1

Thomas
Nathaniel Thomas

Dr. Warner

Independent Study: Persian Letters

5 May 2023

Governance and the Seraglio

In Montesquieu’s Persian Letters, almost nothing is as it first seems. Every letter has at

least one surface meaning, and then sometimes two, three, or four additional meanings that lie

beneath the surface, waiting for discerning readers to reveal them. Montesquieu most likely had a

few reasons for this obfuscation. First, it makes for an interesting and complex work of

philosophical literature. However, Montesquieu was also concerned about Persian Letters being

censored or banned. Because of this, some of the sharper critiques of government in the work are

veiled, much like Usbek’s wives, in metaphor. Montesquieu uses Usbek’s domestic realm, the

seraglio, to examine political orders and authoritarian governance.

Montesquieu introduces the governance of the seraglio very early in the book. The idea

first appears in Letter 2, which is from Usbek to the first black eunuch. Usbek is quick to make

clear that he is the ultimate authority, even in his physical absence. He reminds the first black

eunuch of how lowly his station would be without Usbek’s favor, implying that any authority he

may have comes directly from Usbek. Usbek writes, “Always remember the nothingness out of

which I took you, when you were the last of my slaves, to place you in this position and to

entrust you with the delights of my heart” (6). Implicit in this reminder if also a threat from

Usbek that is if Usbek lifted the eunuch out of his lowly station, he can certainly send him back.

While, Letter 2 introduces the authoritarian governance of the seraglio, it also introduces

enlightenment ideas of the relationship between the government and the governed for the first
2
Thomas
time. Usbek illustrates the tension and paradox in the relationship between a government and it’s

citizens writing, “You command them, and you obey them; you blindly carry out their every

wish, and likewise you make them carry our the laws of the seraglio” (6). This sentiment from

Usbek demonstrates the enlightenment idea that even though authoritarian governments are able

to force citizens to obey its laws, they are also at least somewhat responsible to the wishes of

their citizens. Even in a government where the citizens, in this metaphor Usbek’s wives, have no

governmental authority themselves, they are still able to influence their government’s decisions.

A careful examination of the dates of Letters 2 and 3 will demonstrate this very idea.

Usbek and Rica leave for Europe on the 20th of the moon of Maharram, and Usbek’s wife Zachi

writes Letter 3 on the 21st of the moon of Maharram. The first sentence of Letter 3 is “We

ordered the chief eunuch to take us to the country” (7). The day after Usbek leaves the seraglio

his wives begin flexing their influence, and without permission from the Usbek, the eunuchs

obey. Usbek does grant permission post ipso facto in Letter 2. This raises two questions about

authoritarian government. First, how much does the strength of the government depend on

appearance? Usbek granting permission to go to the country after his wives have already gone

suggests that appearance is very important. Particularly while he is away, Usbek needs the

officers of his government, the eunuchs, to believe he is in charge, otherwise he loses any way to

directly impact the situation at all. Which leads to the second question: how much does

authoritarian political power depend on spatial proximity? Given the fact that we see Usbek lose

more and more influence over his wives and the seraglio throughout the course of the book,

Montesquieu seems to suggest that to maintain an authoritarian regime, there needs to be a strong

spatial component. Perhaps this might be a visibly present army, or frequent public appearances
3
Thomas
by the tyrant. Absent this, the political power of the tyrant fades over time in the minds of his

people.

Letter 64 contains further ruminations on how to maintain an authoritarian regime. The

chief of the black eunuch writes to Usbek and tells him “The seraglio is in a horrible disorder and

confusion; war reigns among your wives; your eunuchs are divided; nothing but complaints,

mutterings, and reproaches are heard; everything seems to be permitted in this time of license,

and I have no more than a vain title in the seraglio” (103). The chief of the black eunuchs goes

on to complain that the cause of this disorder is Usbek’s leniency. He complains, “If you did not

restrain my hands; if instead of the path of remonstrance, you allowed me that of

chastisements . . . I would soon accustom them to the yoke they have to bear, and I would wear

down their independent and imperious temperament” (103). The oppressiveness of the

governance of the seraglio is placed in no uncertain terms here. The chief eunuch describes it as

“the yoke they have to bear” which invokes an image of strong subjugation and bearing of a

burden. This passage also illustrates the violence or threat of violence that is required to maintain

such a system. The ‘rule of law’ of the seraglio and verbal reproaches are not enough to maintain

such a stringent existence.

Additionally, the eunuch suggests a fascinating consequence of this more violent

governance. Instead of the abuse making Usbek’s wives fear and hate him, the chief black

eunuch suggests that this will allow Usbek to capture their hearts even further. He recounts the

words of the great eunuch that he trained under, “How can a man hope to capture their hearts, if

his faithful eunuchs have not begun by subjugating their minds?” (105). This sentiment has

echoes of another great political thinker, Niccolò Machiavelli. In his seminal work The Prince,

Machiavelli considers “should a Prince better be feared or loved?” (93). Where Machiavelli
4
Thomas
presents a dichotomy in which “it is hard to be both at the same time, (so) it is better to be feared

than loved” (94), the chief black eunuch suggests that fear will lead to love. This reflects a

tyrannical governing strategy where fear is a useful tool used to win love. Ministers rule with an

iron fist, but the tyrant is allowed to be ‘above the fray’ and still be a respected and loved figure.

It also suggests a horrific stripping away of dignity and independence, until the wives have no

choice but to love Usbek or be subject to violence.

However, this leads to a dilemma for the tyrant. If the ministers, in this case the eunuchs,

are to be feared because they govern with “absolute power” (103), that would give the ministers

more power than the tyrant. He chief black eunuch writes how his former teacher “had persuaded

his master that good order was served if the master left this choice to him, so as to give him a

greater authority” (105). In this instance, in order to have the greatest amount of control over his

wives, the master allows the eunuch to select even which wife will sleep with him on a given

night. A paradox appears where to rule with an iron fist, the tyrant must cede some of his

authority over his ministers, and thus becomes less powerful and less in control. While it sounds

like the chief black eunuch is advocating for these changes for Usbek’s benefit and to increase

Usbek’s control of the seraglio, he is instead asking for an increase of his own power at the

expense of Usbek’s.

Letter 64 and Letter 96 examine another crucial piece of authoritarian rule: destabilizing

the ruled population and setting them against each other. If the wives, or subjects, unite, they are

much more difficult to control. The chief black eunuch and the first eunuch write in Letter 64

and Letter 96 respectively, about how the create divisions among the wives and keep them in dis-

union. The chief black eunuch writes, “he used some of them to learn the others, and he was

pleased to reward the slightest trust” (105), and the first eunuch writes, “Some ceaselessly watch
5
Thomas
the steps of others. It seems that, in concert with us, they work to render themselves more

dependent. They do part of our work and open our eyes when we close them” (155). It is

impossible for the ministers to be everywhere at once, or at every gathering of their subjects.

Therefore, they use their ability to reward to entice some wives to turn traitor against their own

class and to the work surveillance themselves.

But, despite whatever rewards they may receive, there is no material change in their

status for performing this surveillance. The first eunuch writes, “They ceaselessly agitate their

master against their rivals, and do not see how near they are to those who are being punished”

(155). Even though these wives are doing the eunuch’s work of subjugation for them, it does not

preclude them from being betrayed and punished themselves. This creates a culture of constant

surveillance and self-surveillance. One must always be ‘doing the right thing,’ or they risk being

turned in for whatever paltry reward is being offered. Tyrannical regimes have used this tactic to

oppress their citizens throughout history. According to the Wiener Holocaust Library, “Nazi

propaganda presented the Gestapo as an omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing group, but in

reality there was just one secret police officer for approximately every 10,000 citizens of Nazi

Germany. The Gestapo were therefore reliant on a network of thousands of informants.” And in

the Chinese Cultural Revolution, “Mao favored open criticism and the involvement of the people

to expose and punish members of the ruling class who disagreed with him . . . People tried to

protect themselves by attacking friends and even their own families” (Lamb). History has shown

this tactic to be extremely effective in disrupting cohesion among the population and increasing

citizen surveillance, making it much easier to control and oppress the ruled class.

And yet, all the tactics and methods described here fail. The great eunuch describes the

seraglio falling into chaos in a letter to Usbek where he writes, “Things have come to a state that
6
Thomas
can no longer be maintained” (257). The fear that was supposed to induce further love induces

hatred, as seen when Zélis writes, “It is the tyrant who outrages me, and not the one who carries

out the tyranny” (265). Finally, in Roxane’s letter to Usbek, Montesquieu points out a deep,

natural freedom that no amount of oppression can touch. Roxane writes, “No! I might have lived

in servitude, but I have always been free. I have reformed your laws by those of nature, and my

spirit has always remained independent” (268). Through the governance of Usbek’s seraglio,

Montesquieu reveals the futility of authoritarian governance. Montesquieu believes that there is a

natural freedom in every human being that is inalienable, that, no matter how much violence or

command is exerted, will always remain. This is the futility of authoritarian government. No

matter the tactics, methods, or degree of dominance, on the most basic level the government will

fail to control their citizens. There will always be a deep-rooted independence that citizens can

exercise, and they may use that independence to rebel against their government, in ways large

and small, seen and unseen.

7
Thomas
Works Cited

“German Collaboration and Complicity.” Informants – The Holocaust Explained: Designed for
Schools, Wiener Holocaust Library, https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/resistance-
responses-collaboration/german-collaboration-and-complicity/informants/.

Lamb, Stefanie. “Introduction to the Cultural Revolution.” Stanford Program on International

and Cross Cultural Education, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Dec.
2005, https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/introduction_to_the_cultural_revolution.

Machiavelli Niccolò. The Prince. Translated by Rufus Goodwin, Dante University of America
Press, 2002, Google Books,
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Prince/bRdLCgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0,
Accessed 3 May 2023.

Montesquieu. Persian Letters. Translated by Stuart D. Warner and Douard Stéphane, St.
Augustine's Press, 2017.