Writing, like prayer, is a deliberate act. Those who speak or debate for a living hone their skills so well that they are able to argue both sides of a matter with equal passion and persuasion. Any reasonably competent writer is capable of doing the same, especially since he is not limited by the demands of the moment and can edit or draft at will. It is therefore impossible to say with certainty what a writer believes, thinks or feels based solely on the product they have written. This is especially true in an absolutist or totalitarian environment, where perpetrators can be imprisoned, or even executed, for openly criticizing the wrong person. However, throughout the Lettres Persanes Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu creates satirical caricatures of religion and religious people. The notion of tolerance and religious freedom, even filtered through the words of imaginary narrators, was sufficiently risky to prompt de Montesquieu to publish the 1721 book under a pseudonym (1). This essay will show the strategies used by de Montesquieu to present religion in a very critical way: beneficial primarily in the abstract, but hypocritical, arrogant and even predatory in practice. The text is not kind to anyone, but it more gently mocks religious individuals as well-meaning hypocrites. The sharpest irony is reserved for the First Power, whose members are presented as not only self-interested but actively predatory. Religious freedom is never explicitly defended in Les Lettres Persanes, but the sentiments expressed by the fictional characters sometimes seem to support it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Born in 1689 (2), de Montesquieu came of age during the reign of Louis XIV who, between 1643 and 1715 (3) , presided over an absolutist empire in which aristocratic families (known as the Second Estate) were part of a highly privileged class to whom education was easily accessible. Yet even the social freedoms afforded to the noble class did not really allow an author to criticize members of the First Estate. In The Letters, Montesquieu often makes his point through a narrator who, while openly proclaiming something, is unreliable enough to convince the reader that the author intends the opposite. This author never explicitly says that religion is bad, or that there is no religion. a God. Sometimes the characters speculate about what God must look like, but it is always a positive and perfect image. But when it comes to human beings, Montesquieu presents them as misguided, corrupt, egocentric and hypocritical. “I give thanks to God Almighty, who sent his great prophet Hali, therefore I profess a religion which demands to be preferred to all human interest, and which is as pure as the sky from which it comes. (4) These remarks are attributed to Usbek, owner of multiple slaves and concubines, who has just finished criticizing what he describes as Christian hypocrisy consisting of freeing slaves in his own country for religious reasons, only to enslave people. people in other nations. The more openly a Montesquieu character praises or condemns something, the more ironic the praise or censure becomes. Usbek himself seems to view Islam as a "pure" religion, and Islamic lands as somehow peaceful and superior, despite the extremely corrupt activities at the court of Sultan Ahmed III (who reigned during the time the fictionalUsbek would have been traveling in Europe). Ironically, Ahmed III was known to be a modernizing influence in the Ottoman Empire and was a devoted Francophile. (5) When the character Usbek presents "his" thoughts in general terms, stating his opinion on the human condition, he is not limiting his observations to religion. He describes humanity as being globally self-interested: “Men act unjustly, because it is in their interest to do so and because they prefer their own satisfaction to that of others. They always act to secure an advantage: no one is a gratuitous villain; there is always a determining motive, and this motive is always interested. (6) But in the first part of the book, Usbek identifies self-interest as a typically Christian and European trait, and contrasts it with his idealized view of his own nation. In the eyes of Persian visitors, European features are exaggerated for the sake of irony. Usbek notes the European habit of religious debate, which he interprets as a lack of faith: “Among them, there is a big difference between profession and belief, between belief and conviction, between conviction and practice. Religion is not so much a question of holiness as a subject of debate in which everyone has the right to participate. (7) Yet the fact that this debate took place in France proves that the violent repression of Protestant religious views during the Huguenot Rebellion of the 1620s (8) is no longer a credible threat, so people Ordinary people feel free to discuss or challenge religion. , within certain limits. Usbek meets and describes "certain people who never finish discussing religion, but who at the same time seem to argue about who should observe it least." (9) He goes on to describe his notion of the best way to serve God, which is to follow the rules of religion and nation. Yet Usbek himself, although he claims to be pious, has not yet cared about the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca. In Letter 15, his servant the First Eunuch expresses the desire to do so, in order to purify himself. (10)When it comes to the clergy, de Montesquieu takes off the gloves. Although he points out the hypocrisy of the laity and allows Usbek to point it out repeatedly, the criticism of clerical hypocrisy is far more vicious. “These dervishes take three oaths: obedience, poverty and chastity. It is said that the first is the best observed of the three, as for the second, it is not observed at all; you can form your own opinion on the third. (11) The following passage describes the corruption that Rica sees in the Church: "Thus, if anyone wishes to escape the fast of Rhamazan or is unwilling to submit to the formalities of marriage, or wishes to break his vows, or marry within the prescribed degrees, or even abstain, he only has to apply either to a bishop or to the Pope, who will immediately grant a dispensation. (12) Rica describes his first impression of the concepts of the holy trinity and transubstantiation, two important articles of faith for Catholics of the time: There is another magician still more powerful, who is master of the king's spirit, also absolutely that the king is. master of the minds of his subjects. This magician is called the Pope. Sometimes he makes the king believe that three are one; that the bread he eats is not bread; the wine he drinks is not wine; and a thousand things of the same nature. (13) A passage from a letter from Rica describes Church officials, bureaucrats, and judges as not only hypocrites, but also dangerously predatory: Other judges presume the innocence of the accused; they always judge them guilty. In doubtful cases, their rule is to lean on the side of severity, apparently because they think humanity is hopelessly.