دانشگاه شهید بهشتی مجله تاریخ ایران 2008-7357 18 2 2025 09 23 The Iranian Voltaire or the Iranian Napoleon: A Conceptual Genealogy of the Constitutionalism–Monarchism Conflict in Qajar Iran ولتر ایرانی یا ناپلئون ایرانی: تبار نزاع مفهومی مشروطه‌خواهی و پادشاهی‌خواهی در ایران دورۀ قاجار 132 157 106104 10.48308/irhj.2025.239761.1419 FA سید احمدرضا آزمون دکترای علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران. سید علیرضا حسینی بهشتی استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران. Journal Article 2025 05 06 This article investigates the genealogy of the concepts of liberty and despotism in modern Iran, focusing on their earliest narrative and conceptual formulations through the symbolic dyad of the “Iranian Voltaire” and the “Iranian Napoleon” as represented in Persian travelogues from the early Qajar period. Employing a composite theoretical framework that integrates Reinhart Koselleck’s conceptual history (Begriffsgeschichte), Quentin Skinner’s theory of speech acts, and Michel Foucault’s genealogy of discourse, the study demonstrates how key political concepts—such as parliament, republic, liberty, nation, and absolute monarchy—were formed within structures of semantic rupture and asynchronous temporalities unique to Iran’s encounter with modernity. Through a comparative reading of three seminal travelogues—Tohfat al-‘Alam, Masir-e Talebi, and The Travelogues of Mirza Saleh Shirazi—the paper shows how “liberty” was primarily conceived via the British model of constitutional monarchy and contrasted with the “French tumult,” while “Napoleon” emerged as a prototype of the strong, rational, and patriotic ruler. This symbolic dichotomy reappears in later political treatises, most notably in the writings of Akhundzadeh (as a proponent of parliamentarism) and al-Mousavi (as a defender of absolutism). The article argues that both positions, albeit antagonistic, were unknowingly shaped by a shared conceptual structure originally stabilized in the travelogues. Ultimately, the study aims to recover the latent conceptual discontinuities underlying the persistent crisis of liberty in Iranian political modernity. Introduction This paper emerges from a foundational theoretical question: From what horizons can one think the history of Iran? At its core lies the crisis of liberty as a fundamental rupture in modern Iranian political thought. This rupture is not simply a matter of theoretical abstraction but a lived problem that has repeatedly shaped Iran’s political transformations, from the Constitutional Revolution to the present. Crucially, to pose the question in this way is to recognize that any history is inseparable from the vantage point through which it is conceived and narrated. While dominant historiographies of Iranian modernity have explored state formation, nation-building, and the experience of modernity, they have largely neglected the conceptual history of liberty. This study argues that the crisis of liberty is not simply a matter of institutional absence but reflects a deeper failure to establish liberty as a coherent political concept grounded in the epistemic and institutional logic of modern thought. This research diverges from conventional frameworks by focusing on the genealogical tension between constitutionalism and monarchism under the broader theme of liberty’s crisis. A central axis of this investigation is the underexplored figure of Arthur de Gobineau. Aside from a brief reference by Karim Mojtahedi (2004) and limited engagement by Ali-Asghar Mosleh (2002) and others, Gobineau’s conceptual legacy has not been meaningfully integrated into studies of Iran’s modern political imagination. This paper departs from race-based and interpretive genealogies to examine how the Voltaire/Napoleon duality functions as a mythological structure within Iranian political discourse. It also situates this analysis within broader representations of Europe in Iranian travelogues. While scholars such as Haeri (1995) and Tabatabai (2018) have highlighted the role of travel writing in introducing modern political concepts, existing studies focus primarily on England and the institution of parliament, and the symbolic role of Napoleon remains largely unexamined. Even in works like Tavakoli-Targhi’s Indigenous Modernity (2016), which richly analyzes the political language of Qajar-era travelogues, the Voltaire/Napoleon pair—and its connection to the liberty/despotism divide—has yet to be placed at the center of inquiry. Materials And Methods This study employs an integrative methodological approach to analyze the conceptual struggle between "constitutionalism" and "monarchism" in Persian travelogues from the Qajar era. Primarily, Koselleck's conceptual history framework serves as the foundation for examining lexical transformations within the texts. Koselleck (2004) conceptualizes terms not merely as linguistic tools, but as dynamic elements of social history that acquire meaning and undergo reconstruction within the tension between "horizon of expectation" (Erwartungshorizont) and "space of experience" (Erfahrungsraum). Complementing this structural analysis, Skinner's approach to political discourse analysis is employed to understand historical actors' intentions and the pragmatic context of conceptual usage. Skinner (2002) maintains that political texts should be studied as intentional speech acts rather than simply as documents for retrieving fixed conceptual meanings. However, the combination of Koselleck and Skinner alone cannot adequately analyze the invisible mechanisms of discursive order and the construction of political subjectivity in these texts. This limitation is particularly acute when confronting the profound epistemic shifts that characterized the Qajar encounter with the West. Therefore, Foucault's genealogical approach is incorporated into the research framework. Foucauldian genealogy, in contrast to continuous and essentialist historiography, emphasizes conceptual discontinuities, heterogeneities, and rupture points, demonstrating how specific forms of knowledge, subjectivity, and normativity emerge within discursive formations, determining the possibilities of meaning production or suppression (Foucault, 1977). The synthesis of these three approaches enables a multilayered textual analysis: 1) semantic conceptual changes at the linguistic structural level (Koselleck); 2) the motivations and objectives of intellectual actors within their historical context (Skinner); and 3) the implicit rules of epistemic order and the discursive nature of Qajar political language (Foucault). Consequently, the present research attempts to transcend the boundaries of each approach, thereby facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the complex discourse surrounding modern political concepts in Qajar Iran - particularly in the context of Western conceptual transfer, encounters with modernity, and the asynchronous formulation of modern political thought. This model, therefore, does not seek to flatten these distinct methodologies but to place them in a productive dialogue, creating a robust analytical prism through which the multifaceted struggle within the texts can be illuminated. Result and Discussion If we interpret nationalist and Orientalist historiographies of Iran through the theoretical framework established by Arthur de Gobineau, we come to see that many of their core ambiguities, metaphors, and concepts stem from that very foundation. Thus, revisiting Gobineau’s thought is not a purely historiographical endeavor, but a theoretical necessity for transcending his legacy and formulating an alternative conceptual approach to modern Iranian history in light of the crisis of liberty. Central to Gobineau’s contribution is the dualism that would come to embody the broader intellectual conflict between despotism and liberty in modern Iranian thought, particularly through his analysis of how Iranians confronted two iconic figures of modern French civilization: Voltaire and Napoleon. Numerous studies have highlighted the formative role of travelogues in shaping the conceptual history of modern Iran. In the early Qajar era, travel writing was not only the dominant genre but effectively the sole discursive form enabling a synchronic engagement with European thought amid the asynchronicity of Iranian rationality. Early references to concepts such as liberty, parliament, and the myth of Napoleon entered Iranian discourse almost exclusively through travelogues. One of the earliest Persian travelogues to feature Napoleon and the parliament is Tohfat al-‘Alam by Shushtari. For him, revolution, parliament, council, and Napoleon form the four central motifs of his French narrative. His portrayal of Napoleon—imbued with reason, prudence, bravery, and authority—resonates with the archetype of the Iranian strong sovereign, albeit within a modern, foreign context. In his eyes, Napoleon was a necessary response to the chaos caused by councils and the collapse of royal authority. Abu Taleb Khan offered a more expansive and progressive account of the French Revolution. He explicitly positioned republicanism against monarchy and presented the parliament as a cornerstone of political legitimacy and power-sharing. In his narrative, Napoleon's rise signaled not simply a coup, but the gradual transformation from republican ideals to centralized, personal rule. However, Shirazi’s travelogue framed Britain as a constitutional monarchy preserving order and freedom, while depicting France as the site of failed balance—oscillating between revolutionaries like Robespierre and authoritative figures like Napoleon. This dualism shaped later political visions of both constitutionalists and absolutists. Thinkers such as Akhundzadeh exemplified the conceptual rupture between republican modernity and nationalist romanticism. His critique of despotism and advocacy for constitutional monarchy underscored the inadequacy of traditional travelogue discourse and called for a new political-conceptual language. Conversely, thinkers like Al-Mosavi defended absolutism and condemned republicanism, yet paradoxically reproduced many of the conceptual structures introduced via travelogues. The resulting tension established a foundational break in Iranian political language. This fracture was never truly synthesized or overcome; instead, it became the very battleground upon which competing visions of the nation-state were fought. As this discourse entered the national consciousness during the Constitutional Revolution, romantic nationalism increasingly served to legitimize one pole of the debate. Ultimately, however, with Reza Khan’s rise, this tension resolved in favor of monarchism, reshaping Iranian nationalism into a vehicle for authoritarian rule. Conclusions This study examines the ideological clash between constitutionalism and monarchism in modern Iran, tracing its early unconscious formulation in Gobineau’s works. By applying the Voltaire/Napoleon binary to Iranian political thought, the research constructs a genealogical narrative of this struggle, a key facet of Iran’s crisis of liberty. Akhundzadeh’s constitutionalism was undermined by romantic nationalism, antiquarian myths, and reliance on distorted concepts from travelogues. His ideas remained overshadowed by the Napoleonic paradigm, while Al-Mousavi epitomized its extreme form, defending absolute monarchy and rejecting republicanism. The failure to establish a coherent constitutionalist language led to the authoritarian rise of Reza Shah, a response to political chaos. Constitutionalists needed to disentangle key concepts from the corrupted discourse of travelogues and anti-constitutionalist rhetoric. However, internal weaknesses—particularly romantic nationalism and nostalgic mythmaking—further weakened the movement. Despite Akhundzadeh’s pioneering role, he could not forge a durable constitutionalist language capable of firmly anchoring liberty and the rule of law in Iran’s intellectual tradition. Thus, the struggle between constitutionalism and authoritarianism remained unresolved, shaping Iran’s modern political trajectory. Consequently, the foundational binaries of this 19th-century discourse continue to echo in the nation’s unresolved political debates, demonstrating the enduring power of these initially imported conceptual frameworks. در این مقاله به مطالعۀ تبار مفاهیم «آزادی» و «استبداد» در ایران مدرن پرداخته شده است؛ مفاهیمی که نخستین اَشکال روایی و مفهومی خود را در قالب تقابل دوگانۀ «ولتر ایرانی» و «ناپلئون ایرانی» در سفرنامه‌های فارسی دورۀ قاجار یافتند. بر بستر یک چارچوب نظری تلفیقی از تاریخ مفاهیم راینهارت کوزلک، تحلیل کنش گفتاری در سنت کوئنتین اسکینر و تبارشناسی نزد میشل فوکو، این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که چگونه صورت‌بندی مفاهیمی چون پارلمان، جمهوریت، آزادی، ملت و پادشاهی مطلقه در زبان سفرنامه‌ها و متون سیاسی متأخر قاجاری، بازتاب گسست‌ها و ناهمزمانی‌هایی بنیادین در تجربۀ مدرنیتۀ ایرانی است. این مقاله از خلال تحلیل تطبیقی سه سفرنامۀ اصلی -تحفة العالم، مسیر طالبی و سفرنامه‌ میرزا صالح شیرازی- نشان می‌دهد که مفهوم آزادی عمدتاً از خلال الگوی انگلستانی پارلمان و در تضاد با «فتنۀ فرانسوی» تعریف شد، حال آنکه ناپلئون به الگویی برای شاه مقتدر، عقل‌گرا و وطن‌دوست تبدیل گردید. این تقابل در آثار روشنفکرانی چون آخوندزاده (در مقام مدافع پارلمان) و الموسوی (در مقام مدافع سلطنت مطلقه)، به صورت جدالی نظری و مفهومی بسط یافت. مقاله نشان می‌دهد که هر دو سو در این جدال، ناخواسته درون زبان و منطق مفهومی‌ای سخن می‌گفتند که پیشتر در سفرنامه‌ها تثبیت شده بود. بدین ‌ترتیب، پژوهش حاضر از یک ‌سو تحلیلی تبارشناسانه از نحوۀ تکوین گفتمان‌های رقیب مشروطه‌خواهی و پادشاهی‌خواهی عرضه می‌دارد و از سوی دیگر، ضرورت بازنگری در منابع مفهومی مشروطه‌خواهی ایرانی را نشان می‌دهد. این تحلیل گامی مقدماتی است برای بازیابی گسست‌های مفهومی پنهان در زبان تجدد ایرانی و بحران دائمیِ آزادی در آن.

https://irhj.sbu.ac.ir/article_106104_656d7dd7cb48d97e278589fa24e8afe7.pdf