This article employs Norman Fairclough’s framework of Critical Discourse Analysis to examine Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters”. It aims to explore the linguistic, narrative, and discursive mechanisms that enable both the reproduction of and confrontation with dominant discourses of the Enlightenment era (despotism, Orientalism, patriarchy). Selected letters are analyzed at three levels: description (linguistic and rhetorical features), interpretation (relationship between text and its conditions of production/reception, polyphony, and intertextuality), and explanation (social action of the text, revealing ideology and power relations). Findings indicate that Montesquieu, through humor, lexical contrasts, the epistolary form, defamiliarization, and polyphony, creates a space for indirect critique while simultaneously reproducing dominant discourses. On the other hand, the work remains entangled in Orientalist stereotypes, highlighting a paradox within the Enlightenment project. The letters of harem women and eunuchs play a central role in recovering the agency of silent subjects and articulating resistance to despotism. Furthermore, Zarinkoob’s response to the question of Iranian identity demonstrates the continuity and complexity of the East-West discursive dialogue through identity redefinition. Ultimately, “Persian Letters” is not merely a reflection of the historical-social conditions of the Enlightenment but, as a multi-layered and paradoxical discursive practice, actively participates in reproducing and critiquing dominant discourses. This research exemplifies the capacity of Critical Discourse Analysis for understanding classic political-cultural texts.
Introduction
Montesquieu’s “Persian Letters” (1721) is widely recognized as a seminal work of the French Enlightenment, employing the fictional correspondence of two Persian travelers, Uzbek and Rica, to satirize and critique European society. However, beneath its witty surface lies a profound discursive complexity: the text simultaneously reproduces and challenges the dominant discourses of its age—namely, Orientalism, despotism, and patriarchy. This study investigates how Montesquieu, through linguistic and narrative mechanisms such as humor, lexical contrasts, the epistolary form, defamiliarization, and polyphony, creates a space for indirect critique while remaining entangled in the very stereotypes he ostensibly criticizes. The central research question is: How does “Persian Letters” function as a discursive practice that both perpetuates and subverts hegemonic discourses of the Enlightenment? Addressing this paradox is crucial for understanding the inherent limitations and contradictions of Enlightenment thought, as well as the text’s active role in shaping modern debates on power, identity, and resistance.

Materials & Methods
This research employs Norman Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its theoretical-methodological framework. The primary material consists of selected letters from “Persian Letters” (translated into Persian by Hasan Arsanjani, 1941), chosen through purposive sampling based on their explicit representation of key discourses: Orientalism, despotism, and patriarchy. The analysis proceeds through three levels: (1) Description – examining linguistic and rhetorical features (e.g., metaphors, irony, lexical oppositions); (2) Interpretation – analyzing the relationship between the text and its conditions of production and reception (18th-century France), as well as intertextuality and polyphony; (3) Explanation – situating the text within broader socio-historical contexts to reveal hidden ideologies and power relations. Additionally, the study incorporates a brief intertextual reference to Abdolhossein Zarinkoob’s response to Montesquieu’s implicit question of Iranian identity, demonstrating the continuity of East-West discursive dialogue.

Discussion & Result
The analysis reveals a fundamental paradox running through “Persian Letters”. At the descriptive level, Montesquieu skillfully uses irony and lexical contrasts to destabilize naturalized ideologies. For instance, Letter 28 contrasts Islamic prohibition of wine with French taxation of it, exposing hypocrisy on both sides: Persian nobles violate their own religious laws, while the French state profits from a vice it condemns. Similarly, Letter 26 uses a Persian traveler’s astonishment at Venice (“a city built on water”) to defamiliarize European achievements, challenging the reader’s assumed normality. At the interpretative level, the epistolary genre and the “estranged eye” of the Persian protagonists create polyphony and intertextuality. Multiple voices—those of Uzbek, Rica, harem women, eunuchs, and European interlocutors—compete, allowing contradictory interpretations. The letters of harem women (e.g., Zelis, Roxane) and eunuchs gradually recover the agency of silenced subjects, turning from passive objects of representation into active critics of despotic power. At the explanatory level, the study uncovers Montesquieu’s simultaneous reproduction of Orientalist clichés: the East is portrayed as static, despotic, sexually confined (the harem), and feminized, while the West is depicted as dynamic, rational, and free—even when criticized. This paradox shows that Montesquieu, despite his relativism and critique of European absolutism, cannot escape the dominant Orientalist discourse of his time. However, the final letters (notably Letter 68, Roxane’s suicide note) mark a turning point: Roxane declares her spiritual independence even in death, stating, “I have kept my soul free.” This act of resistance transforms her from a victim into a tragic heroine, demonstrating that no system of domination can fully extinguish human agency. Furthermore, Zarinkoob’s historical response to the question “How can one be Iranian?” reframes identity not through Orientalist stereotypes but through a fluid, justice-oriented cultural heritage, exemplifying a counter-discourse that continues the dialogue.




Conclusion
This CDA-based study concludes that “Persian Letters” is not merely a reflection of Enlightenment social conditions but an active, multilayered, and paradoxical discursive practice. Montesquieu successfully critiques European despotism, religious hypocrisy, and social inequality by using the voice of the Oriental “other.” Yet, he remains trapped within the very Orientalist framework he seeks to undermine, reproducing stereotypes of Eastern despotism, the confined harem woman, and an immutable “spirit” of Eastern societies. This internal contradiction is not a failure but a revealing feature of the Enlightenment project itself: its claim to universal reason was often blind to its own cultural biases. Crucially, the recovery of agency by female and eunuch characters within the text subverts the patriarchal and despotic discourses from within. Roxane’s final letter, in particular, offers a powerful model of resistance that transcends mere rebellion, affirming inner freedom against external control. Therefore, Persian Letters serves as an exemplary case for Fairclough’s CDA, demonstrating how classic politico-cultural texts can simultaneously reproduce and challenge hegemonic ideologies. The study opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research in political philosophy, postcolonial studies, and comparative literature, showing that critical reading must attend not only to what texts explicitly argue but also to the paradoxical ways they embody the very structures they oppose.