Comparison between Mores Utopia and Montesquieus Persian Letters - Essay Example

Contrast and Comparison between More’s Utopia and Montesquieu’s Persian Letters Travel literature portrays the world in various locations and societies through narration. Analysis of travel literature indicates that the generic attributes of this genre are composed of other genres inside. While the genre is significantly characterized by journeys, the forms of writing range from letters, maps, instructions, narrations and diaries. The main theme in travel literature is the ‘travel element’. This paper will contrast and compare two travel literatures; More’s Utopia and Montesquieu’s Persian letters. The two works are interested in the travel element in literature such as nationhood, religion, culture, identity, politics and philosophy. However, there are particular issues in which both intersect and others in which they express distinct ideas. Both books engage in instances of political satire and criticism. Both Thomas More through his voice Hythloday and Montesquieu view the politics of their countries as corrupt and full of vices and evils. Montesquieu, in letter 24 makes very satirical statement about the leadership hierarchy of the king of France. He also attacks the influence of the Pope with regards to the leadership of the country. He is quite critical about the Moslem rules of order which are depicted as cruel and absolute in guiding the French people in modern times. The leadership favors the rich but dehumanizes the poor leading to a wide disconnect between the mighty rich and the hopeless poor people. He criticizes the king of France for upholding traditional monarchy which is not helpful to the modern person in France. He is cruel and all he knows is to force people to obey him by possessing the reign for a very long time. Montesquieu doubts his leadership when he states that the king makes contradictions which are irreconcilable thus raising questions about his leadership. Example, he has an 18 year old minister and at the same time an 80 years old mistress. He is corrupt and gratifies those who serves him by rewarding them and focuses on worldly pleasures such as magnificent houses and attracting more riches. On the same note, More’s Utopia is critical on the European politics and how the government is run. More presents the government and politics of Europe as the opposite of the pure and incorruptible government of Utopia. More is opposed to the government’s way of punishing thieves which he views as a condition created by the same government and therefore they should present the solution instead to terrorizing the poor terming them as thieves and punishing them severely. On the other hand, the governmental models in Utopia are very admirable. Human rights are respected as people have the freedom and rights which are overtly practiced as opposed to Europe where people’s human rights face limitations due to undue influence of the rich people. The government of Utopia upholds democracy for its citizens by maintaining in-built protections structures which ensure compliance with the rule of law and its transparency. More perceives this type of government as far removed from the reality government of Europe where politicians are more involved with power struggles and corruption for personal selfishness. In Europe, although the parliament is present, the majority citizens are denied their human rights of voting and exercising their democratic and human rights by voting in their preferred members. However, in Utopia, the parliament is democratic and human rights are respected and people allowed to freely exercise their democratic rights. Utopia views land as a property to be worked on rather than to be owned which prevents the social evils of wealth accumulation which is prevalent in Europe. Furthermore, Utopians are peaceful and they have not history of entering into treaties with other nations to maintain their peace. Despite similarity in expressing the political issues affecting their respective countries, both works express distinct views when it comes to their religious, gender and economic systems. Utopia is viewed as the ideal modern community as opposed to the patriarchal and authoritative society of the historical days. There are many positive aspects of the community presented in Utopia especially because the book presents a contrast between two societies at the same time; one which is perfect called Utopia and Europe which presents all societal evil and vices. While Utopia presents problems faced in Europe, it makes a point of recommending the solutions by using a rather accommodating tone. On the other hand, Montesquieu’s Persian letters is not accommodating to the problems experienced in France and uses a very satirical and sarcastic tone. Furthermore, Montesquieu does not propose any solution which could be used to solve the problems presented. More’s Utopia and Montesquieu’s Persian letters address their religious issues in different perspectives. While religious choices in France are constrained, Utopians have the freedom of worship regardless of their differences. Montesquieu attacks the leadership of the pope especially with his involvement in politics of France. Citizen’s differences in religion are not respected in France under the leadership of the pope. He notes a lot of religious inconsistencies and discrepancies in the religion of France. Religious and cultural practices are imposed on different levels of dogmatic restrictions. For example, letter 46 focuses on imposing the rules and standards of worshipers in terms of the language to use in worship and the appropriate position for praying. Thus, the differences in religion are not respected since standards are set and people are not permitted to set their own religious standards out of the set norms. Montesquieu presents the notion of cultural relativism and its influence on religion. In letter 24, Rica presents the issue of trinity and how the notion of three- in- one can only be associated with superstitions and magic. Thus, he views that the concept of trinity should be eliminated if the society was to achieve enlightenment since there is no reasoning in trinity since it is characterized by magic and superstitions. In letter 69, he presents an argument against religion by arguing that there is no logic in it since there is only one God who is all-knowing, then, people have no need to choose. In letter 61, he portrays the social suffering of people in their quest to spread their religious beliefs which is not taken seriously since people do not view then as important. Another contradiction is in letter 46 where Usbek declares that the best form of worshiping God is living as a good citizen. Montesquieu’s work ignores the differences between different religions by referring to them all by "dervishes" despite their religious differences. On the other hand, the religious practices in Utopia are different from those in Europe or France as shown in Montesquieu’s Persian letters. In Utopia, there are diverse religious practices which do not share a common ground. Since the island is divided into different parts and towns, people engage in different types of religious practices from town to town or different parts of the island. The religious practices in Utopia are more primitive and traditional as opposed to the religious practices exercised in France. The citizens of Utopia are given the right to serve different types of gods such as the planets, the sun or the moon. Other people declare their worship on the legends they believe have been prominent in historical times. All these things are worshipped with the same glory as deities and also as the ultimate God. However, there are other people who believe in the supreme God who is infinite, invisible and incomprehensible in the eyes of the ordinary men. These people view God as the most superior Deity who is the creator of all and is in charge of blessing and increasing the progress of all people. Even with their religious differences and other contemporary differences concerning their religions, they believed that there is only one mighty God who made the world and sustains it. This God is known as ‘Mithras’. Most of the religious practices that were characterized by superstitions have since been eroded by the teachings of the people spreading their religious practices of the omnipresent God who is infinite and this religion has attracted many followers. The adopted religion in Utopia is guided by three principles; that the human soul is immortal, God wants humans to be happy and there is life after death where there will be rewards and punishment for acts done before death. These principles have been very helpful in guiding the Utopians to pursue happiness and be virtuous. Thus religious freedom has taken place through willingness without coercion or manipulation as Utopia governance respects the people’s rights and freedom of worship. Another difference between the two books has to do with their view of happiness and capitalism. Utopian economic systems support communism since accumulation of a lot of money is viewed as the source of unhappiness and corrupt morals in people. Utopian people are discouraged from amassing wealth and properties since this attribute is associated with worst men in the society. The worst part is that those men are never happy even after amassing much wealth because they end up being very cautious about how to preserve their wealth. The few accumulate wealth leaving the broader society to languish in insufficient money and poverty which is the source of having injustice, crimes and misery in the society. Contrarily, the Utopia people believe that land should be worked on as opposed to being owned so that people can benefit from it. He compares this system with that of Europe where corruption is very common among the leaders and being a capitalist country, people are more concerned with having a lot of money and owning enormous properties. On the other hand, the concept of happiness has not been given much emphasis in Montesquieu’s Persian letters since the leadership of the king and the pope is capitalistic. The king has his circle of men that he favors and rewards with properties and gratitude at the expense of the citizens. In letter 24, Montesquieu sarcastically attacks the leadership of the king and the pope. Another point of departure between the two works is the concept of gender. In Thomas Mores Utopia, the view of gender equality is taken as the ideal. Women were given the right to get married to men of their choice provided they had achieved a mature age. The patriarchal paradigm was not practiced as severely as in Europe where the women were viewed as inferior beings who were not supposed to hold any positions in the society. Women in Utopia were given the right to work both in their homes and outside. They were also allowed to become priests and hold positions when they would command respect even that of men. Although More does not expressly indicate that women had the right to chastise their husbands, he overtly indicates that men had the ability to chastise their women. This is very unthinkable in Europe where women had no voice and could not command any respect over the men. On the other hand, in Montesquieu’s Persian letters, women in France were subjected to extreme patriarchal paradigm where women were subjects under the command of men. This can be seen from the perspective of Graffigny and Zilia. According to the letters written by Graffigny to a Peruvian woman, she complains about the selfish desire of men to have women but only to satisfy their superiority on women. She blames the society for not making any efforts to develop intellectual, moral and smart women. Zilia is another woman who has been enlightened in France and she too, like Graffigny, observes that the French practices are against the enlightenment of women so that they can suffer inferiority. The society takes much time in educating the male children but the females are locked up in ‘Religious House’. Montesquieu views men as owners of their women and the honor of men can be affected by the sins of their wives such as disobedience and unfaithfulness and that is why men are given the explicit obligation to chastise them for their mistakes. The two books have been very clear in presenting the intersecting and departing points in various social issues. The most overt aspects viewed in this paper include religion, human rights and politics, gender issues and economic systems. Both More’s Utopia and Montesquieu’s Persian letters criticize the forms of governments and politics in France and England while they depart on views on religious, human rights, gender and economic issues. The tone adapted by the works depicts the level of dissatisfaction their societies. Montesquieu’s tone is very satirical and this aspect can be seen in most of his letters where he seems to be non-accommodating of the contrary beliefs even in religion. Furthermore, he presents the problems he perceives in France with a sarcastic tone without offering any solution to the readers. On the other hand, More Thomas has been very critical in Utopia. While presenting the problems experienced in England, he adopts a very accommodating tone and by comparison of England and Utopia, offers solutions to problems faced in England. The paper presents insights into the prominent issues of travel literature as both books use forms of travel literature such as letters. Work cited Montesquieu, Persian Letters, C.J. Betts, ed., New York: Penguins Books Ltd, 2004. Print. More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. Ed. Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton and Company, 1992. Print. Read More