Examining the period immediately preceding the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, this article interrogates the internal intellectual traditions that, despite the dominance of autocracy, possessed the latent capacity to constrain monarchical power. It argues that these diverse discourses provided the theoretical scaffolding necessary for the emergence of public law and constitutional governance. Employing a historical-ideological analysis, the study investigates eight pivotal traditions: Shi’a political-legal thought (specifically clerical deputyship and conditional legitimacy); the discourse of law (incorporating the rule of law and separation of powers); the andarznameh (advice literature) tradition; religious reformist thought (reconceptualizing shura and public interest); progressivist discourse (redefining nationhood and functional legitimacy); the Edālat Khāneh (Houses of Justice) discourse; the theory of
divine deposit and trust; and the institution of waqf (endowment). The research demonstrates that the impulse to limit power was rooted in a complex, interwoven intellectual ecosystem. These traditions, through interaction and occasional confrontation, shifted the Iranian political paradigm from the "absolute legitimacy of the King" toward "constitutionalism and the accountability of power." Ultimately, this process facilitated a profound transformation: the conversion of scattered, moralized constraints into the systematic and institutionalized limitations of public law enshrined in the Constitutional Constitution.