Writing, like oration, 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 case with equal passion and persuasion. Any reasonably experienced writer is capable of doing the same, especially since he is not limited by the needs of the moment and can edit or redact at will. It is therefore impossible to say, with certainty, exactly what a writer believes, thinks or feels based solely on the product of his or her pen. This is especially true in an absolutist or totalitarian environment, where perpetrators can be imprisoned or even executed for openly criticizing the wrong person. Yet in Les Lettres Persanes Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu creates satirical caricatures of religion and religious people. The notion of tolerance and religious freedom, even when filtered through the words of fictional narrators, was risky enough to lead de Montesquieu to publish the 1721 book under a pseudonym (1). This essay will show the strategies used by de Montesquieu to represent religion in a very critical way: mostly beneficial in the abstract, but hypocritical, presumptuous and even predatory in practice. The text is not kind to anyone, but it more gently mocks religious individuals by portraying them as well-intentioned hypocrites. The sharpest irony is reserved for the First Estate, whose members are presented not only as selfish but actively predatory. Religious freedom is never explicitly supported in Les Lettres Persanes, but the feelings expressed by the fictional characters sometimes seem to support it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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 very privileged class to whom education was easily accessible. However, even the social freedoms afforded to the noble class did not allow an author to criticize members of the First Estate. In Les Lettres, Montesquieu often makes the point through a narrator who, while openly proclaiming something, is unreliable enough to convince the reader that the author means otherwise. This author never explicitly says that religion is bad, or that there is no such thing as a God. Sometimes, characters speculate about what God should be like, but it is always a positive and perfect image. But, when it comes to human beings, Montesquieu presents them as misguided, corrupt, self-centered and hypocritical. to be preferred to all human interests, and which is as pure as the heaven from which it came." (4) These words are attributed to Usbek, owner of numerous slaves and concubines, who has just finished criticizing what he calls the Christian hypocrisy of freeing slaves in his own country for religious reasons, only to enslave people in other nations. The more openly a de Montesquieu character praises or condemns something, the more ironic the praise or censure becomes. Usbek himself appears to regard Islam as a "pure" religion, and Islamic lands as something peaceful and superior, despite the extremely corrupt events in the court of Sultan Ahmed III (who reigned at the time the fictional Usbek would have been traveling in Europe). Ironically, Ahmed III was known to have exerted a modernizing influence in the Ottoman Empire and was a devout Francophile. (5)When the character Usbek presents “his” thoughts in general terms, stating his opinion on thehuman condition, does not limit his observations to religion. He describes humanity as overall selfish: “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 some advantage: no one is bad for free; there is always a determining reason, and that reason is always interested." (6) But in the first part of the book, Usbek identifies self-interest as a uniquely Christian and European trait, and contrasts it with his idealized vision of his own nation. In the eyes of Persian visitors, European features are exaggerated for the sake of irony. Usbek underlines the European habit of religious discussion, which he interprets as a lack of faith: “With them there is a big difference between profession and conviction, between faith and conviction, between conviction and practice. Religion is not so much a question of holiness as it is the subject of a debate, in which everyone has the right to participate." (7) However, the fact that this debate took place in France is proof that the violent repression of Protestant religious views during the Huguenot rebellion of 1620 (8) no longer represents a credible threat, so much so that ordinary people feel free to discuss or contest religion, within certain limits. Usbek meets and describes “certain people who have never finished discussing religion, but who at the same time seem to argue about who should observe it the least”. (9) He goes on to describe his idea of ​​the best way to serve God, which is to follow the rules of religion and nation. Yet Usbek himself, even though he claims to be devout, has not yet bothered with the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca. In Letter 15, his servant, the First Eunuch, expresses the desire for him to do so, to purify himself. (10)When it comes to the clergy, de Montesquieu takes his gloves off. Although he highlights the hypocrisy of the laity and allows Usbek to point it out repeatedly, the criticism of clerical hypocrisy is much more ferocious. “These dervishes take three oaths: of obedience, of poverty and of chastity. They say that of the three the first is the best observed, while the second is not observed at all; you can form your own opinion about the third party. (11) This next passage describes the corruption that the more brazen 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 renounce himself, all he will have to do is turn to either a bishop or the Pope, who will immediately grant the 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 even more powerful, who is master of the mind of the king, so absolutely as is the king. master of the minds of his subjects. This magician is called the Pope. Sometimes he makes the king believe that three are not more than one; that the bread he eats is not bread; the wine he drinks is not wine; and a thousand things of a similar nature. (13) A passage from one of Rica's letters describes Church representatives, bureaucrats and judges as not only hypocritical but also dangerously predatory: Other judges presume the innocence of the accused; they always consider them guilty. In doubtful cases, their rule is to side with severity, apparently because they think humanity is desperately evil. Yet, when it suits them, they have such a high opinion of men, that they believe them incapable of lying; for they accept as witnesses mortal enemies, dissolute women, and persons whose profession is infamous. In condemning the guilty, they pay them a small compliment. After dressing them with shirts.