is more revealing about one’s character because there is no outside interpretation to interfere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe letter focuses on time and location, and all of the information conveyed in a letter revolves around these two elements. A collection of letters, unlike an essay, doesn't need to be cohesive throughout. Each letter deals with its own subject matter and doesn't concern itself with the previous letter or the letter that comes after. A letter also doesn't have to be revised (for content) after it's written. If something changes with the writer, a new letter can be written afterward and the two letters can then be compared.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, the letter’s form best suits travel writing because travels are rarely uniform themselves. A travel can begin with one theme and end with another; many unexpected events can pop up while traveling. The disjointedness of an epistolary novel mimics the disjointedness of traveling in general, and as the reader goes through the novel, he or she can see the various changes in the author's location, culture, thought, and personal relationships with respect to time.
A collection of letters is very similar to a diary - both are personal and based on time. Letters, however, are addressed to others, which leads to a greater emphasis on surroundings and a smaller emphasis on self. Usbek and Rica still write about their own feelings (such as Usbek's questions about purity), but they never fail to note down what they see in the world around them. Since a diary’s focus is the self, there’s less space for “otherness,” which is a key part of travel writing. As letters are addressed to other people, they primarily deal with what other people are interested in hearing – the travel itself.
The most visible quality of the Episcopal text is that it allows us to directly see many faces of a central character, Usbek in this case. This transparency is highly evident when we compare Usbek’s letters to the Eunuchs to those of his various friends. The intimacy of the letter format makes it the perfect medium for illuminating the various social and cultural issues that arise, void of any censorship or restrained thought. The letter makes possible the direct expression of intimate thoughts, such as in letter 38, where Rica unblushingly discusses his views concerning the freedom of women in society with Ibben.
ReplyDeleteBecause of its inherent implication of being from abroad, the letter format stresses the distance, or the physical space, between people and places, enhancing the sense of alterity between ‘here’ and ‘there’. This ever-present dichotomy builds a foundation for all the other thematic material which the letters engage in; namely – power/powerlessness, insecurity, freedom (of women and slaves) and differences in religion and social norms.
The unique characteristic of an epistolary novel gives us an advantage of viewing the central characters on an intimate level through their thoughts and emotions presented in their letters. The letters provide a medium of trust that is not offered in an essay or other types of novels. All the letters are written in first person and provide us with a great deal of information on the internal and external conflicts that each writer is faced with. The theme and the tone of each letter changes depending on the time and location, in which the letter is written, as well as the recipient of each letter. For example, Usbek’s tone in the letter to his first wife, Zashi, addressing her infidelity (letter 20), significantly differs from that of the letter addressed to Roxana (letter 26), his second wife, who has proved her loyalty to him. Another advantage of this type of novel is its ability to provide multiple perspectives. Through out the novel, the reader not only learns about the viewpoint belonging to the central character, in this case Usbek, but also that of the other characters, such as his companion in the trip or the wives, friends, and slaves he has left behind.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo one disagreed yet... Anyway, it was easier for me to read while I wrote so my responses may jump around.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Narayan in saying that the Epistolary novel allows us to view
the many facets of a character through the letters that they send. The letters are written in first person, and is oftenfilled with the different emotions and thoughts of the writer. One is also able to view the many social dynamics between people (Nicky) in the contents that are written and the overall demeanor within the letter. However, this is only to a certain extent.
What's important to notice is that that requires just more than one correspondence.
We are lucky that Persian Letters housed a variety of people that Usbek regularly wrote to,
which is not always the case, such as in Sorrows of Young Werther, in which there was only one
person that he would write to.
Because of this, one question that arises is which one actually opens up a character more?
One in which the character is able to show off his myriad of character traits, or one in which there
is only one correspondence who develops a very intimate relationship with the writer, who in turn
exposes his many weaknesses and fears.
Continuing on, letters are not always void of censorship or restrained thought. Even if
the relationship between the two people are very intimate, there are always things that you would
not say. For example, would you tell you're mother that you went partying and got hammered, there wasa girl who came back home with you, and you don't exactly remember what happened? Besides the fact thatshe ended up somehow next to you when you woke up. So, to a certain extent, letters are censored even if little. Moreover, the author chooses what to write, how to phrase it, and in turn may be interpretedin a way that he wants to to. In this sense, letters are not in the most "raw" sense in that they are not uncensored or refined. In the act of writing one already decides what to filter out or not. In my opinion, the most "untainted" kind of writing is the stream of consciousness. (Sound and the Fury!)
Narayan brings up an interesting concept about the letter enhancing the sense of
otherness, or the here and there while travel writing, and this is seen with letter 21 to the
White Eunuch, in that Usbek is writing a very threatening letter, but he is leagues apart from the Eunuchto actually take action. And the Eunuch could be unbeknownst to him, going around doing everything that he doesn't want him to do, and he could lie to Usbek, or not entirely say whats happening (censorship), when the Eunuch tries to castrate another worker, and they both write letters describing different things that happened. (Letters 41&42). Also, one of the writers is able to compare two religions in a very spectator like way.
I want to comment on Xixi's post in that I agree wholeheartedly in what she is saying, but I want to also add a thought to the travel writing experience- that the letters slowly evolve based on the time and the physical location of the writer. In Persian Letters, Usbek's attitude towards the French starts from a more curious and positive view, but soon changes to look comment upon the darker aspects about life, about what kind of country could it be that allows womanizers to roam the streets and faithlessness everywhere,with his remark at the end of page 108.
The role of the letter in epistolary novels is the obvious flexibility, diversity, and variety of nineteen correspondents and more than twenty one different recipients that the letters provide. We are essentially being allowed unparrelled access to the unrestrained thoughts of others. Futhermore the letters allow the reader to take an objective viewpoint, and thus an advantage at analyzing central themes such as nationalism and identity, race, and religion. For instance in L24 Rica writes that "women are created inferior to us, and our Prophets say that they will not goto paradise". He is astounded by the fact that they(women) wish to read a book (the bible) since it shows the way to heaven.
ReplyDeleteA letter has a sender and a reciever. This very fact provides us with information regarding the private thoughts and nature of the characters, their surroundings, and a fragment towards the progression of the novel.
I agree with Narayan about the letters representing a physical space between people and places. This seperation creates a twofold story, both the accounts of Usbek and Rica and their tales of travel, as well as the seraglio back in Isfahan. (L2, L9..)
The letters show a dynamic creating temporal space between the author and who the letter is addressed to. In each letter social and cultural dynamics are revealed through the personal experiences of the author. The feelings and thoughts of the author are openly expressed to the reader in the format of an original epistolary novel.
ReplyDeleteFor instance in Letter 27 Rica writes about his experience in Paris while at a play. He begins his letter saying "Yesterday I saw something rather odd, although in Paris it happens every day." He shows that there is a distinction between what is considered the "norm" and what is not by saying that he saw something "odd". Then he describes what happened at the play comparing the scenes to the acting Persia.
After reading one hundred and nine pages of Persian letters, I cannot help but think that sometimes genre is another tool for author to convey his ideas more easily. I think Montesquieu might consciously or unconsciously use epistolary novel as a genre to accomplish the following things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, because that he vocalized through another person, Montesquieu can satirize French society without being blamed. When Usbek talk about the ridiculous religious or political phenomenon of Parisian society, he was actually speaking Montesquieu’s mind. For instance, the King making use of people’s vanity and the demanding Pope in Letter 24 are severely satirized by Rica the innocent observer in French society.
Second, by using letters between different personas, Montesquieu can flexibly adopt different stories, styles and tones to suit his needs. There is no problem of lack of coherence or organization since letter is of its natural not that organized, rational and predictable.
Finally, utilizing letters as a form made clear that there are two sides involved in the writing: the author and the spectator. Furthermore, there is a distance of trust between them. We can observe characters’ relationship by analyzing their words. For example, the words between Usbek and his wives would be straight and full of personal emotions while ones between Usbek and his slaves commanding or obedient.
More words about “distance.” The result and consequence of a letter is suspended because of the distance between two correspondents. For reader, that will be the suspense of not knowing what the receiver would react according to the letter. This creates an interesting feeling while reading.
At last, I have a not fully-developed idea about “the self and the other” in Persian letters. I suppose these different characters are actually conflicting voices in Montesquieu’s mind. He created a distance between himself and “the other self” by taking advantage of letters so that he could more clearly trace his thoughts.
Sorry for the procrastination.