Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu 9781351572231, 1351572237

Table of contents :
Part Part I The Persian Letters --
chapter 1 Personality and Politics in the Persian Letters --
chapter 2 The Idea of Nature in the Lettres Persanes --
chapter 3 Montesquieu's Story of the Troglodytes: Its Background, Meaning, and Significance --
part Part II Roman History --
chapter 4 The Design of Montesquieu's Considerations: Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline --
chapter 5 Christianity and Politics in Montesquieu's Greatness and Decline of the Romans --
part Part III The Methodology of the Spirit of Laws --
chapter 6 Montesquieu and the Problem of --
chapter 7 Montesquieu's Methodology: Holism, Individualism, and Morality --
chapter 8 Montesquieu's Method --
chapter 9 Montesquieu's Science of Politics: Absolute Values and Ethical Relativism in L' Esprit des lois --
part Part IV Republics --
chapter 10 Montesquieu and the Classics: Republican Government in The Spirit of the Laws --
chapter 11 Virtuous Republics and Glorious Monarchies: Two Models in Montesquieu's Political Thought --
chapter 12 Not so Virtuous Republics: Montesquieu, Venice, and the Theory of Aristocratic Republicanism --
chapter 13 The Confederate Republic in Montesquieu --
part Part V Monarchies --
chapter 14 The Politics of Distinction and Disobedience: Honor and the Defense of Liberty in Montesquieu --
chapter 15 A Rhetoric of Aristocratic Reaction? Nobility in De l'esprit des lois --
chapter 16 Montesquieu and the Concept of Civil Society --
part Part VI Despotisms --
chapter 17 Montesquieu's Comparative Analysis of Europe and Asia: Intended and Unintended Consequences --
chapter 18 Montesquieu's View of Despotism and His Use of Travel Literature --
chapter 19 Fearing Monarchs and Merchants: Montesquieu's Two Theories of Despotism --
part Part VII England --
chapter 20 Montesquieu, Bolingbroke, and the Separation of Powers --
chapter 21 Montesquieu --
chapter 22 Montesquieu and the Separation of Powers --
part Part VIII Religion --
chapter 23 Montesquieu's Religious Ideas --
chapter 24 Of Believers and Barbarians: Montesquieu's Enlightened Toleration --
part Part IX Commerce, Economics and International Relations --
chapter 25 Montesquieu and the Wealth of nation's --
chapter 26 Commerce, Power and Justice: Montesquieu on International Politics --
part Part X Philosophy of History --
chapter 27 Montesquieu's Historical Pessimism --
chapter 28 Montesquieu's Philosophy of History.

Citation preview

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

International Library of Essaysin the History of Social and Political Thought SeriesEditor: Tom Campbell Titles in the Series: Hannah Arendt AmyAllen

Thomas Paine Bruce Kuklick

James Madison TerenceBall

Max Weber Peter Lassman

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu David Carrithers

Mary Wollstonecraft Jane Moore

Emile Durkheim RogerCotterrell Vilfredo Pareto JosephFemia Jean Bodin Julian H. Franklin David Hume Knud Haakonssenand Richard Whatmore Edmund Burke lain Hampsher-Monk Talcott Parsons John Holmwood Thomas Aquinas John Inglis Jurgen Habermas, Volumes I and II Christian Joerges,Klaus Guentherand Cami! Ungureanu Aristotle GeorgeKloska Georg Hegel Dudley Knowles

T.H. Green John Morrow Martin Heidegger StephenMulhall Jean-JacquesRousseau Timothy O 'Hagan Michel Foucault David Owen John Rawls David A. Reidy Immanuel Kant Arthur Ripstein Jeremy Bentham Frederick Rosen Theodor Adorno JamesSchmidt Thomas Hobbes Gabriella Slomp Friedrich Nietzsche Tracy Strong

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

Editedby

David Carrithers University ofTennessee at Chattanooga,USA

ROUTLEDGE

I~Routledge ~~~f~~n~~~up

Taylor & Francis Group LONDONAND AND NEW NEW YORK LONDON YORK

First published2009by AshgatePublishing Published2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square,Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue,New York, NY 10017,USA Routledgeis cm imprint ofthe Taylor & Frcmcis Group, cm informa business

Copyright,r; David Catrithers2009. For copyright of individual articles pleaserefer to the Acknowledgements. All rights reserved.No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,mechanical,or other means, now known or hereafterinvented,including photocopyingand recording,or in any information storageor retrieval system,without permissionin writing from the publishers. Notice: Productor corporatenamesmay be trademarksor registeredtrademarks, and are usedonly for identification and explanationwithout intent to infringe. Whereverpossible.thesereprintsare madefrom a copy of the original printing, but thesecanthemselves be of very variablequality. Whilst the publisherhasmadeevery effort to ensurethe quality oflhe reprint. somevariability may inevitably remain. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Charles-Louisde Secondat.Bai·on de Montesquieu.(Internationallibrary of essaysin the history of social and political thought) I. Montesquieu.Charlesde Secondat,baronde, 1689-1755 2. Political science- Philosophy- History - 18th century I. Catrithers.David Wallace 320'.092 Library of CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de MontesquieuI edited by David Carrithers. p. cm. - (Internationallibrary of essaysin the history of social and political thought) Includesindex. ISBN 978-0-7546-2701-2 I. Montesquieu,Charlesde Secondat.baronde, 1689-1755.2. Political science.I. Carrithers.David Wallace.

JC179.M753C43 2009 320.092-dc22 2008028134 ISBN 9780754627012(hbk)

Contents Acknowledgements SeriesPreface Introduction

ix xii xiii

PART I THE PERSIANLETTERS OrestRanum( 1969), 'Personalityand Politics in the PersianLetters',Political ScienceQuarterly, 84, pp. 606-27. 2 RonaldGrimsley (1951), 'The Ideaof Naturein the LettresPersanes',FrenchStudies, 5,pp.293-306. 3 AllessandroS. Crisafulli (1943), 'Montesquieu'sStory of the Troglodytes: Its Background,Meaning, and Significance',PMLA, 58, pp. 372-92.

3 27 41

PART II ROMAN HISTORY 4 David Lowenthal(1970), 'The Designof Montesquieu'sConsiderations: Considerationson the Causesofthe Greatnessofthe Romansand Their Decline', Interpretation, 1, pp. 144-68. 5 RichardMyers (1989-90),'Christianity and Politics in Montesquieu's GreatnessandDecline ofthe Romans',Interpretation, 17, pp. 223-38.

65 91

PART III THE METHODOLOGY OF THE SPIRITOF LAWS 6 C.P. Courtney( 1988), 'Montesquieuand the Problemof "la diversite"', in Giles Barberand C.P. Courtney(eds),EnlightenmentEssaysin MemoryofRobertShackleton, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 61-81. 109 7 David Young (1981), 'Montesquieu'sMethodology: Ho Iism, Individualism, and Morality', The Historian, 44, pp. 36-50. 131 8 Emile Durkheim (1965), 'Montesquieu'sMethod', in Montesquieuand Rousseau:ForerunnersofSociology,trans. Ralph Manheim, Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Press,pp. 50-60. 147 9 GeorgeKlosko (1980), 'Montesquieu'sScienceof Politics: Absolute Values and Ethical Relativism in L 'Esprit des lois', Studieson Voltaire andthe Eighteenth Century, 189, pp. 153-77. 159

vi

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

PART IV REPUBLICS 10 David Lowenthal(1964), 'Montesquieuand the Classics:Republican Governmentin The Spirit ofthe Laws', in JosephCropsey(ed.), Ancientsand Moderns. Essayson the Tradition ofPolitical Philosophyin Honor ofLeo Strauss, New York: Basic Books, Inc., pp. 258-87. 11 Nannerl0. Keohane(1972), 'Virtuous Republicsand Glorious Monarchies: Two Models in Montesquieu'sPolitical Thought',Political Studies,20, pp. 383-96. 12 David W. Carrithers(1991), 'Not so Virtuous Republics:Montesquieu,Venice, andthe Theory of Aristocratic Republicanism',Journal ofthe History ofIdeas, 52, pp. 245-68. 13 ChristopherWolfe (1977), 'The ConfederateRepublic in Montesquieu',Polity, 9, pp. 427-45.

187 217

231 255

PART V MONARCHIES 14 SharonKrause(1999), 'The Politics of Distinction and Disobedience:Honor and 277 the Defenseof Liberty in Montesquieu',Polity, 31, pp. 469-99. 15 JohnsonKent Wright (2006), 'A Rhetoricof Aristocratic Reaction? Nobilityin De /'esprit des lois', in Jay M. Smith (ed.), The French Nobility in the Eighteenth Century. Reassessments andNew Approaches,University Parle PennsylvaniaState University Press,pp. 227-51. 309 16 Melvin Richter (1998), 'Montesquieuand the Conceptof Civil Society', The EuropeanLegacy,3, pp. 33-41. 335

PART VI DESPOTISMS 17 Melvin Richter (1995), 'Montesquieu'sComparativeAnalysis of Europeand Asia: Intendedand UnintendedConsequences', in Alberto Postigliola(ed.), L 'Europe de Montesquieu,Naples: Liguori Editore; Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, pp. 329-48. 347 18 David Young (1978), 'Montesquieu'sView of Despotismand His Use of Travel Literature', The ReviewofPolitics, 40, pp. 392-405. 367 19 Roger Boesche(1990), 'FearingMonarchsand Merchants:Montesquieu'sTwo Theoriesof Despotism',The WesternPolitical Quarterly, 43, pp. 741-61. 381 PART VII

ENGLAND

20 RobertShackleton(1949), 'Montesquieu,Bolingbroke,and the Separationof Powers',French Studies,3, pp. 25-38, reprintedin Robert Shackleton(1988), Essayson Montesquieuand on the Enlightenment,ed. David Gilson and Martin Smith, Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation,pp. 3-15. 405 21 M.J .C. Vile (1998), 'Montesquieu',in Constitutionalismand the Separationof Powers,Indianapolis:Liberty Fund, pp. 83-106. 419

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

vii

22 Pierre Manent(1994), 'Montesquieuand the Separationof Powers',in An Intellectual History ofLiberalism, trans. RebeccaBalinski, Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press,pp. 53-64. 443 PART VIII

RELIGION

23 Roger B. Oake(1953), 'Montesquieu'sReligious Ideas',Journal ofthe History of Ideas, 14, pp. 548-60. 457 24 Diana Schaub(1999), 'Of Believersand Barbarians:Montesquieu'sEnlightened Toleration',in Alan Levine (ed.), Early Modern Skepticismand the Origins of Toleration, Lanham,MD: Lexington Books, pp. 225--47. 471 PART IX

COMMERCE, ECONOMICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

25 Nicos E. Devletoglou(1963), 'Montesquieuandthe Wealth of Nations', The CanadianJournal ofEconomicsandPolitical Science,29, pp. 1-25. 26 StephenJ. Rosow (1984), 'Commerce,Powerand Justice:Montesquieuon InternationalPolitics', The ReviewofPolitics, 46, pp. 346-66.

497 523

PART X PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

27 Gilbert Chinard(1942), 'Montesquieu'sHistorical Pessimism',in Studiesin the History ofCulture, Menasha,WI: AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties, pp. 161-72. 28 David Carrithers(1986), 'Montesquieu'sPhilosophyof History', Journal ofthe History ofIdeas, 47, pp. 61-80.

547

NameIndex

579

559

Acknowledgements The editor and publisherswish to thankthe following for permissionto usecopyright material. TheAcademyof Political Sciencefor the essay:Orest Ranum( 1969),'PersonalityandPolitics in the PersianLetters',Political ScienceQuarterly, 84, pp. 606-27.Copyright© 1969by the Editors of the Political ScienceQuarterly. Reprintedby permissionfrom Political Science Quarterly, 84, (December1969): 606-27. BasicBooksfor the essay:David Lowenthal(1964), 'Montesquieuandthe Classics:Republican Governmentin TheSpirit ofthe Laws', in JosephCropsey(ed.), AncientsandModerns. Essays on the Tradition ofPolitical Philosophyin Honor ofLeo Strauss,New York: Basic Books, Inc., pp. 258-87. Reprintedby permissionof Basic Books, a memberof PerseusBooks Group. Blackwell Publishing for the essay:Nannerl 0. Keohane(1972), 'Virtuous Republics and Glorious Monarchies: Two Models in Montesquieu'sPolitical Thought', Political Studies, 20, pp. 383-96. Cambridge University Press for the essays: David Young (1978), 'Montesquieu'sView of Despotismand His Use of Travel Literature', The Review of Politics, 40, pp. 392--405. Copyright© 1978 The University of Notre Dame,publishedby CambridgeUniversity Press; StephenJ. Rosow (1984), 'Commerce,Power and Justice: Montesquieuon International Politics', The ReviewofPolitics, 46, pp. 346-66. Copyright© 1984 The University of Notre Dame, publishedby CambridgeUniversity Press. Canadian Political Science Association for the essay: Nicos E. Devletoglou (1963), 'Montesquieuand the Wealth of Nations', The CanadianJournal ofEconomicsandPolitical Science,29, pp. 1-25. CopyrightClearanceCenterfor the essays:David Lowenthal(1970), 'The Designof Montesquieu's Considerations:Considerationson the Causesof the Greatnessofthe Romansand Their Decline', Interpretation,1, pp. 144-68.RichardMyers (1989-90),'Christianityand Politics in Montesquieu's Greatnessand Decline ofthe Romans',Interpretation, 17, pp. 223-38.Copyright© Interpretation. Liberty Fund, Inc. for the essay: M.J.C. Vile (1998), 'Montesquieu',in Constitutionalism andthe SeparationofPowers,Indianapolis:Liberty Fund, pp. 83-106. Copyright© 1998 by Liberty Fund,Inc. Reprintedby permission. Modem LanguageAssociationfor the essay:AllessandroS. Crisafulli (1943), 'Montesquieu's Story of the Troglodytes: Its Background,Meaning, and Significance',PMLA, 58, pp. 37292. Reprintedby permissionof the Modern Language Association of America.

x

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Oxford University Pressfor the essay: Ronald Grimsley (1951), 'The Idea of Nature in the LettresPersanes',French Studies,5, pp. 293-306. PalgraveMacmillan for the essays:ChristopherWolfe (1977), 'The ConfederateRepublic in Montesquieu',Polity, 9, pp. 427--45; SharonKrause(1999), 'The Politics of Distinction and Disobedience:Honor and the Defenseof Liberty in Montesquieu',Polity, 31, pp. 469-99. PennsylvaniaState University Pressfor the essay:JohnsonKent Wright (2006), 'A Rhetoric of Aristocratic Reaction?Nobility in De !'esprit des Zais', in Jay M. Smith (ed.), The French Nobility in the EighteenthCentury. Reassessments and New Approaches,University Park: PennsylvaniaStateUniversity Press,pp. 227-51. Princeton University Press for the essay: Pierre Manent (1994), 'Montesquieu and the Separationof Powers', in An Intellectual History of Liberalism, trans. RebeccaBalinski, Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press,pp. 53-64. Copyright© 1994PrincetonUniversity Press,1996 paperbackedition Reprintedby permissionof PrincetonUniversity Press. Rowmanand Littlefield PublishingGroup for the essay:Diana Schaub( 1999), 'Of Believers and Barbarians:Montesquieu'sEnlightenedToleration', in Alan Levine (ed.), Early Modern Skepticismand the Origins of Toleration, Lanham,MD: Lexington Books, pp. 225--47. SagePublicationsfor the essay:Roger Boesche(1990), 'FearingMonarchs and Merchants: Montesquieu'sTwo TheoriesofDespotism',The WesternPolitical Quarterly, 43, pp. 741-61. Taylor and Francis for the essay:Melvin Richter (1998), 'Montesquieuand the Conceptof Civil Society', The European Legacy, 3, pp. 33--41. www.informaworld.comCopyright© 1999 by the InternationalSocietyfor the Study of EuropeanIdeas. University ofMichigan Pressfor the essay:Emile Durkheim(1965), 'Montesquieu'sMethod', in MontesquieuandRousseau:ForerunnersofSociology,trans.Ralph Manheim,Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press,pp. 50-60. University of PennsylvaniaPressfor the essays:David W. Carrithers( 1991), 'Not so Virtuous Republics: Montesquieu,Venice, and the Theory of Aristocratic Republicanism',Journal of the History of Ideas, 52, pp. 245---68. Copyright© 1991 by Journal of the History of Ideas, Inc.; Roger B. Oake( 1953), 'Montesquieu'sReligious Ideas',Journal ofthe History ofIdeas, 14, pp. 548-60. Copyright© 1953 by Journalof the History of Ideas, Inc.; David Carrithers (1986), 'Montesquieu'sPhilosophyof History', Journal of the History of Ideas, 47, pp. 6180. Copyright© 1986 by Journalof the History ofldeas,Inc. Voltaire Foundationfor the essays:C.P. Courtney(1988), 'Montesquieuand the Problemof "la diversite'", in Giles Barber and C.P. Courtney (eds), EnlightenmentEssaysin Memory of Robert Shackleton,Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 61-81. By permissionof the Voltaire Foundation, University of Oxford; George Klosko (1980), 'Montesquieu'sScience of Politics: Absolute Values and Ethical Relativism in L 'Esprit des Zais', Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury, 189, pp. 153-77. By permissionof the Voltaire Foundation, University of Oxford; Melvin Richter (1995), 'Montesquieu'sComparativeAnalysis of

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xi

Europe and Asia: Intended and Unintended Consequences',in Alberto Postigliola (ed.), L 'Europede Montesquieu,Naples: Liguori Editore; Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 329--48. By permissionof the Voltaire Foundation,University of Oxford; Robert Shackleton(1949), 'Montesquieu,Bolingbroke, and the Separationof Powers', French Studies,3, pp. 25-38, reprinted in Robert Shackleton(1988), Essayson Montesquieuand on the Enlightenment,ed. David Gilson and Martin Smith, Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation,pp. 3-15. By permissionof the Voltaire Foundation,University of Oxford. Wiley/Blackwell for the essay:David Young (1981), 'Montesquieu'sMethodology:Holism, Individualism, and Morality', The Historian, 44, pp. 36-50. Every effort hasbeenmadeto traceall the copyrightholders,but ifany havebeeninadvertently overlooked the publisherswill be pleasedto make the necessaryarrangementat the first opportunity.

SeriesPreface The International Library of Essaysin the History of Social and Political Thought brings togethercollectionsof importantessaysdealingwith the work of major figures in the history of social and political thought. The aim is to make accessiblethe complete text with the original paginationof those essaysthat should be read by all scholarsworking in that field. In each case,the selectionis madefrom the extensiveavailable literature by an established expertwho has a keen senseof the continuingrelevanceof the history of social and political thought for contemporarytheory and practice. The selection is made on the basis of the quality and enduringsignificanceof the essaysin question.Every volume hasan introduction that placesthe selectionmade in the contextof the wider literature,the historical period, the contemporarystateof scholarshipand the editor'sparticularinterests. TOM CAMPBELL SeriesEditor Centrefor AppliedPhilosophyandPublic Ethics (CAPPE) CharlesSturt University Canberra

Introduction Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu(1689-1755)has never lacked for attentive and enthusiasticreaders.His first publishedwork, the Persian Letters (1721), proved so popular that Dutch publishersbeggedprospectiveauthors to imitate the cross-culturalcomparisonshe had createdby imagining two Persianson a voyageto France where they observe customs strangely at odds with their Muslim ways.1 Montesquieu's secondmajor work, a causal accountof Rome'srise and fall - first as a republic and then as an empire- met with a more tepid response,no doubt due to its more erudite themes,but its brilliant historical analysesinfluenced both Gibbon and Tocqueville, and it still makes compellingreading. Montesquieu'sbest known work, The Spirit ofLaws (1748), is generally consideredthe most significant treatise on politics and society producedduring the entire French Enlightenment.2 During the pasthalf centurytherehasbeena veritableexplosionof interestin Montesquieu, spurred by several developments.Two widely used editions of Montesquieu'sworks were published in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the second of these included Robert Shackleton'sdating of the various secretarialhandspresentin Montesquieu'spublishedand unpublishedwritings.3 A few years later, Shackletonpublished his intellectual biography of Montesquieu,which remainsunsurpassedin its presentationof biographical details and its analysis of the intellectual origins of many of Montesquieu'skey ideas (Shackleton, 1961). 4 A third factor contributing to interestin Montesquieuwas the publication of J.G.A. Pocock'sThe MachiavellianMoment. Florentine Political Thoughtandthe Atlantic Tradition (1975) focusing attention on the differences betweenrepublican and liberal discourseand leading to renewedappreciationof Montesquieuas a key expositor of republican themes in his commentaryon ancient republics and of liberal perspectivesin his exposition of the principles of English liberty and of modern commerce.A fourth developmentrenewing interest in Montesquieuin the Anglophoneworld was the publication in 1989 of the first I The eagerness of Dutch publishersfor manuscriptsimitating his work wasnotedby Montesquieu himself in his Pensees(Shackleton,1961, pp. 27-28). 2 Prior to 1900,the title of Montesquieu'swork in Englishwas alwaysgiven as The Spirit ofLaws, rather than The Spirit of the Laws. I prefer the older practice and adhereto it throughoutas properly reflecting differencesbetweenFrenchand English usageof the definite article. On the somewhattepid contemporaryresponseto Montesquieu'sRomanhistory, seeShackleton( 1961), pp. 155-57.For general discussionof the overall importanceand influence of Montesquieu'streatise on laws, see Carrithers (1995 and 2001a). 3 Caillois (1949-51)and Masson(1950-55). 4 For a somewhatlessfavourablejudgmenton Shackleton'swork, seeMelvin Richter'sreview in History and Theory, 3 (1963), pp. 14-22. The one regret Shackletonexpressedregardingthe contents of his book was that he had beenunableto follow through on his original plan to include coverageof Montesquieu'seconomicthought(personalconversationwith Shackletonat Oxford during the summer of 1979).

xiv

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

English translation since the eighteenthcentury of the completetext of The Spirit of Laws (Cohler, Miller and Stone, 1989).5 And, finally, in the late twentieth century, disenchantment with Marxism amongEuropeanintellectualsled to a revival of interestin such progenitorsof modem liberalism as Locke, Montesquieu,Constantand Tocqueville. Since interest in Montesquieusurged in the second half of the twentieth century, it is difficult to selectjust a short list of the English-languageessaysthat best explain his many contributionsto philosophy,historiographyand social science.6 Indeedthe numberof essays included in this volume could easily have been doubled, or even trebled. The ten topics I have identified as key areasof Montesquieuscholarship, thoughcentral to appreciatinghis importance,are certainly not exhaustive.Owing to considerationsof space,it has not been possibleto include essayson Montesquieu'sclimatological theory, his views on the role of women in society, his opinions on the factors affecting population size, or his views on such critical issuesas colonialism,slavery,crime and punishmentand suicide.7

The PersianLetters Few authorsmadetheir publishing debutwith such a fanfare as Montesquieu.A close friend predictedthe PersianLetterswould sell like bread,and it becamea 'mustread'for intellectuals in France and all across Europe.8 As Orest Ranum explains in Chapter I, Montesquieu composedthis work at a time of intenseanxiety during the Regencyfor Louis XV, who was only five when he succeededhis great-grandfather,Louis XIV, in I 715. The underlyingtheme of the book is the moral bankruptcyof despotism,whetherconceivedas a patternfor family governanceor for political rule. Fearingcontinuationof the despotictendenciesof Louis XIV, Montesquieuwarmly welcomedthe attemptof the Regent,the Duke of Orleans,to vestpower in a numberof councils ratherthan delegateauthority to a powerful minister reminiscentof a Colbert, a Richelieu or a Louvois. He was thereforegreatly distressed,Ranumnotes,when those councils were dismissedin order to augmentthe power of the Abbe Dubois, his chief

5 All quotationsfrom The Spirit ofLaws are from this translation. 6 Indicative of the high level of interestin Montesquieustudiesin Franceduring the late twentieth centurywas the formation in 1987, with JeanEhrardas founding President,of the SocieteMontesquieu, which publishesits own journal and is presentlyproducing,in co-operationwith the Voltaire Foundation of Oxford, England and the Istituto Italiano per gli studi Filosofici of Naples, Italy, a magisterialnew edition of Montesquieu'scompleteworks. A total of 22 volumesis projected. 7 For the influence of climate on humanbehaviour,seeMercier (1953), Shackleton(1955), and Kriesel ( 1968). For the role of women in politics, seeRosso( 1977), Hundert ( 1990), Mosher ( 1994), and Schaub( 1995); for demography,seeYoung ( 1975) and Blum (2002); for colonialism, seeMosher (2005-2006);for slavery,seeJameson( 1911), Fletcher(1933), Davis (1988), Schaub(2005), and Ehrard (2008); for crime andpunishment,seeLarrere( 1996) and Carrithers( 1998); for Montesquieu'sviews on suicide, seeGoulemot( 1966). 8 The prediction about saleswas made by PereNicolas Desmolets,and accordingto Courtney (2002) there were eight editions publishedin the first year. The work was publishedanonymously,and the referenceto 'fanfare'refersto the widespreadinterestsparkedby the work ratherthan to immediate recognitionof Montesquieuas its author.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xv

minister.9 Above all, Montesquieuintendedhis first publication to warn the peopleof France of the needto avoid the despotismof countrieslike Persiasuffering from the rule of oriental sultansuncheckedby intermediaryinstitutionscapableof assertingrights and privileges. The organization of the Persian Letters as an epistolary novel with a harem intrigue as a backdrop to other discussionsadded greatly to its appeal without compromising its presentationof seriousphilosophicalthemes.As Ronald Grimsley demonstratesin Chapter 2, although Montesquieuflirted for a time with materialistconceptionstreating ideasas mere physiological responsesto external stimuli, he ultimately followed the path of the Stoics of antiquity in treating 'nature' and 'reason'as transcendentuniversalsexpressingnormative standardsto which all societiesshould conform. As Grimsley observes,Montesquieutreated the basic featuresof humannatureas uniform ratherthan as varying from society to society. Thusthe dying Roxanain the PersianLetters,who commitssuicideasa resultof her intolerable situation, proclaimsto Usbek, her absenthusband:'I have reformedyour laws with those of Nature'(letter 161). As AlessandroCrisafulli explainsin Chapter3, MontesquieudevotedlettersXI-XIV to the sagaof a primitive peoplecalled the Troglodytes.Nearly all of the original Troglodyteswere lacking in virtue and a natural senseof justice, and they thereforeplunged into a Hobbesian war of all against all. The result was the near exterminationof their society. Fortunately, two virtuous, justice-loving families remained after the destruction of the larger society, and, thanks to their adoption of a religion fostering the public good, they produceda stable and virtuous society. At a certain point in their development,however, theseTroglodytes, finding the practice of natural virtue too burdensome,choseto ceaserelying on their own moral conductas the sole checkon their behaviourand vestedpower in a king who tearfully acceptedhis new role. In an unpublishedcontinuationof the story, after this first king dies of grief a successoris appointed,and the Troglodytesseekto establishcommerceand the arts. And when the new ruler strenuouslyobjects,he and his subjectsreassureone anotherthat, if the king continuesto display and rewardvirtue ratherthan wealth, and if educationcontinues to inculcate virtue, then commerce and virtue can coexist. As Crisafulli demonstrates, Montesquieuwas influenced in his presentationof the Troglodyte story not only by Cicero and the ancient Stoics but by the writings of Ralph Cudworth, Samuel Clarke, the Earl of Shaftesbury,PierreCharronand Franc;oisSalignacde La Mothe Fenelon,all of whom posited a natural human instinct for virtue that pre-existsthe teachingsof religion.

Roman History In his Considerations on the Causes of Roman Greatness and Their Decline (1734) Montesquieupresenteda causalaccountof the history of Rome. He concludedthat, far from beingjust a seriesof one chanceeventrandomlyfollowing another,therewas a logical pattern and a necessitousflow to Roman events stemming from deep-seatedcauses.Unbeknown to the Romansthemselves,their spectacularlysuccessfulmilitary conquestsset in motion generalcausesthat doomedthe republicto extinction. Sincethe spirit of civic virtue sustaining 9 SeePersian Letter 138 for Montesquieu'spraisefor councils as a way of avoiding entrusting excessiveauthority to powerful ministers. For the major political developmentsduring the Regency period, seeLe Roy Ladurie ( 1996), pp. 279-30I.

xvi

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

republicscan only be maintainedthrough intensivecitizen involvementin politics, and since the Romansinevitably lost the spirit of self-sacrificing,political virtue once their conquests turned the original small republic into a vast empire, it was almost inevitable that Rome's leaderswould emergeas competingpower centreseachattractingits own faithful adherents. By the time Sulla, Pompey and Caesararrived on the scene, Rome had becometoo large to be ruled as a republic, and political conflict betweenrival factions had grown so intense that outright civil war becameinevitable. Had there beenno Caesar,Montesquieuasserted, 'the republic, destinedto perish, would have been draggedto the precipiceby anotherhand' (Lowenthal, 1965, ch. XI, p. I 08). Following the collapseof the republic, the westernRoman Empire endureduntil AD 476, but it, too, was subjectedto relentlessgeneral causesthat producedits ruin. The laws that had originally contributedto Romangreatnesswere not suited for governingan empire. Moreover, Romanvirtue was graduallyweakenedby Epicureanism and by the concentrationof enormouswealth in private hands,which made it difficult for Romansto be either good citizens or good soldiers,and the result was inevitable corruption and decline (ibid., ch. IX, p. 94, ch. X, pp. 97-99). Although historical determinismwas the main theme of Montesquieu'sRoman history, he did not altogetherdiscountthe influence of human agency,which he labelled 'particular causes',in shapingthe precisecontoursof eventswhose generalpatternwas establishedby deep-seated,general causes.He pointed out that numerouspolitical and policy decisions helped shapeRoman developments.The rule, for example,that Rome'sconsulswould only serveannualterms substantiallycontributedto the strong momentumof Romanwar-making since these leadershad only a very short time to achieve military glory. Also contributing to Roman military ambition was the decision to divide conqueredlands equally, which allowed large numbersof Romansto profit from the spoils of war. Moreover, a numberof Senatorialmaxims contributedto the rise of Rometo grandeur,including the policy of never making peacein good faith, fomenting factions in cities the Romanswishedto subdue,using successionstrugglesas pretextsfor taking over foreign countriesand always keepingbackup armiesin close proximity to the battlesbeing waged(ibid., ch. VI, pp. 67-73, 75). Montesquieu'sobservationsregarding the role of human agency in devising Rome's successfulstrategiesby no meansnegatedhis overall contention that Roman destiny was shapedby necessitouscauses.He concludedthat: Therearegeneralcauses,moral andphysical,which actin everymonarchy,elevatingit, maintainingit, or hurling it to theground.All accidentsarecontrolled by thesecauses.Andifthechanceofonebattle-thatis, for thatstateto perish a particularcause-hasbroughta stateto ruin, somegeneralcausemadeit necessary fromasinglebattle.Inaword,themaintrenddrawswith it all particularaccidents( ibid., ch.XVIII, p. 169).

Clearly Montesquieubelievedthat Roman history had evolved accordingto the unfolding of generalcausesbeyondthe power of individual Roman statesmenand generalsto control. As David Lowenthal assertsin Chapter4 (p. 82), the Considerationsmay be interpretedas 'an attemptto bring to bearon humanhistory the kind of causalanalysisMontesquieuadmiredso much in the natural philosophyof Descartesand Newton'. Montesquieu'sgoal was to 'show that humanaffairs havetheir generalcauses,which are akin to, though not identical with, the generallaws of naturesuppliedin modernphysics'. Both David Lowenthal and Richard Myers (Chapter 5) demonstratethat Montesquieu used his history of Rome to teach important lessons relevant to his eighteenth-century

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xvii

contemporaries.He used Roman developments,for example,to demonstratethe dangersof uniting secularand ecclesiasticalpower, whetherin the eastern,Byzantineempire following the establishmentof Constantinopleas its capital in the fourth century,or in eighteenth-century Francewhere Louis XIV, as defenderof the faith, solicited the Papal Bull Unigenitus(1713) 10 The meddling of ecclesiasticsin politics, Montesquieu aimed at suppressingJansenism. argued, both in the Considerationsand in The Spirit of Laws, confoundswhat should be kept separate.Different types of laws must be distinguishedin order to avoid introducing confusioninto the principlesthat shouldgovern humanbeings.Religion counselsperfection, and its rules are therefore unchanging. Human laws, on the other hand, are addressedto imperfect human beings. Whereasreligious laws point toward life everlasting,secularlaws seekto mould good citizens (laws, XXVI, I). According to Myers, Montesquieuintendedto denigrateChristianity by suggestingthat the Roman emperorConstantinechoseto tolerate Christianity mainly for reasonsof personalvanity and becauseits messageof hope appealed to the Romansat a time of substantialweakness.Moreover, Montesquieubelieved,on Myers' reading(pp. 93-94, 96), that the spirit of Christian subjectionto an omnipotentGod was well adaptedto the servility that the despotismof the Romanemperorshad produced(pp. 225-26, 228).

The Methodologyof The Spirit ofLaws Montesquieu'simportanceto the emergenceof modem social sciencecannot be divorced from the methodshe employed.Newton'sdiscoveryof the laws governingthe physicalworld suggestedto him the possibility of discoveringlaws explaining the social world. Therefore, as Cecil Courtneyexplains in Chapter6, Montesquieuwent beyond Grotius, Pufendorfand Barbeyracin seekingto explain not just the laws of nature, but also the patternsunderlying the positive laws that men fashion for themselvesas they devise laws suitable for the local conditionsthey face in their own societies.Sucha questfor the rational foundationsof positive laws, however,did not restrict Montesquieuto the empirical methodswe now associatewith social science.Courtneyrightly observesthat, once Montesquieudiscoveredhis principles, meaningthe relationthat virtue, honourand fear bearto republics,monarchiesand despotisms (Laws, 'Preface'),he possessed the deductiveframeworkrequiredto explain the relationship laws should bear to the nature of eachtype of governmentand to a host of other influences contributingto what he termed 'the spirit of the laws'.11

10 For Montesquieu'sviews on appropriatestatepolicy with regardto the spreadof Jansenismin France,seeMemoire sur la Constitution(1752), in Caillois (1949), 11, pp. 1217-21. 11 For corroborationof Courtney'sconclusionthat Montesquieufollowed a rationalist, deductive method,seeDurkheim (Chapter8), Shackleton( 1949), and the conclusionof Mark Waddicor( 1970, p. 31) that 'the Esprit des lois is a work of rationalism, in which an astonishinglywide erudition is put at the serviceof certainsocial andpolitical theories'.Waddicorconcludesthat Montesquieu'streatiseis the work of a philosopherwho 'like Descartes,believedin the ability of reasonto explainthe world of man. It is the work of a rationalistwho tried to deducepositive law mathematicallyfrom a few basicconcepts' (p. 45). For contrastingreadings of Montesquieu'smethodology stressinghis reliance on induction ratherthan deduction,seeCotta ( 1953),Althusser(1972), Berlin (1980), and Watts-Miller ( 1993).

xviii

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

A key aspect of Montesquieu'smethod was his adoption of a holistic, functionalist perspectivefocusing on how various influencescontributeto a society's'generalspirit' and combineto producea commonoutlook, or national character(laws, XIX). As David Young explains in Chapter 7, this holistic perspectivecaused him to reject the methodological individualism of the social contract theorists who explained the origin of society and governmentby meansof individual consent.Like Tocqueville a century later, Montesquieu consideredthe behaviourof groups and the influence of generalcausesfar more significant than the actions of particular individuals. In addition, Montesquieu shared Aristotle's assumptionthat society and governmentare natural to man rather than being productsof a specific agreement,or compacttraceableto a particularmomentin time when human beings decidedto leave the stateof nature in order to better securetheir rights and liberties.12 Also central to Montesquieu'smethodologywere his adoption of the comparativemethod and his construction of ideal types designedto impose intelligible order on an enormousand otherwiseinchoateaccumulationof political and social facts. As Emile Durkheim explained in his doctoral dissertationon Montesquieuand Rousseau(Chapter8), Montesquieu'suse of ideal typeswas a major step forward in the developmentof modemsocial science.13 Heateddebateshave raged about the extent to which Montesquieuwas influenced by the natural law tradition traceableto the combinedinfluence of the Stoics of antiquity and such modemwriters as Grotius, PufendorfandBarbeyrac.As both Cecil Courtney(Chapter6) and GeorgeKlosko (Chapter9) emphasize,Montesquieuposited,in Book I, ChapterI of TheSpirit ofLaws, the presenceof transcendentprinciplesembodyingthe dictatesof justice and equity. The principlesof natural law, while transparentto reason,are not always followed becauseof the passionatenatureof human beings.Montesquieu'snatural law convictions,Courtneyand Klosko assert,arewhatpromptedhim to combatvigorouslyHobbes'contentionthatjusticehas 14 It can no transcendentmooringsand is basedmerely on humanconventionand agreements. certainly be arguedthat Montesquieu'sviews on many diverse issues,including slavery,just war, rights of conquerors,suicide, abortion, polygamy, homosexualityand divorce reflected 12 For further developmentof thesethemes,seealso Carrithers( 1977 and 1995). For analysisof Montesquieu'sspeculationson whethersocietyis natural to man, or may insteadserveutilitarian goals, seeWaddicor(1970), pp. 65-99. 13 For the importanceof Montesquieu'suse of the comparativemethod, seeRichter ( 1969, 1970, 2006).For discussionsof Montesquieuasa forerunnerof sociology,seeEhrlich ( 1916),Gurvitch ( 1939), Stark(1960),Durkheim (Chapter8), Aron (1968),Young (Chapter7), Carrithers(1995),Manent(1998), Watts-Miller ( 1993), and Jones( 1994). 14 The questionof Montesquieu'srelation to Hobbes'thought is a contestedissue.Although the orthdodox view is that MontesquieuabhorredHobbes' conclusionsand was his lifelong opponent, Pangle(1970, p. 30) remarksthat 'Montesquieu'sunderstandingof the state of nature and therefore of the elementalin man is, if not in every respect,in the most fundamentalrespectidentical to that of Hobbes'.Pangleintroducesthis Hobbesianreading of Montesquieuby suggestingthat Montesquieu believed it was 'the fear of death, the desire for security', rather than 'the desire to live in society' that holds the key to understandinghis views on the origins of society (p. 34). For analysis of three different critiquesof Hobbesin Book 1 of The Spirit ofLaws, seeZuckert (2001, p. 251), who concludes that Montesquieudid not acceptthe Hobbesiandefinition of natural right as 'a right of every man to everything,including oneanother'sbody'. Like Pangle,however,Zuckertconcludesthat Montesquieu's definition of laws of natureis similar to Hobbes'analysisin chapter15 of LeviathansinceMontesquieu focuseson the needfor self-preservation(p. 237).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xix

perspectivestraceableto his natural law convictions regarding the essentialprinciples of justice and equity. Even Durkheim, who soughtto interpret Montesquieuas contributing to the emergenceof positivist social science,had to acknowledgethe continuingstrongpresence of natural law componentsin Montesquieu'soutlook (Durkheim, 1965, pp. 22-23).15 Clearly Montesquieu'sdesire to explain what exists, including the influence of climate, topography and terrain on human behaviour and the inner workings of various political societiesconceivedas ideal types, did not displace his equally strong, normative desire to judge the merits and justice of those same societies. His strikingly functional analysesof how the various political, economic,social and psychologicalcomponentsof various types of governmentfit togetherwere not intendedto expressapproval of what he was describing. He detesteddespotismand denigratedaristocraticrepublics,and yet he took care to explain, as part of his overall goals as a social scientist, precisely how such governmentscan be structuredto achieveoptimal stability and longevity. As GeorgeKlosko explains in Chapter 9, Montesquieuwas able to combine employmentof the methodswe now associatewith social sciencewith a more traditional belief in absolutevaluestraceableto natural law. Thus Montesquieu'sstrong penchantfor positivist description did not displace his even stronger 16 inclination toward normativejudgements. Part of Montesquieu'sgoal as the author of The Spirit of Laws was to find a way to reconcilecultural differencesobservablein diversesocietieswith the essentialfeaturesof an essentiallyuniform human nature. In Book I, Chapter2 of The Spirit of Laws, he identified five basic 'laws of nature' descriptiveof how human beings act prior to being subjectedto the influenceof societyand government.Theselaws describethe essentialfeaturesof human behaviourthat are uniform acrosscultures. Montesquieuunderstoodthat every nation will developits own generalspirit, culture, and national character,dependingon the exactmix of political, economic,religious, cultural, climatological and socio-economicinfluences(Laws, XIX), but he believed the basic human instincts for peace,nourishment,family life, social interaction and belief in a creatorare universal (laws, I, 2). And since all human beings are guided by the samebasicimpulsestraceableto nature,governmentsthat thwart them deserve condemnation. As Cecil Courtneyexplainsin Chapter6, Montesquieu'sfascinationwith cultural diversity did not underminehis commitmentto natural law absolutestraceableto the divinity and known to man through reason.The content of positive, man-madelaws will vary from society to societydependingon particularconditions,but such laws mustnot violate standardsof justice and equity. 'The law in generalis universalreason',Montesquieuproclaimed(Laws, I, I). If the application of universal reasonto diverse circumstancesnecessarilyresults in a variety of laws, each influenced by its own particular 'spirit' and its own particular 'genius',natural law nonethelessprovidesthe standardby which all positive laws should be judged.17 Reason, 15 For Montesquieu'sreflectionson how to reconcilenatural law with otherforms oflaw, seeLaws, XXVI. 16 As Klosko remindsus (Chapter9, p. 161), both RaymondAron ( 1968) and IsaiahBerlin ( 1980) focusedattention on what they regardedas the difficult problem of reconciling Montesquieu's'belief that positive laws and morals are a function of various natural and social conditions,on the one hand, and faith in a rigid standardof justice againstwhich thesesocial laws and moresmust be measured'. 17 See,in particular, Laws, I, I; Persian Letter 83; and the surviving fragmentsof Montesquieu's Traite des devoirs (1725) preservedin his Pensees,in Caillois ( 1949), I, pp. 1126-7; 1128-1150.

xx

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

which is universal,and customsandtraditions,which vary from societyto society,necessarily coexist in a reciprocal relationship. Reasoncan correct customsand traditions when they stray from standardsof justice,while at the sametime tradition suppliesthe cultural goals and aspirationsdefining each people as a distinctive society. Both Courtneyand Klosko suggest that Montesquieubelievedthe political choiceshuman beings make should be informed by moral considerationslinked to the dictatesof transcendentnatural law that do not vary from society to society. Montesquieuwas by no meansa political monist, however, advocatinga universal solution to the political decisionsfacing diverse countries.He did not assumethat any one regimetype is so superiorto othersthat it should be instituted everywhere.He made it clear that what matters most is that moderategovernmentsbe established,whether such governmentsare constructedas republicsor monarchies.Powermust be madeto checkpower in order to avoid excessivecentralizationof authority in one personor one institution (Laws, XI, 4, 6).

Republics It has long been appreciatedthat Montesquieu'sclassification of forms of government anchoredhis contributionsto political science. For the Aristotelian typology of rule by the one (monarchy), the few (aristocracy), or the many (polity), with correspondingdebased forms of tyranny, oligarchy and democracy,he substituteda schematizationpositingrepublics, monarchiesand despotismsas the three basic forms of government.He further subdivided republics into democratic and aristocratic forms, dependingon whether the whole people or only a portion of them rule (Laws, II, 2). In constructingdemocracyas an ideal type, he identified its activating principle as 'political virtue', which he defined as 'love of the laws of the country' and as 'love of equality and frugality' (laws, IV, 5; V, 3). Contrary to the lawlessimageof democracypresentedin Plato'sRepublic,he depictedthe democraticstateas possessingpolitical institutions designedto avoid extremeequality and encouragingcitizens to display intense loyalty to the state (Laws, II, 2; 111, 3; IV, 4-8; V, 2-7, 19). Rather than encouragingcitizensto act independentlyof all laws or restraints,the democraticstateachieves order by fostering deference- deferenceof slavesto masters,children to parents,wives to husbands,and citizensto the senateand other constitutedauthorities(laws, VIII, 2). The democraticstate will have to be extremely small in order to nurture political virtue and enablecitizensto practisedirect democracy(laws, VIII, 16). Most magistrates,and also senators,will be chosenby lot in orderto ensureequal opportunityto serveamongthosewho fall within the three wealthiestclassesof the state basedon a censusof property holdings. There should be a popular assemblythat all citizens are eligible to attend, a smaller senate, and law courts chosenby lot. To ensurevirtuous conduct,a board of censorsmodelledon the Athenian Council of the Areopagusshould be established.Since moral virtue is essentialto the democraticstate,censorswill needto function as guardiansof personalmorality, calling waywardcitizensto account(Laws, V, 7). Above all, Montesquieusuggeststhat the successful practice of democracywill require political virtue that can only be sustainedby intensive education bordering on indoctrination (laws, 111, 2; IV, 5-8; V, 2---6). Overall, he depicts the democratic state as repressiveand as built on mores and customs conducive to selfrenunciation.Thus he assertsthat citizens becomeattachedto democraticstatesfor the same reasonthat monks learnto love their orders.Thosein religious ordersgrow attachedto the very

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxi

ecclesiasticalinstitutions that repressthem becausetheir normal drives are sublimated,just as republicancitizens attain the ability to prioritize public needsby consciouslysublimating their private desires(Laws, IV, 5). Both David Lowenthal (Chapter 10) and Nannerl Keohane (Chapter 11) suggestthat Montesquieuhad a very high regard for the democraticrepublic conceivedas an ideal type. Lowenthal concludesthat 'Montesquieuconsidersdemocracythe best of the four forms of government,by reasonof both the moral quality of its citizens and the liberty and security it affords them' (p. 188). Not only was Montesquieuan admirer of 'the heroic virtue of the ancientrepublics',accordingto Lowenthal, but he also displayeda 'willingnessto acceptthe idea of the absoluterule of the wise that forms the central conceptionof Plato'sRepublic' (p. 205). Keohaneessentiallycorroboratesthis pro-democraticrepublic viewpoint. She suggests that, basedon Montesquieu'spraise of William Penn for founding a virtuous community in Pennsylvania'amidstthe dregs and corruptionsof modem times', and on his praise for the modernrepublic of Berne in Switzerland,we may concludethat he 'was convincedthat there were certainconditionsin which suchmodels(of democracy)might becomerelevant'(p. 229). Lowenthal'sand Keohane'sinterpretationshave proven the exceptionratherthan the rule in Montesquieuscholarship.More frequently, commentatorshave interpretedMontesquieuas an apologist for monarchyand have concludedthat he found many aspectsof democracy problematicand completelyunsuitedto modernstateswhere largepopulationscannotdirectly participatein governingand are distractedfrom civic virtue by the pursuit of the profits to be madein manufacturing,commerceand finance (laws, 111, 3).18 Democracywas not the only type of republic that Montesquieudiscussedin The Spirit of Laws. A secondtype was the aristocraticrepublic in which only a portion of the citizens rule. As I indicate in Chapter 12, Montesquieu'schief model for this republican type was Venice whosehistory and structurehe studiedvery closely both throughpersonalobservation during his travels and through analysisof AbrahamNicolasAmelot de la Houssaye'sdetailed commentaryon the Venetianrepublic (Amelot de la Houssaye,1676). Montesquieuregarded the aristocraticvariety of republic as inferior to the democraticform, remarking that such republics reach perfection only to the extent that the ruling class is enlargedand equality is increased(laws, II, 3; V, 8). Essentialto preservingstability in aristocraticrepublics is the consciousdecisionof the ruling classto mask as much as possibletheir political, social and economic superiority. Thus Montesquieusuggeststhat the nobles in aristocratic republics, ratherthan flaunting their power,musttake stepsto blend in with the people.Patriciansshould not be prohibited from marrying commonerssince this would breeddeepresentmentamong the unprivileged masses(Laws, V, 8). Certainly aristocraticrepublics will aim at less social and economicequality than democraticrepublics, but extremesof wealth amongnoblemen and also between noblemen and commonersshould be minimized as much as possible. Moreover, to ensure a voice for commoners,Montesquieurecommendedthe creation of tribunesto protectthe people'sinterests,as in ancientRome(Laws, V, 8). The principle of the aristocraticrepublic, Montesquieuasserted,is political virtue, but in aristocraciessuch virtue 18 For Montesquieu'srejection of both democraticand aristocraticrepublicanismas viable forms of governmentin the modernworld, seeShackleton(1961),Althusser(1972), Cranston(1986), Boesche (Chapter19), Carrithers(200lb), Mosher (2001), Rahe(2001) and Laws lll, 3, Vlll, 16. Lowenthal, it should be noted, interpretsMontesquieuas favouring, for moderntimes, a governmentsuchas England which he considered'the freest societythat has ever existed'(p. 200).

xxii

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

will normally take the more diluted form of moderation.And since such moderationwill be difficult to sustainamong human beings easily corrupted by power, tyrannical magistrates, such as the Ephorsof Spartaand the StateInquisitorsof Venice, will be neededto ensurethat the noblesdo not undermineconstitutionalarrangementsdesignedto moderatetheir exercise of power (Laws, II, 3; V, 8). As Christopher Wolfe explains in Chapter 13, Montesquieu analysed a third type of republic in TheSpirit ofLaws. In Book IX he discussedthe advantagesof forming confederate republics.Suchrepublicsare large enough,in the aggregate,for successfulself-defence,while at the sametime the componentstatesremain sufficiently small to serveas appropriatevenues for the practiceof participatoryrepublicanism.The 'federalrepublic', Montesquieuobserved, had beendevisedby the Greeksand Romansto combine'the internal advantagesofrepublican governmentand the external force of monarchy' (laws, IX, I). More recently, Holland, Germanyand Switzerlandhad organizedthemselvesas confederaterepublics. Montesquieu died two decadesbeforeAmerica separateditself from England,but, as Wolfe remindsus, the framers of the American Constitution drew heavily from Montesquieu'scommentsin Book IX of The Spirit ofLaws to explain the advantagesof the federal republic as a political type.

Monarchies By the time he wrote the chapterson monarchy for The Spirit of Laws Montesquieuhad grown convinced that only monarchicalgovernmentswere suited to the large-scalestates of his day where large expansesof territory made a degreeof centralizedpower necessary to preserveorder.19 Earlier in his developmentas a political theorist, he had expressedgreat admiration in the Persian Letters for republicangovernments,which he labelled 'veritable sanctuariesof honour,reputationand virtue' (letter 89). He had stressedin that early work that the equality of citizens in republics spurs population growth, and he had also remarkedthat republicsaugmentwealth to a much greaterdegreethan is possiblein monarchies(letter 122). His Europeantravels in the late 1720s,however,souredhim on republics.Travelling through Italy, he was not at all impressedby Venice, Genoaor Lucca, which he found despoticand morally corrupt. In his travel noteshe describedthesestatesas 'miserablearistocracies,which subsistonly as a result of the pity accordedthem and wherethe nobles,lacking any sentiment of grandeuror glory, have no other ambition than maintainingthemselvesin their indolence and prerogatives'(Voyagede Gratz ala Haye, in Caillois, 1949, I, p. 715). In his Pensees Montesquieuremarkedthat no aristocraticstatecan be consideredfree (Pensee1804 [370], in Caillois, ed. [ 1949], I, p. 1432). Moreover,in his history of Romehe insertedthe parenthetical commentthat 'the republicsof Italy, which boastof the perpetuityof their government,ought only to boastof the perpetuityof their abuses.They have no more liberty than Rome had in the time of the decemvirs'(Lowenthal, 1965, ch. VIII, p. 187). Montesquieubasedhis model of monarchyas an ideal type mainly on France,though he chosenot to mention the StatesGeneralsince that body had not been convenedsince 1614. The nobility, along with the clergy, municipalitiesand other privileged intermediarybodies, played the key role in Montesquieu'saccount since it was their presenceas a restraint on 19 For assessment of Montesquieu'sperspectiveson modernity, see the essaysin Carrithersand Coleman(2002).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxiii

absolutepower that distinguishedthe monarchicalstate from despotic regimes. So central were the nobility to monarchyas Montesquieuenvisionedit that he made the formula 'no monarchy, no nobility; no nobility, no monarch' the veritable centrepieceof his analysis (Laws, II, 4). In the absenceof the StatesGeneral,the crucial moderatingpower capableof checkingexcessesof regal power belongedto the regional courts, or parlements,functioning as 'depositoriesof laws'. The purposeof thesebodieswas to 'announcethe laws when they are madeand recall them when they are forgotten' (Laws, II, 4), a role that enabledthem to remonstrateagainstroyal edicts they regardedas conflicting with the body of pre-existing laws, or with noble taxation privileges, or with the king's true interests,or even with sound public policy in general.20 The king always won his battles with the parlementseither by meansof a lit dejusticewhere he insistedon registrationof an edict, or by exiling recalcitrant justicesto the provinces.Parlementaryremonstrances were widely publicized, however,and the oppositionof the robe nobility, speakingout as the king's judicial counsellors,influenced public opinion and moderateddecision-makingin a monarchydominatedby a king wielding both executiveand legislativepower.21 Montesquieu'sdepiction of monarchy was substantially influenced by his reading of Bernardde Mandeville'scontroversialFable ofthe Bees(1707)contendingthat 'privatevices' lead to 'public virtues'.22 Strikingly reminiscentof Mandeville was Montesquieu'sassertion that 'not all political vices are moral vices, and not all moral vices are political vices' (Laws, XIX, 11 ). In monarchies,self-interesttakesthe form of a passionfor honour, defined as 'the prejudiceof eachpersonand eachcondition'. Honour motivatessubjectsto engagein 'fine', 'great'and 'extraordinary'actions,and honour 'makesall the parts of the body politic move; its very action binds them, and eachpersonworks for the commongood, believing he works for his individual interests'(Laws, 111, 6,7; IV, 2). Thus, in monarchiesthere are numerous 'good citizens' and few 'good men' since 'in order to be a good man, one must have the intention of being one and love the state less for oneselfthan for itself' (Laws, 111, 6). Thus Montesquieuconcludedthat the honourof monarchiesis 'false honour'motivatedby concern for one's own good. But such honour 'can oblige men to do all the difficult actions ... with no reward otherthan the renown of theseactions'(Laws, 111, 7).23 As SharonKrauseexplains in Chapter14, there is a strongconnectionbetweenMontesquieu'sconceptionof honourand classical liberalism's concernto moderatepower. Honour counselsagainstblind obedience to a sovereign'scommandsand teachesthat one has duties to oneselfas well as to others.

20 See Laws, V, 10, for Montesquieu'semphasison the need for the Parlementsto 'drag their feet' as a way of temperingthe monarch'spower. See Pensee2266 in Desgraves( 1991), p. 658, for Montesquieu'sfirm conviction that it is the Parlement'sresponsibility to inform the king, should he attemptto makenew law that is not consistentwith the 'coherence'and 'spirit' of the laws of the realm alreadyapproved.On the subjectof France'sfundamentallaws, seePrice (1947), and Ellis ( 1989). 21 On Montesquieu'sconception of the king's sovereignty as substantially influenced by the absolutisttheoriesofJeanBodin, seeMosher(2001) andVile (Chapter21 ). On the role of the Parlements in issuingremonstrances againstthe king, seeHardy (1967), Egret (1970) and Stone(1981). 22 On the influence of Mandeville on Montesquieu,seeRichter (1977), Retat (1973) and Spector (2002). 23 On Montesquieu'sconceptualizationof honor, see also Retat ( 1973), Mosher (2001), Larrere ( 1999b), Spector(2002) and Smith (2005).

xxiv

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

'Honor in someform', sheconcludes,'hasa role to play in any polity that takesthe limitation of political power seriously'(p. 307). Scholarshavelong debatedwhetherMontesquieu'sadvocacyofa strongrole for the nobility in monarchicalgovernmentsrenderedhim a feudal reactionarysearchingfor a vanishedpast. As Kent Wright points out in Chapter15, readingsof Montesquieuas a reactionarycontrast sharply with the liberal interpretationof Elie Carcassonneand others who have concluded that he consideredthe privileges of intermediarybodies the sole meansto avert despotism by setting up countervailingpowers capableof resisting the king.24 Rebutting the royalist interpretationsof the Abbe Dubos,Voltaire, Mably andthe marquisd' Argenson,Montesquieu set out to demonstratein the closing books of The Spirit of Laws, as Wright explains, that when kingship emergedin the tenth century under the Capetiandynasty, the French kings, rather than inheriting the mantle of Roman imperial rule, were feudal lords sharing power with the nobility. Since the role of the nobility had been drastically reducedover time, and since Bourbon kings had not convenedthe StatesGeneral since 1614, it was essentialfor the preservationof liberty that the parlementsexercisethe right of remonstrancethat Louis XIV had suppressedand that the Duke of Orleanshad restoredto them in 1715 while serving as Regent for Louis XV. Montesquieustrongly defendedthe system of venality of offices enablingjudges on the Parlementsto purchasetheir hereditary offices since this practice contributedto the ability of thesecourts of law to serve as a stable 'depositoryof the laws' (Laws, 11, 4; V, 19; XX, 22). A key reasonwhy Montesquieuregardedmonarchyas compatible with liberty was the spacehe believed such governmentscreatefor autonomousaction in a private realm of civil society insulated from state interference.Much important work has beendone on the emergenceof the conceptof civil society,and Melvin Richter in Chapter16 analysesMontesquieu'sviews on this subject.25

Despotisms A persistentthemethroughoutMontesquieu'spolitical writings was his profound distrust of uncheckedpolitical power.The cycle ofTroglodytehistorypresentedin the PersianLetterswas meantto serveas a lessonthat self-governmentand self-restraint,howeverdifficult to achieve, are preferableto empoweringkings to rule. Moreover,the denunciationin his Romanhistory of Caesar'srole in destroyingthe Romanrepublic conveyedthe samemessageregardingthe propensityof human beingsto abusepower. Montesquieurepresenteddespotismnot simply as an abuseof governmentalauthority, but as a coherent,systemic arrangementof power displaying a logic all its own, howeverperverseand destructive.Moreover, he believedthat no governmentis immune to the threat of despotictendencies.Without artfully constructed constitutionsdesignedto achievea balanceof powers, both republics and monarchieswill decline into despotism(Laws, V, 14; VI, 21; XI, 6). The principle of despoticgovernments, Montesquieuconcluded,is fear. In suchgovernmentsa despotrules over a cowering populace through a vizier to whom he cedespower so that he can revel in a life of voluptuouspleasure 24 The pre-eminent exposition of the liberal interpretation remains Carcassone ( 1927). Commendable,though incomplete, steps toward updating Carcassone'swork were taken by Ellis (1989). 25 See,for example,Taylor ( 1991), Becker(1994), Hall ( 1995) and Seligman( 1995).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxv

in his polygamousharem (laws, II, 4). As Melvin Richter (Chapter 17) and David Young (Chapter18) demonstrate,Montesquieu'sportrait of despotismwas a caricaturerather than an accuratedepiction of political life in Persia,Turkey, Japanand China. By exaggeratingthe natureand extentof despotismin the Orient, he could senda clear messageaboutthe crucial needto guard againsttendenciestoward despotismin France.26 In Chapter19, RogerBoeschesuggeststhat Montesquieupresentedtwo different modelsof despotism.The first is the well-known, fear-riddenportrait presentedin Books II throughVIII of The Spirit of Laws, and the secondis a less noticed accountof a type of despotismbased on the tendencyof wealth and luxury to underminethe civic consciousnessthat supports liberty. 'The secondmodel', Boescheasserts,'was scatteredthroughouthis writings, never openly analyzed,and replete with ambiguities, but it reflected Montesquieu'sfear that the moresof Franceand Europe,in general,were becomingcorruptedby the self-interest,luxury, and licensethat seemedto be the inseparablecompanionof the new commercialclasses'(p. 383). Although this secondtype of despotismmay not have been as distinct from the first form as Boeschecontends,sensitivity to the connection betweenthe lapse of civic virtue and despotismwas certainly a key themefor Montesquieuand also an aspectof his legacyto Tocqueville. Like Montesquieubefore him, Tocquevillewas sensitiveto the corrosiveeffects of the spirit of commercialismon civic virtue, and he regardedthe nobility as a key checkon both the despoticand democraticexcessesto which monarchicalregimesare prone. In his The Old Regimeand the Revolution(1856) Tocqueville lamentedthe centuries-longerosion of the powerof France'ssecondestateduring the long period when the StatesGeneralwas not convenedsincethis left the nobility unpreparedfor governing,or for preservingtheir interests when that assemblywas called into sessionin 1789 (Tocqueville, 1998, pp. 87, I 05-7, I 1424, 173, 190-92, 198-99).

England Montesquieudisplayedkeen interestin Englandand devotedportions of Books XI and XIX of The Spirit of Laws to an analysisof England'sconstitution,political parties and political customs.Viewed from the Frenchperspective,Englandpresentedthe spectacleofan unstable governmentthat had recently enduredboth the Civil War of the 1640s, culminating in the executionof CharlesI in 1649, and the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89,which replacedthe Catholic king JamesII with the Protestantrulers William and Mary. Montesquieuconsidered the English a restless people, and when he composedhis Persian Letters he pointedly referredto 'the impatienttemperof the English', remarkingthat 'submissionand obedience' are 'virtues for which they little flatter themselves'(letter I 04). In the late 1720s,he spent eighteenmonths in Englandand learnedtherewas much to admire aboutthe English system 26 As OrestRanumpoints out in chapter1, Montesquieudid not invent the neologism'despotism.' Both Henry TIT and Catherine de Medici had been accusedin the sixteenth century of employing methodsof Turkish despotism,and both Moreri and Bayle in their widely read encyclopediaspreceded Montesquieuin associatingdespoticgovernmentwith Asian countries.Moreover, the epithet 'despot' had beenapplied quite often to Louis XIV late in his reign. For usageof the conceptof despotismprior to Montesquieu,seeKoebner( 1951), Rothkrug ( 1965), and Richter ( 1973). For the image of Turkish despotismin Montesquieu'sera, seeKaiser (2000).

xxvi

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

of government,which he concludedhad liberty as its direct object(Laws, XI, 5). In his classic depiction of the essentialsof the English constitution in Book XI, Chapter6 of The Spirit of Laws he singled out, as structural featureswell designedto achieve liberty, the separation of powers betweenexecutive, legislative and judicial authorities,the Crown's absoluteveto authority, the bicameralismof the English Parliamentand the preservationofa separatevoice for the nobility in the Houseof Lords. He by no meansbelieved,however,that Franceshould attemptto copy the English version of monarchy,which he describedas 'a republic disguised as a monarchy'owing to the presencein her constitution of an electedHouse of Commons (Laws, XIX, 27). The notion of transplantingEnglish mores, customsand laws to foreign soil conflicted with the whole tenor of his argumentsregardingthe idiosyncraticcomponents of eachnation's 'generalspirit'. He could admire the English for having liberty as the direct object of its political system(Laws, XI, 4) and for making 'its political interestsgive way to the interestsof its commerce'(Laws, XX, 7) without concludingthat English institutions and customscould be, or should be, transplantedto France.27 England'sgovernmentdid not conform to any of the ideal types Montesquieuoutlined in Books II-VIII of The Spirit of Laws. The English systemwas certainly not basedon the political virtue associatedwith democracywhere citizens place the needsof the community abovetheir own personaldesires.In England,all the passionswere unrestrained,and hatred, envy, jealousy, ambition and avarice abounded(laws, XIX, 27). Nor were the English peoplemoved by the spirit of honourprevalentin France.Englandwas sui generis and had to be analysedas a unique form of government.According to Robert Shackletonin Chapter 20, Montesquieu looked at England through the lenses of Viscount Bolingbroke whose writings instructedhim on how the English achievedthe separationof powers.As J.M.C. Vile demonstratesin Chapter21, Montesquieucreatedan ideal type basedon English examples ratherthan describingthe exactreality of the English political system.Montesquieu'did not maintain the pure doctrine of the separationof powers',Vile notes, 'for he combinedwith it the ideas of mixed governmentand checksand balances'(p. 435). Montesquieumoderated the Lockeanemphasison the supremacyof the legislativepower by situatingthe King outside of the Parliamentin the law-makingprocessand by suggestingthe needfor the Crown'sveto power, which had not been exercisedsince I 708.28 As Pierre Manent points out in Chapter 22, Montesquieuwas much less interestedthan Locke had beenin investigatingthe legitimate origins of political power and substantiallymore focusedon explaining how sovereigntycan be divided into competingcomponentsthat effectively check and balanceone another.Thus Montesquieuabandonedthe Lockean languageofrights, resistanceand revolution as the key to preservingliberty and stressedinsteadthe separationand balancingof powers.

27 Seehis remark in Laws, I, 3: 'Laws should be so appropriateto the peoplefor whom they are madethat it is very unlikely thatthe laws of onenation can suit another.'For the contraryview suggesting that Montesquieudesiredto introduceEnglish principlesin France,seePangle( 1970), Hulliung ( 1977) and Rahe(2009a,2009b). 28 The last English monarchto veto a bill passedby Parliamentwas QueenAnne who vetoedthe Scotchmilitia bill in 1708. Subsequently,monarchswereremarkablysuccessfulin relying on 'influence' or 'corruption'to control countyandboroughelectionsandParliamentaryvoting in Lords and Commons prior to the unsuccessfulAmerican war policy that prompted the overthrow of the ministry of Lord North in 1782.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxvii

A numberof scholarshave arguedthat the extentof Montesquieu'sregard for the English systemhasbeengreatly exaggerated,and certainly his unpublishedtravel noteswritten during his stay in England(Notessur L'Angleterre,in Caillois, 1949, I, pp. 875-84)provide a much lessflattering accountthan his commentsin The Spirit ofLaws.29 In thosenotesMontesquieu recordedfacts about English vote-sellingand aboutthe corruption of membersof Parliament by a king controlling numerousappointments,sinecuresand pensionsthat he doled out to gain supportfor his policies. He purposelyomitted thesedetails from his formal accountof the English constitution in The Spirit of Laws, but they deserveconsiderationin any overall evaluationof his attitudetoward the English and their govemment.30

Religion To the dismay of ecclesiasticalcritics, including Jesuit and Jansenistauthorities in France and the Pope'scensorsin Rome, Montesquieuadopteda sociologicalperspectiveon religion, exploring all the diverseinfluencesshapingthe contoursof a given culture'sreligious beliefs. Like David Hume, who wrote a Natural History of Religion that he cautiouslyset aside for posthumouspublication, Montesquieupreferredto approachreligion, not as a set ofrevealed truths, but rather as a natural product of human needs,though he was careful to assertthat Christianity is based on the revealed truths recorded in the Scriptures (laws, XXIV, 1). Following the lead of Machiavelli in his Discourseson Livy (1512-17),Montesquieuadopted a utilitarian perspectiveon religion, singling out for praisethosereligions fostering morality and good citizenship. In the Persian Letters he reducedreligion to the bare essentialsof 'observinglaws, loving our fellow men, and displayingpiety toward our parents'(letter 46), and he concludedthat, if a religion contributesto utility and morality, it should be tolerated. The key point for Montesquieu,as RogerOake emphasizesin Chapter23, was that religious and civil sanctionsshouldwork togetherto curtail destructivebehaviour.31 Although Montesquieuprofesseda high regard for Christianity, referring to it as 'the true religion' with roots in heavenrather than on earth (laws, XXIV, I), he offended religious authorities by not basing his supportfor Christianity on what they regardedas its essential feature,namelyits revealedtruth. Insteadhe contrastedChristianity favourablywith Islam on utilitarian grounds,arguingthat 'a religion should softenthe moresof men' (laws, XXIV, 4). What matters,he suggested,is whetherthe teachingsof a given religion incline its adherents towardjustice,morality, modestyand compassion(laws, XXIV, 8-10). Montesquieubelieved that even false religions can be useful if they moderatebehaviour- including, above all, 29 For Montesquieu'sreservationsregarding the English political system, see Merry ( 1970), Keohane (Chapter 11), Baker (1990), Boesche (Chapter 19), Cohler (1988), Desserud (1999), Courtney(2001), Carrithers(2000a),Krause (2000), Rahe(2001) and Mosher (2001). For contrasting interpretationsassertingMontesquieu'sextremely high regard for the English system, see Fletcher (1939), Lowenthal (Chapter 10), Pangle(1970), Hulliung (1977) and Rahe (2009a, 2009b). For the generalsubjectof Anglophobiain France,seeAcomb ( 1950). 30 For critical discussionof Montesquieu'sviews on Englishgovernmentandpolitics, seeCourtney (2001, 2009). 31 For Montesquieu'sviews on the commongoals of religion and other inducementsto morality, seealso Kingston (2001).

xxviii

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

the actions of princes - and he therefore rebutted Pierre Bayle's assertionthat atheism is preferableto idolatry (laws, XXIV, 2). Montesquieu'ssociological perspectiveon religion and his use of utility ratherthan revelationas the gaugeof a good religion distressedCatholic authoritiesin both Franceand Italy. In France,his work was censuredby the Jansenistwriter, the Abbe Fontainede La Roche,and by the Faculty of Theologyof the Sorbonne.Moreover, in 175 I, The Spirit ofLaws was placedon the Papal Index of ProhibitedBooks.32 As RogerOakepoints out, Montesquieudisplayedan exceptionallykeeninterestin religion, starting with his youthful composition of a work on the political uses of religion in Rome (Dissertationsur la politique desRomainsdansla religion (1716), in Caillois, 1949, I, pp.8192). Montesquieucould not imaginea societywithout religion. Belief in a Creatoris universal, he concluded,since the effects we observemust have a cause.As Diana Schaubindicatesin Chapter24, only Books XXIV and XXV of The Spirit of Laws were formally devoted to religion, but religion's role in shapingmorals, customsand mannersfrequently surfacedas a topic of discussionin other parts of his treatise. Schaubdemonstratesthat Montesquieu believedChristianity could all too readily assumea form of despotism.He thereforedepicted Christianity 'as a dangerto sound politics' when the Church meddlesin political decisionmaking. Montesquieu clearly expresseda nuancedperspectiveon Christianity, however. Elsewhere,as Schaubnotes, he was less critical, suggestingthat Christian conceptionsof equality and justice had exerteda moderatinginfluence on both domesticand international law (pp. 479, 481).

Commerce,Economicsand InternationalRelations As Nicos Devletoglouexplainsin Chapter25, Montesquieuwas an economistof considerable stature,as recognizedby none other than John Maynard Keynes who, in his prefaceto the Frenchedition of his The GeneralTheoryofEmployment,Interest, and Money( I 943), termed Montesquieu'the real French equivalentof Adam Smith' and suggestedhe was 'head and shouldersabove the physiocratsin penetration,clear-headedness and good sense'(p. 1). Montesquieuunderstoodthe importanceof industry and commerceas vital sourcesof wealth beyondwhat the agricultural sectorcan produce.33 Moreover, he did not make the bullionist error of conflatinggold and silver with real wealth. Ratherhe displayeda monetaristconviction that gold and silver are importantas a medium of exchangeand arethereforeindispensablefor maintainingthe productionand distribution of goods. Montesquieuunderstoodthat precious metalsare only signsof wealth and that a colonial power like Spain,hoardingpreciousmetals obtainedfrom the New World rather than relying on the multiplier effect of investmentin industry at home, will experienceeconomic decline. A country that accumulatesexcess quantitiesof specie,he noted, will very likely suffer rampantinflation since more and more speciewill be chasing fewer and fewer goods. Thus the key goal should be to use specie

32 On the religious censuresof Montesquieu'swork see Berard (1949), Beyer (1953), Pappas ( 1957) and Lynch ( 1977). For a list of censuredpassagesin The Spirit of Laws with accompanying notes,seeCarrithers( 1977). 33 On the differencesbetweenMontesquieu'sviews and the theoriesof the physiocrats,seealso Larrere(200I), Clark ( 2007) and Hont (2005).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxix

to invest in domestic production, boost exports, and thereby augmentthe true wealth of a nation.34 As discussedby Albert Hirschman in his well-known book explaining how economic interestsmoderatethe destructivepassionsto which human beings are prone (Hirschman, 1977)35 and by StephenRosow in Chapter26 of this volume, Montesquieudisplayed keen appreciation for the transforming effects of commerce on the progress of manners and civilization. Trading with other nations softensand civilizes mannersand inclines countries to make peace rather than war. 'Commerce cures destructive prejudices', Montesquieu asserted,'and it is an almost general rule that everywherethere are gentle mores, there is commerceand that everywherethere is commerce,there are gentle mores' (Laws, XX, 1). Montesquieubelieved modem Europeangovernmentshad gradually learned to appreciate the need to protect commercial interestsby working togetherin a co-operativefashion, and he consideredEurope 'one nation composedof many nations'.36 Among his best-known assertionsis his remarkthat '[t]he natural effect of commerceis to lead to peace.Two nations that trade with each other becomereciprocally dependent;if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interestin selling, and all unions are founded on mutual needs'(laws, XX, 2). Thereforehe optimistically concluded,'We have begunto be cured of Machiavellianism ... And happily, men are in a situation, such that, though their passionsinspire in them the thought of being wicked, they neverthelesshave an interest in not being so' (laws, XXI, 20). Interestin Montesquieuas a theorist of internationalrelations has acceleratedin recent decades.As StephenRosow explainsin Chapter26, he displayeda global perspectivebased on the assumptionthat nationswill prosperor decline together.Clearly Montesquieudid not considereconomicsand trade a zero sum game, and, unlike Rousseau,he did not fear that commercewould producea condition of unhealthydependenceof one nation on another.

Philosophyof History Montesquieudid not expressa belief in unilinear historical progress.Rather he was what Gilbert Chinard in Chapter27 terms 'a historical pessimist'.Circularity - not continuous upwardascent- is what humankindcan anticipatesinceall statesgo throughnatural cyclesof birth, growth and decline. Thus Montesquieuwas convincedthat even prosperousand stable England would inevitably suffer decline. Towards the end of his famous chapteroutlining the essentialsof English government,he insertedthe following soberassessment:'Since all human things have an end, the state of which we are speakingwill lose its liberty; it will perish. Rome, Lacedaemoniaand Carthagehave surely perished.This statewill perish when legislative power is more corrupt than executivepower' (laws, XI, 6). Contemplatingthis text causedChinardto concludethat the 'growth and decayof humaninstitutionsappearedto him almostas a biological necessity'(p. 555).

34 Montesquieuinitially spelledout theseideasin Considerationssur !es richesssesde L'Espagne (1726-27),Caillois (1951), II, pp. 9-18, which he later incorporatedinto Laws, XXI, 22. 35 For a broaderview of the usesof commerceas conceivedby Montesquieu,seeLarrere (2001), Hont (2005) and Clark (2007). 36 SeeReflexionssur la monarchie universelle( 1731-33),in Caillois ( 1949), TI, pp. 19-38.

xxx

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

In my analysis of Montesquieu'shistorical philosophy (Chapter28), I generally concur with Chinardthat Montesquieuoften reacheddeterministconclusions,while also pointing out that prior to composinghis Roman history he placedmore emphasison contingencythan on necessityin shapinghistorical outcomes.His On Politics, a surviving fragmentof his Treatise on Duties (1725), revealsthat he by no meansignored the key role played by unforeseen contingenciesand accidentsin influencing the flow of history. In that brief essayhe usedthe birth of Mohammedin the eighth centuryandthe role of GustavusAdolfus in the Thirty Years War of the seventeenthcenturyto illustrate how unanticipatedeventsinject a strong element of unpredictabilityinto the historical process.His analysisin that sameearly work of the fate of CharlesI, executedin 1649 after losing the English Civil War, promptedhim to conclude that there are times when a dominant'tone' or 'generalspirit' developswithin a given society that hasthe effect ofrelentlesslypushingeventsin a particulardirection, but his study of other historical settings convinced him that it is often accidentrather than necessitythat shapes events(De la politique [1716], in Caillois, 1949, I, pp. 112-19). Like Machiavelli, Montesquieu believed that corruption, which he defined as failure to adhere to original, sound principles, must be considereda constantthreat to political stability.37 Democraticrepublics will be corrupted by either too much or too little equality. Aristocratic republicswill suffer corruption when the moderationof the nobles is dissipated. Monarchieswill be corruptedby loss of the honourthat motivatessubjectsto opposekings when they commanddisreputableactions, and despotismsare by definition corrupt since all statepolicy is driven by the arbitrary and ruthlesswhims of the ruler (Laws, VIII, 1-10).38 In sum, 'historical pessimism'seemsan apt label for Montesquieu'sview of history althoughhe was keenly awarethat the pursuit of commercialinterestshad enrichedmany nations,and he concludedthat modernpeopleswere increasinglyableto counteractthe effectsof their natural environments,including climate, soil and terrain.39

Montesquieu'sLegacy Montesquieu'swritings have exertedenormousinfluence on ideas and eventssince his era. The Spirit of Laws went through fifteen editions by 1757 and anothereight by 1789, not to mention its inclusion in twenty-threeeditions of Montesquieu'scompleteworks issuedprior to 1789.40 Rousseau,Voltaire and the otherphilosophesin Francereadhim with rapt attention, as did prominentintellectualsin England,Scotland,Germany,Italy and America. Rousseau's discourseson the arts and sciencesand on the origins of inequality are hard to imagine without Montesquieu'swritings as a catalyst.41 Moreover, both Voltaire and Condorcetpaid 37 On the subject of Machiavelli's influence on Montesquieu,see Shackleton(1964), Carrese (2005) and Sullivan (2006). 38 On the subjectof corruption,seeKrause(2002a).For corroborationof the view that Montesquieu regardedcorruption,ratherthan progress,as man'sfate, seeRichter ( 1977) and Boesche(Chapter19). 39 For a concisestatementof Montesquieu'scyclical view of history, seePensee1917,in Desgraves (1991), p. 587. 40 For this bibliographicalinformation, seeCourtney(2002). 41 More work needsto be done on the influence of Montesquieuon Rousseau,but see Faguet ( 1981), Ehrard ( 1998), Derathe( 1955) and Rahe(2008).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxxi

Montesquieuthe ultimate compliment of reading him carefully enoughto formulate sharp 42 Although Montesquieucontributed only one article to Diderot's points of disagreement. Encyclopedie,his ideas were presentedin numerousessays writtenby Chevalier Louis de Jaucourt that were essentially paraphrasesof The Spirit of Laws.43 Montesquieu'sfame extendedthroughoutall Europeand, in Italy, CesareBeccariaattributed his very conversion to philosophyto his readingof Montesqueu'sPersianLetters. The writings of Montesquieucontinue to attract widespreadinterest, in part becauseof the role they have played in the developmentof modem social science.WhereasVoltaire's works were often responsesto variouscausescelebresof his day, Montesquieu'sobservations possessa more timelessquality, and this has contributedto their lasting importance.In Italy, his theories on crime and punishmentproved particularly influential on CesareBeccaria and GaetanoFilangieri. In Germany,his understandingof the uniquenessof each society's culture, basedon diverse physical and moral causesproducing a unique 'generalspirit', or national character,played a key role in the theorizingof both Herderand Hegel. In Scotland, such prominenttheoristsas Lord Karnes,Adam Smith, Adam Fergusonand John Millar were intrigued by his quest for the 'spirit of laws' (by which he meant all the complex relations laws bear to the moral and physical causesinfluencing their content), by his recognition of the powerful grip of morals, mannersand customson human behaviour, and by his four44 ThroughoutEurope and America his views stagestheory of socioeconomicdevelopment. on climate's influence on human behaviourgave rise to much speculationon that topic,45 while his keen interest in non-Westerncultures contributedto his statureas the founder of comparativepolitics and comparativelaw.46 French readersof The Spirit of Laws included numerousapologistsfor the robe nobility seekingto increasethe political role of the parlementsas moderatorsof the king's power. Louis-Adrien Le Paige, for example, claimed that France'sregional courts were the lineal descendants of the FrankishassembliesofMerovingiantimes, and his argumentstransformed the right of remonstranceinto a weaponof the aristocraticresurgencebolsteringthe resolve of the Parlementof Paris to refusenew taxes during the fiscal crisis that brought the States General back into existencein 1789.47 Once that body was transformedinto the National Assembly, Montesquieu'sportrait of the English constitution informed the argumentsof JosephMounier and other monarchienspushing for the creation of a bicameral legislature and a monarch armed with veto authority. Moreover, even as the Revolution slid down an increasingly radical path after 1792 and the ideas of Rousseauseemedto provide the best explanation of the unfolding events, Montesquieu'sdiscussionsof ancient republics 42 SeeVoltaire's Commentairesur L 'Esprit des Lois (1777) and Condorcet'sObservationssur le vingt-neuviemelivre de l 'esprit des lois ( 1780). 43 Montesquieu'ssingle contribution to the Encyclopediewas his 'Essay on Taste' (1753-55), publishedin Volume VII in 1757. 44 For Montesquieu'sinfluence on the Scots,seeCarrithers(1995) and Mason (1995). 45 For Montesquieu'sinfluence on later climatological speculations,seeSorokin ( 1964). 46 For Montesquieu'sinfluence on Germanthought, see Planty-Bonjour(1974), Mosher (1984), Meinecke ( 1972),and Vasonyi ( 1999). For his influence on comparativepolitics and law, seeRichter ( 1969 and 1970). 47 SeeVan Kley (1996) and Mosher(2001) for commentaryon the contentand influence ofLouisAdrien Le Paige'sLettreshistoriquessur !esfonctionsessentiellesdu Parlement( 1753).

xxxii

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

and political virtue were also cited (albeit out of context) to suggestthe need to cultivate such extremevirtue in modem France.48 After the Revolution boiled over in the Terror and then cooled down in the Thermidoreanreaction, Benjamin Constantturned to Montesquieu to illustrate the fundamental error of thinking ancient conceptionsof democracy could be successfullytransplantedto modern soil.49 Constant, Mme de Stael and others of their generationfound in Montesquieuthe samewisdom and emphasison moderationthat Alexis de Tocquevillewould later find so appealing.50 Outside of Francelines of influence radiatedfrom Montesquieu'sThe Spirit of Laws, not only to Englandand America but to Russia,Poland,Canadaand numerousother countriesas well. 51 In England Sir William Blackstoneadoptedthe essentialfeaturesof Montesquieu's account of the English constitution in his Commentarieson the Laws of England ( I 76569), and such influential writers as De Lolme, Paley and Burke were also influenced by Montesquieu'sclassicdepiction of the essentialfeaturesof English govemment.52 In America Montesquieu'sinfluenceprovedevengreater.The framersof the AmericanConstitutionwere swayed by his ideas on the separationof powers, bicameralismand executiveveto power, and they relied on his depiction of the confederaterepublic to explain the essentialfeaturesof Americanfederalism.AmericantheoristslaudedMontesquieuasthe first political philosopher to enunciatefully the doctrineof the separationof powers,and JohnAdams,ThomasJefferson, JamesMadison and AlexanderHamilton all undertookcareful analysesof his works.53 Given the wide rangeof his contemporaryinfluence and the continuing high level of regard for his work and conclusions,it is safeto concludethat Montesquieu'swritings will always deserve respectamongpeopleseekingto preservepolitical and civil liberty.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Cecil Courtney,ThomasKaiser, RebeccaKingston, CatherineLarrere, Paul Rahe, Melvin Richter, Celine Spector,Anthony Steinhoffand Kent Wright for helpful commentson an earlier draft of this essay.

48 For the influenceof Montesquieuduring the Revolution seeGalliani ( 1981), Manin (1989), and Hampson( 1983). For Robespierre'suse of Montesquieu'sdiscussionof republics, seein particularhis speechon political morality deliveredon February5, 1794 ( 17 pluviosean IT). 49 See Constant's'The Liberty of the Ancients Comparedwith that of the Moderns' (1819), in Fontana(1988), pp. 309-328. 50 For comparisonof the perspectivesof Montesquieuand Tocqueville, seeRichter (1969, 1970, 2006) and Carrithers(2009). 51 For Montesquieu'sinfluence on Catherinethe Great of Russia, see Brethe de La Gressaye (1960-61). For his influence in eighteenth-centuryPoland see Lukowski (1994). For the influence of Montesquieu'sdepiction of England on the Canadianconfederationdebatesof the mid-nineteenth century, seeResnick( 1987). 52 For Montesquieuand Burke, seeCourtney( 1963). 53 For the influenceof Montesquieuin America,seeSpurlin ( 1940),Carrithers( 1982),Jones( 1978) and Bergman( 1990).

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxxiii

References Works by Montesquieu Betts, C.J. (ed. and trans.)(1973), Montesquieu,The Persian Letters,Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks. Caillois, Roger (ed.), CEuvres completesde Montesquieu,2 vols, Paris: Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, 1949-1951. Carrithers, David W. (ed.) (1977), The Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu.A Compendiumof the First English Edition ... togetherwith an English translation ofthe 'Essayon CausesAffectingMinds and Characters'( 1736-43), Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohler, Anne, Basia Miller and Harold Stone (eds and trans.) (1989), Montesquieu,The Spirit of the Laws, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Desgraves,Louis ( ed.), Montesquieu,Pensees.Le Spicilege,Paris: Editions RobertLaffont, 1991. Healey, George R. (ed. and trans.) (1964), Montesquieu,The Persian Letters, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Lowenthal,David (ed. and trans.)( 1965),Montesquieu,Considerationson the Causesofthe Greatness ofthe Romansand Their Decline, Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press. Loy, Robert (ed. and trans.) (1961) Montesquieu,The PersianLetters,New York: Meridian Books. Masson,Andre (ed.) (1950-55),CEuvrescompletesde Montesquieu,3 vols, Paris: Nagel. Mauldon, Margaret (trans.) (2008), Montesquieu, The Persian Letters, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Neumann,Franz(ed.) ( 1949), Montesquieu,The Spirit ofthe Laws, New York: Hafner. Richter, Melvin (ed. and trans.) (1977), The Political Theory of Montesquieu,New York: Cambridge University Press.

SecondaryWorks Acomb, Frances(1950), Anglophobiain France, 1763-1789,Durham,NC: Duke University Press. Allen, Willliam B. (2004), 'ThatAll Tragedyis Local: Book 18 of The Spirit ofthe Laws',Interpretation, 31, pp. 193-216. AlthusserLouis ( 1972; orig. 1959), Politics and History: Montesquieu,Rousseau,Hegel, Marx, trans. Ben Brewster,London: New Left Books. Amelot de la Houssaye,AbrahamNicolas (1676), Histoire du gouvernementde Venise,London. Aron, Raymond.( 1968; orig. 1967),Main Currents in SociologicalThought,2 vols, New York: Anchor Books. Baker, Keith ( 1990), Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the EighteenthCentury, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Becker, Marvin B. ( 1994), The Emergenceof Civil Society in the EighteenthCentury: A Privileged Moment in the History of England, Scotland, and France, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Benrekassa,Georges( 1987),Montesquieu,la liberte et l 'histoire, Paris: Librairie generatefran9aise. Berard, Leon (1949), 'L'Esprit des lois devant la congregationde l'Index', Revuedes deux mondes, (1949), pp. 608-33. Bergman,Matthew ( 1990),'Montesquieu'sTheory of Governmentand the Framersof the American Constitution',PepperdineLaw Review,18, pp. 1-42. Berlin, Isaiah ( 1980), 'Montesquieu',in Henry Hardy(ed.), Againstthe Current: Essaysin the History ofIdeas, Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks, pp.130--61. Beyer, Charles-Jacques ( 1953),'Montesquieuet la censurereligieusede L 'Esprit des lois', Revuedes scienceshumaines,70, pp. 105-31.

xxxiv

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Beyer, Charles-Jacques (1972), 'Montesquieuet la philosophiede l'ordre', Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury, 87, pp. 145-66. Binoche, Bertrand ( 1998), Introduction a 'De ! 'esprit des lois' de Montesquieu. Paris: Presses universitairesde France. Blum, Carol (2002a),'Montesquieu,the SexRatio, and"Natural Polygamy"',in CarrithersandColeman (2002), pp. 191-204. Blum, Carol (2002b), Strengthin Numbers:Population, Reproduction,andPowerin Eighteenth-Century France, Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press. Bonno,Gabriel( 1971;orig. 1931), La constitutionbritanniquedevantl 'opinionfranc;aisede Montesquieu a Bonaparte,New York: Burt Franklin. Brethe de La Gressaye,Jean(1960-61), 'Montesquieujuge par !es philosophes,ses contemporains', Academienationale des sciences,belles letters, et arts de Bordeaux.Actes,4th series, 17, pp. 4352. E. ( 1970; orig. 1927), Montesquieuet le probleme de la Constitutionfranc;aise au XV!lle Carcassonne, siecle,Geneva:SlatkineReprints. Carrese,Paul(2003), The CloakingofPower. Montesquieu,Blackstone,andthe RiseofJudicial Activism Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Carrese,Paul (2004), 'Montesquieu'sComplexNatural Right and ModerateLiberalism',Polity, 36, pp. 227-50. Carrese,Paul (2005), 'The MachiavellianSpirit of Montesquieu'sLiberal Republic', in Paul Rahe(ed.), MachavellisLiberal RepublicanLegacy,New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. Carrithers,David W. (1977), 'Introduction',in D.W. Carrithers(ed.), The Spirit ofLaws by Montesquieu. A Compendiumofthe First English Edition ... togetherwith an English translation of 'An Essayon CausesAffectingMinds and Characters'( 1736-43),Berkeley: University of California Press. Carrithers, David W. (1982), 'Montesquieu,Jefferson and the Fundamentalsof Eighteenth-Century RepublicanTheory', in The French AmericanReview,6, pp. 160-88. Carrithers,David W. ( 1995), 'TheEnlightenmentScienceof Society',in ChristopherFox, Roy Porterand Robert Wokler (eds),InventingHuman Science.Eighteenth-CenturyDomains,Berkeley: University of California Press,pp. 232-70. Carrithers,David W. ( 1998), 'Montesquieu'sPhilosophyof Punishment',History ofPolitical Thought, 19, pp. 213-40. Carrithers,David W. (2001a), 'Introduction:An Appreciationof The Spirit ofLaws', in D.W. Carrithers, Michael A. Mosherand Paul A. Rahe(eds), MontesquieusScienceofPolitics: Essayson 'The Spirit ofLaws', Lanham.MD: Rowman& Littlefield, pp. 1-40. Carrithers, David W. (200lb), 'Democratic and Aristocratic Republics: Ancient and Modern,' in Carrithers,Mosherand Rahe(2001), pp. 109-58. Carrithers,David W. (2002), 'Montesquieuand the Spirit of Modern StateFinance:An Analysis of His Memoire sur les dettesde l 'Etat ( 1715)', in Carrithersand Coleman(2002), pp. 159-90. Carrithers, David W. (2009), 'Montesquieu and Tocqueville as Philosophical Historians: Liberty, Determinism,and the Prospectsfor HumanFreedom',in RebeccaKingston (ed.), Montesquieuand His Legacy,Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press. Carrithers, David W. and Patrick Coleman (eds) (2002), Montesquieuand the Spirit of Modernity, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation. Carrithers,David W., Michael A. Mosher and Paul A. Rahe (eds) (2001), MontesquieusScienceof Politics: Essayson 'The Spirit ofLaws', Lanham.MD: Rowman& Littlefield. Cirakman,Asli (2002), 'From Tyranny to Despotism:The Enlightenment'sUnenlightenedImageof the Turks', InternationalJournal ofMiddle EastStudies,33, pp. 49-68. Clark, Henry (2007), CompassofSociety. Commerceand Absolutismin Old RegimeFrance, Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxxv

Cohler,Anne, ( 1988), MontesquieusComparativePolitics andthe Spirit ofAmericanConstitutionalism, Lawrence:University of KansasPress. Cotta, Sergio( 1953), Montesquieue la scienzadelta societa,Turin: Ramella. Courtney,Cecil ( 1963),MontesquieuandBurke. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Courtney, Cecil (1993), 'Montesquieuand Revolution', in Edgar Mass and Alberto Postigliola (eds), Lecturesde Montesquieu,Naples,Liguori Editore, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 41-61. Courtney,Cecil (2001a), 'Montesquieuand Natural Law', in Carrithers,Mosher and Rahe(2001), pp. 41-67. Courtney, Cecil (2001b), 'Montesquieuand English Liberty', in Carrithers,Mosher and Rahe (2001), pp. 273-90. Courtney, Cecil (2002), 'L'Esprit des lois dans la perspectivede l'histoire du livre (1748-1800)',in Michel Porret and CatherineVolpilhac-Auger (eds), Le temps de Montesquieu:Actes du colloque internationalde Geneve(28-31 octobre 1998), Geneva:Droz, pp. 66-96. Courtney, Cecil (2009), 'Morals and Manners in Montesquieu'sAnalysis of the British System of Liberty', in RebeccaKingston (2009), pp. 31-48. Courtois, Jean-Patrice(1997), 'Des voix dans la traite. De l'esclavagedes negresa la tres humble remonstrance',RevueMontesquieu,1 (1997), pp. 7-23. Courtois, Jean-Patrice(1999), Inflexions de la rationalite dans L'Esprit des lois, Paris: Presses universitairesde France. Cox, Iris. ( 1983), Montesquieuand the History ofFrench Laws, Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation. Cox, Iris (2001), 'Montesquieuand the History of Laws,' in Carrithers,Mosher and Rahe (2001), pp. 409-30. Cranston,Maurice.(1986), 'Montesquieu',in PhilosophersandPamphleteers:Political Theoristsofthe Enlightenment,Oxford: Oxford Universty Press,pp. 9-35. Craiutu, Aurelian (2007), Liberalism under Siege. The Political Thought of the French Doctrinaires, Lanham,MD: Rowman& Littlefield. Davis, David Brion ( 1988; orig. 1967), The Problem of Slavery in WesternCulture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derathe,Robert( 1955), 'Montesquieuet Jean-Jacques Rousseau',Revueinternationalede philosophie, 9, pp. 366-86. Desserud,Donald. ( 1991), 'Virtue, Commerceandthe "Tale of the Troglodytes":Montesquieu'sPersian Letters', History of Political Thought, 12, pp. 605-26. Desserud,Donald ( 1999), 'Commerceand Political Participationin Montesquieu'sLetter to Domville', History ofEuropeanIdeas, 25, pp. 135-51. Dimhoff, Paul ( 1952), 'Ciceron, Hobbes, et Montesquieu',Anna/esuniversitatis savariensis(1952), pp. 19-47. Egret, Jean(1970), Louis XV et! 'opposition parlementaire,1715-1774,Paris:Armand Colin. Ehrard, Jean(1965), Politique de Montesquieu,Paris:Armand Colin. Ehrard, Jean ( 1998), L 'Esprit des mots. Montesquieuen lui-memeet parmi !es siens,Geneva:Droz. Ehrard, Jean(2008), Lumiereset esclavage:L 'esclavagecolonial et I 'opinion publique en France au XVJJie siecle,Paris:Andre Versaille. Ehrlich, Eugen(1916), 'Montesquieuand SociologicalJurisprudence',Harvard Law Review,29, pp. 582-600. Ellis, Harold ( 1988),Boulainvilliers andthe French Monarchy. Aristocratic Politics in Early EighteenthCentury France. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press. Ellis, Harold (1989), 'Montesquieu'sModernPolitics: The Spirit ofthe Laws andthe Problemof Modern Monarchy in Old RegimeFrance',History ofPolitical Thought, 10, pp. 665-700. Faguet, Emile ( 1981; orig. 1902), La Politique comparee de Montesquieu,Rousseau,et Voltaire, Geneva:SlatkineReprints.

xxxvi

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Fletcher,F.T.H. (1939), Montesquieuand English Politics, 1750-1800,London: EdwardArnold. Fontana, Biancameria (ed.) (1988), The Political Writings of Constant, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford, Franklin (1953), Robe and Sword. The Regroupingof the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. Furet, Fran9ois and Mona Ozouf ( 1979), 'Deux legitimations historiques de la societe fran9aise au XVITie siecle', in Annales: Economies,Societes,Civilisations 34, pp. 438-50. Galliani, Renato (1981), 'La Fortune de Montesquieuen 1789: Un sondage',in Renato Galliani and FrancisLoirette (eds),Etudessur Montesquieu,Paris: Lettresmodernes,pp. 31-61. Goldzink, Jean(2001), Montesquieuet !es passions,Paris: Pressesuniversitairesde France. Goulemot,Jean-Marie(1966), 'Montesquieu;du suicide legitime al'apologie du suicide heroique',in Gilbert Rommeet son temps.Clermont-Ferrand:De Bussac,pp. 307-18. Goyard-Fabre,Simone(1973), Montesquieu:la nature, les lois, la liberte, Paris, Pressesuniversitaires de France. Gurvitch, Georges(1939), 'La sociologie juridique de Montesquieu',Revue de metaphysiqueet de morale, 46, pp. 611-26. Halevi, Ran (2003), 'The Illusion of"Honor": Nobility and MonarchicalConstructionin the Eighteenth Century', in RobertM. Schwartzand RobertA. Schneider(eds), Tocquevilleand Beyond.Essayson the Old Regimein Honor ofDavid D. Bien, Newark: University of DelawarePress. Hall, John A. (1995), 'In Searchof Civil Society', in J.A. Hall (ed.), Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison,Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. Hampson,Norman(1983), 'Montesquieu,Rousseauand the FrenchRevolution', in J.P. Hardy and J.C. Eade (eds), Studiesin the EighteenthCentury. Paperspresentedat the Fifth David Nichol Smith Memorial Seminar,Canberra 1980, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 89-102. Hardy, JamesD. ( 1967),JudicialPolitics in the Old Regime:The ParlementofParis during the Regency, Baton Rouge:LA: LouisianaStateUniversity Press. Hirschman,Albert ( 1977), The Passionsand the Interests.Political Argumentsfor Capitalism beforeIts Triumph, Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Hont, Istvan (2005), Jealousyof Trade. International Competitionand the Nation-Statein Historical Perspective,Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Hulliung, Mark (1977), Montesquieuand the Old Regime,Berkeley: University of California Press. Hundert, E.J (1990), 'Sexual Politics and the Allegory ofldentity in Montesquieu'sPersian Letters', The EighteenthCentury,31, pp. 101-15. Jameson,Russell(1911), Montesquieuet l 'esclavage,Paris: Hachette. Jones,JamesF. Jr. (1978), 'Montesquieuand JeffersonRevisited: Aspectsof a Legacy,' The French Review,51, pp. 577-85. Jones,RobertAlun( 1994),'AmbivalentCartesians:Durkheim,Montesquieu,andMethod', TheAmerican Journal ofSociology,100, pp. 1-39. Kaiser,ThomasE. ( 1989), 'TheAbbeDubosandthe Historical Defenceof Monarchyin Early EighteenthCentury France',Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury,267, pp. 77-102. Kaiser, ThomasE. (1991), 'Money, Despotism,andPublic Opinion in Early Eighteenth-CenturyFrance: John Law and the Debateon Royal Credit', Journal of Modern History, 63, pp. 1-28. Kaiser, ThomasE. (2000), 'The Evil Empire?The Debateon Turkish Despotismin Eighteenth-Century FrenchPolitical Culture', The Journal of Modern History, 72, pp. 6-34. Kessler, Sanford (1983), 'Religion and Liberalism in Montesquieu'sPersian Letters', Polity, 15, pp. 380-96. Kingston, Rebecca( 1996),Montesquieuand the ParlementofBordeaux,Geneva:Droz. Kingston, Rebecca(2001), 'Montesquieuon Religion and on the Questionof Toleration',in Carrithers, Mosherand Rahe(2001), pp. 375-408.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxxvii

Kingston, Rebecca(ed.) (2009), Montesquieuand His Legacy,Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press. Kra, Pauline(1970), 'Religion in Montesquieu'sLettrespersanes',Studieson Voltaire andthe Eighteenth Century, 72, pp. 11-224. Krause,Sharon(2000), 'The Spirit of SeparatePowersin Montesquieu',The ReviewofPolitics, 62, pp. 231-66. Krause,Sharon(2001), 'Despotismin The Spirit of Laws', in Carrithers,Mosherand Rahe(2001), pp. 159-230. Krause,Sharon(2002a),'The UncertainInevitability of Decline in Montesquieu',Political Theory, 30, pp. 702-27. Krause,Sharon(2002b),Liberalism with Honor, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. Krause,Sharon(2006), 'Laws, Passion,andtheAttractionsof Right Action in Montesquieu',Philosophy andSocial Criticism, 32, pp. 211-30. Kriesel, Karl Marcus(1968),'Montesquieu:PossibilisticPolitical Geographer',Annalsofthe Association ofAmericanGeographers,58, pp. 557-74. Larrere, Catherine(1995), 'Montesquieuet l'idee de federation',in Alberto Partigiola (ed.) L'Europe de Montesquieu.Actes du Colloque de Genes,Naples: Liguori, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 137-52. Larrere, Catherine( 1996), 'Droit de punir et qualification des crimes de MontesquieuaBeccaria',in Michel Porret(ed.), Beccariaet la culturejuridique des lumieres. Etudeshistoriques,Geneva:Droz, pp. 89-108. Larrere, Catherine( l 999a), 'Le stoicismedans les reuvresde jeunessede Montesquieu',in Catherine Volpilhac-Auger(ed.) Montesquieu,Les anneesdeformation (1689-1720),Naples:Liguori, Oxford: Voltaire Foundation,pp. 163-83. Larrere, Catherine(1999b), Actualite de Montesquieu,Paris: Pressesde la Fondation nationale des sciencespolitiques. Larrere, Catherine(2001), 'Montesquieuon Economicsand Commerce',in Carrithers, Mosher and Rahe(2001), pp. 335-74. Larrere, Catherine (2009), 'Montesquieuand Liberalism: The Question of Pluralism', in Kingston (2009), pp. 279-301. Laszalo,Peter(1995), 'Montesquieu'sParadoxon Freedomand Hungary'sConstitutions1790-1990', History ofPolitical Thought, 16, pp. 77-104. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel( 1996; orig. 1991), The Ancien Regime.A History of France 1610-1774, Oxford: Blackwell. Levy, JacobT. (2009), 'Montesquieu'sConstitutionalLegacies',in Kingston (2009), pp. 115-37. Linton, Marisa (2001), The Politics of Virtue in EnlightenmentFrance, New York: Palgrave. Lowenthal,David ( 1959), 'Book I of Montesquieu'sThe Spirit ofthe Laws', AmericanPolitical Science Review,53, pp. 485-98. Lukowski, Jerzy (1994), 'RecastingUtopia: Montesquieu,Rousseau,and the Polish Constitution of 3 May, 1791', The Historical Journal, 37, pp. 65-87. Lynch, Andrew J (1977), 'Montesquieuand the EcclesiasticalCritics of L'Esprit des Lois', Journal of the History ofIdeas, 38, pp. 487-500. Manent, Pierre ( 1994), An Intellectual History of Liberalism, trans. RebeccaBalinski, Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Manent, Pierre( 1998; orig. 1994), The City of Man, Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Manin, Bernard( 1985), 'Montesquieuet la politique moderne',Cahiers de philosophiepolitique, 2-3, pp. 197-229. Manin, Bernard(1989), 'Montesquieu',in Fran9oisFuret and Mona Ozouf(eds),A Critical Dictionary ofthe French Revolution,Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,pp. 728-41.

xxxviii

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Manin, Bernard (2001), 'Montesquieu, la republique et le commerce', Archives europeennesde sociologie,42, pp. 573-602. Mason, Sheila( 1975), Montesquieu'sIdea ofJustice,The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff Mason, Sheila( 1995), 'Les heritiersecossaisde Montesquieu:continuited' inspirationet metamorphose de valeurs',in Louis Desgraves( ed.), La Fortune de Montesquieu.MontesquieuEcrivain, Bordeaux: Bibliothequemunicipale,pp. 143-54. Mason, Sheila( 1996), 'Montesquieu'sVision of Europeand Its EuropeanContext',Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury,341, pp. 61-87. Mathiez, Albert ( 1930), 'La place de Montesquieudans l'histoire des doctrinespolitiques du XVITie siecle',Annaleshistoriquesde la revolutionfranr;aise, 7, pp. 97-112. Meinecke,Friedrich (1972; orig. 1959), Historism. The Rise of a New Historical Outlook, New York: Herderand Herder. Mercier, Roger (1953), 'La theorie du climat des ''Reflexions critiques" a L'Esprit des lois', Revue d'histoire litteraire de la France 53, pp. 7-37, 159-74. Merry, Henry J. (1970), Montesquieu'sSystemof Natural Government.West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Mosher,Michael ( 1984), 'The Particularsof a UniversalPolitics: Hegel'sAdaptationof Montesquieu's Typology', AmericanPolitical ScienceReview,78, pp. 179-88. Mosher, Michael ( 1994), 'The JudgmentalGaze of EuropeanWomen: Gender, Sexuality, and the Critique of RepublicanRule', Political Theory, 22, pp. 25-44. Mosher, Michael (2001), 'Monarchy'sParadox:Honor in the Face of SovereignPower' in Carrithers, Mosherand Rahe(2001), pp. 159-230. Mosher, Michael (2005-06), 'Three Cartesian Heroes and Five Good Enough Empires', Revue Montesquieu,8, pp. 81-110. Mosher Michael (2009), 'What MontesquieuTaught: ''PerfectionDoes Not Concern Men or Things Universally"', in Kingston (2009), pp. 7-28. Muller, JamesW. (2002), 'The Political EconomyofRepublicanism', in Carrithersand Coleman (2002), pp. 1-34. Oake, Roger B. ( 1955), 'Montesquieu'sAnalysis of RomanHistory', Journal of the History ofIdeas, 16, pp. 44-59. Palmer, Robert R. ( 1959), The Age of the Democratic Revolution.A Political History of Europe and America 1760-1800,Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Pangle,Thomas( 1970), Montesquieu'sPhilosophyof Liberalism. A Commentaryon The Spirit of the Laws, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Pappas,John (1957), 'Berthier'sJournal de Trevoux and the Philosophes',Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury,3, pp. 65-84. Planty-Bonjour, Guy (1974), 'L'Esprit general d'une nation selon Montesqueiu et le ''Volksgeist" hegelien',in J. D'Hont (ed.), Hegel et le siecle des lumieres,Paris: Pressesuniversitairesde France. Pocock, J.G.A. (1975), The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Tradition, Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Postigliola, Alberto (1976), 'Sur quelques interpretations de la "separation des pouvoirs" chez Montesquieu',Studieson Voltaire and the EighteenthCentury, 154, pp. 759-75. Price, E.H. (1947), 'Montesquieu'sHistorical Conceptionof the FundamentalLaw', RomanicReview, 38, pp. 234-42. Rahe,Paul (2001), 'Formsof Government:Structure,Principle, Object, andAim', in Carrithers,Mosher and Rahe(2001), pp. 69-108. Rahe, Paul (2005), 'The Book that Never Was: Montesquieu'sConsiderationson the Romans in Historical Context',History ofPolitical Thought,26, pp. 43-89.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xxxix

Rahe,Paul (2008), 'The EnlightenmentIndicted: Rousseau'sResponseto Montesquieu',The Journal ofthe Historical Society,28, pp. 273-302. Rahe,Paul (2009a),Montesquieuand the Logic ofLiberty: War, Religion, Commerce,Climate, Terrain, Technology,UneasinessofMind, the Spirit ofPolitical Vigilance, and the Foundationsofthe Modern Republic,New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rahe,Paul (2009b), Soft Despotism,Democracy'sDrift: Montesquieu,Rousseau,Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect,New Haven,CT: Yale University Press. Resnick,Philip ( 1987), 'MontesquieuRevisited,or the Mixed Constitutionandthe Separationof Powers in Canada',CanadianJournal ofPolitical Science,20, pp. 97-115. Retat, Pierre ( 1973), 'De Mandeville aMontesquieu:honneur,luxe et depensenoble dansL 'Esprit des lois', Studi Francesi, 50, pp. 238-49. Richter,Melvin ( 1969), 'ComparativePolitical Analysis in MontesquieuandTocqueville',Comparative Politics, 1, pp. 129-60. Richter, Melvin ( 1970), 'The Uses of Theory: Tocqueville'sAdaptation of Montesquieu',in Melvin Richter (ed.), Essaysin Theoryand History, Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Richter, Melvin (1973), 'Despotism',in Philip P. Wiener (ed.), Dictionary ofthe History ofIdeas, Vol. II, New York: Scribner's,pp. 1-18. Richter, Melvin ( 1977), 'Introduction,'in The Political Theory ofMontesquieu.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,pp. 3-109. Richter, Melvin (2006), 'The Comparative Study of Regimes and Societies', in Mark Goldie and RobertWolder (eds), The CambridgeHistory of Eighteenth-CenturyPolitical Thought, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Robin, Corey (2000), 'Reflections on Fear: Montesquieuin Retrieval', American Political Science Review,94, pp. 347-60. Rosso,JeannetteGeffriaud (1977), Montesquieuet lafemininite, Pisa: Goliardica. Rothkrug, Lionel ( 1965), Opposition to Louis XIV The Political and Social Origins of the French Enlightenment,Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Russo, Elena (2002), 'The Youth of Moral Life: The Virtue of the Ancients from Montesquieuto Nietzsche',in Carrithersand Coleman(2002), pp. 101-24. Schaub,Diana (1995), Erotic Liberalism. Women and Revolution in Montesquieu'sPersianLetters, Lanham,MD: Rowman& Littlefield. Schaub,Diana ( 1996), 'Montesquieuon 'The Woman Problem"', in PamelaG. Jensen(ed.), Finding a New Feminism. Rethinkingthe WomanQuestionfor Liberal Democracy,Lanham,MD: Rowman& Littlefield. Schaub,Diana (2002), 'The Regime and Montesquieu'sPrinciples of Education', in Carrithers and Coleman(2002), pp. 77-100. Schaub,Diana(2005), 'Montesquieuand Slavery',Perspectiveson Political Science,34, pp. 70-78. Seligman,Adam ( 1995), The Idea ofCivil Society,Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Shackleton,Robert( 1949), 'Montesquieuin 1948', French Studies,3, pp. 299-323. Shackleton,Robert (1955), 'The Evolution of Montesquieu'sTheory of Climate',Revueinternationale de philosophie,33-34, pp. 317-29. Shackleton,Robert(1961), Montesquieu.A Critical Biography,Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shackleton,Robert (1964), 'Montesquieuand Machiavelli: A Reappraisal',Comparative Literature Studies,1, pp. 1-13. Shackleton,Robert( 1988;orig. 1965), 'Asia as Seenby the FrenchEnlightenment',in David Gilson and Martin Smith (eds),Essayson Montesquieuand on the Enlightenment,Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, pp. 231-41.

xl

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Shackleton,Robert(1988; orig. 1956), 'La religion de Montesquieu',in Robert Shackleton,Essayson Montesquieuand on the Enlightenment,ed. David Gilson and Martin Smith, Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation,pp. 109-16. Shklar, JudithN. ( 1987), Montesquieu,Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shklar, Judith N. (1990), 'Montesquieuand the New Republicanism',in GiselaBock, QuentinSkinner and Maurizio Viroli (eds),Machiavelli and Republicanism,New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. Smith Jay M. (2005), Nobility Reimagined.The Patriotic Nation in Eighteenth-CenturyFrance, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sonenscher,Michael (2007), Beforethe Deluge. Public Debt, Inequality, and the Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution,Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. Sorokin,Pitirim (1964), ContemporarySociologicalTheoriesthrough the First Quarter ofthe Twentieth Century,New York: Harper& Row. Spector,Celine ( 1997), Montesquieu,!es 'Lettres persanes'. De l 'anthropologie a la politique, Paris: PressesUniversitairesde France. Spector,Celine (2002), 'Vices prives, vertus publiques;de la Fable des abeilles aDe! 'esprit des lois', in Carrithersand Coleman(2002), pp. 127-58. Spector,Celine (2004), Montesquieu:Pouvoirs, richesseset societes,Paris: Pressesuniversitairesde France. Spector, Celine and Thierry Hoguet (eds) (2004), Lectures de L'Esprit des lois, Bordeaux: Presses Universitairesde Bordeaux. Spector,Celine (2006), Montesquieuet! 'emergencede l 'economiepolitique, Paris: Honore Champion. Spector,Celine (2009), 'Honor, Interest,Virtue: The Affective Foundationsof the Political in The Spirit ofLaws', in Kingston (2009), pp. 49-79. Spurlin, Paul (1940), Montesquieuin America, 1760-1801,Baton Rouge: LouisianaState University Press. Stark, Werner ( 1960), Montesquieu: Pioneer of the Sociology of Knowledge,Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Stone, Bailey ( 1981), The Parlementof Paris, 1774-1789, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Sullivan, Vicki (2006), 'Againstthe Despotismof a Republic: Montesquieu'sCorrectionof Machiavelli in the Name of the Securityof the Individual', History ofPolitical Thought,27, pp. 263-89. Taylor, Charles( 1991), 'Civil Society in the WesternTradition,' in Ethel Groffier and Michel Paradis (eds), The Notion of Toleranceand Human Rights: Essaysin Honor ofRaymondKlibansky,Toronto: CarletonUniversity Press,pp. 117-34. Tocqueville, Alexis de ( 1998), The Old Regimeand the Revolution ( 1856), ed. Frarn;ois Furet and Frarn;oiseMelonio and trans.Alan S. Kahan, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Todorov, Tzvetan( 1983), 'Droit natureI et forme de gouvernementdansL 'esprit des lois', Esprit, 3, pp. 35-48. Todorov, Tzvetan(1993), On Human Diversity. Nationalism, Racism,and Exoticismin French Thought, Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press. Van Kley, Dale ( 1996), The Religious Origins of the French Revolution. From Calvin to the Civil Constitution, 1560-179,New Haven: Yale University Press. Vasonyi,Nicholas( 1999),'Montesquieu,Freidrich Carl von Moser, and the "National Spirit Debate"in Germany,1765-1767',GermanStudiesReview,22, pp. 225-46. Venturi, Franco(1963), 'Oriental Despotism',Journal ofthe History ofIdeas, 24, pp. 133-42. Verniere,Paul (1977), Montesquieuet L'Esprit des lois ou la raison impure, Paris: CDU-SEDES. Volpilhac-Auger, Catherine(1985), Tacite et Montesquieu,Oxford: Voltaire Foundation. Volpilhac-Auger, Catherine(2003), Montesquieu.Memoire de la critique, Paris: Pressesuniversitaires de la Sorbonne.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

xli

Volpilhac-Auger,Catherine(2009), 'On the ProperUse of the Stick: The Spirit ofLaws and the Chinese Empire', in Kingston (2009), pp. 81-95. Waddicor, Mark ( 1970), Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Warner, Stuart D. (2006), 'Montesquieu'sPrelude:An Interpretationof Book I of The Spirit ofLaws', in SvetozarMinkov and StephaneDouard(eds),EnlighteningRevolutions:Essaysin Honor ofRalph Lerner, Lanham,MD: Lexington Books. Watts-Miller, William (1993), 'Durkheim's Montesquieu',The British Journal of Sociology, 44, pp. 693-712. Whelan, Frederick G. (200I), 'Oriental Despotism:Anquetil-Duperron'sResponseto Montesquieu', History ofPolitical Thought,22, pp. 619-47. Young, David (1975), 'LibertarianDemography.Montesquieu'sEssayon Depopulationin the Lettres persanes',Journal ofthe History ofIdeas, 36, pp. 669-82. Zuckert, Michael (2001), 'Natural Law, Natural Rights, and ClassicalLiberalism: On Montesquieu's Critique of Hobbes',Social Philosophyand Policy, 18, pp. 227-51.

Part I The PersianLetters

[1] Personality and Politics m the

Persian Letters

OREST RANUM The JohnsHopkins University The making of a social critic is a very complex matter. Not genius alone or literary ability, but obviously certain kinds of frustrations, anger, and failure to adapt to society drive individuals in some instances to try to understandtheir own life history. In this reflective processthe analysis of society plays a major role, and the potential critic may assert that it was society's fault, not his, which caused their failure to come together. The rejection of society for the non-activist critic then may culminatein literary activity. Montesquieu'sfailure to adapt well to his society began very early and while he was still part of his family. As a member of a noble household with aristocratic pretensionsand prestige emanating from the judicial offices of his father, Montesquieu never perceived distinct lines or limits between the behavior of the individual, the role of the family, and the entire society of the ancien regime. If the Abbe de Guasco, one of Montesquieu'sclosest friends in later life, can be trustedas a faithful recorderof the philosophe's conversations,at least one bit of evidence survives about the psychicdevelopmentof the author of the Persian Letters. He has said to some friends that if he were going to publish those letters now, he would omit those in which the fire of youth had got the better of him, being obliged as he was, by his father, to spend

4

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 607

the entire day on the Code, after which he found himself so wrought up by evening that in order to amusehimself he began to composea Persianletter, which flowed from his penwithout effort.1

There are other kinds of evidenceabout his early life. We know when and where he went to college, who his teacherswere, and what the rank of his family was in society, but save this recollection there is nothing intimate and self-revealing.2 The childhood, adolescence,and early adult life of Montesquieuare almost completely unknown. With so little evidenceit is impossible for a historian to apply the techniquesof analysis developedby psychiatry. The history of the anxieties or the developmentof the "identity crisis" which causedthis son of a parlementaire to reject the practice of law and to abandonhigh office in Bordeaux cannot be written.3 But this recollection is a clue, an extremely valuable clue, to what Montesquieu'spsychic developmentmust havebeen. In his PenseesMontesquieuwrote: "as far as my job of president went, I had an upright heart, I understoodthe questionsas such; but as for the procedure, I did not comprehend it at all. I did apply myself, too, but what disgusted me the most, was that I saw stupid men with the talent which escapedme. . . ." 4 1 0. Guasco, Lettres Familieres (Paris, 1767), 176. At best Montesquieu recalled this aspectof his early life thirty years after the events themselveshad taken place. To my knowledge this well-known quotation has never been used to shed light on the personaldevelopmentof the philosophe. It is well known to those scholars interested in the problem of dating the writing of the Persian Letters. For a suggestive interpretation of the Letters as autobiography, see S. Cotta, Montesquieue la scienza della societii. (Turin, 1952), 111££. That Montesquieu might have made the remark to Guasco is beyond doubt. Guasco may have forged some letters to enable him to include Montesquieuas an ally in his attack on Madame Geoffrin, but is there any reason to suspect that he fabricated anecdotesabout his friend's early life? Moreover, Montesquieuwrote Guasco in 1752 that in making a new edition of the Letters there were "quelques juvenilia que je voudrais auparavant retoucher. . . ." Montesquieu,Oeuvres Completes (Nagel ed.; Paris, 1950- ), JI, Correspondance,1441. 2 R. Shackleton,Montesquieu (Oxford, 1961), passim. J. Starobinski, Montesquieupar lui meme(Paris, 1961), passim. • My inspiration here is Erik Erikson, Young Man Luther (New York, 1958), passim. • Montesquieu, Oeuvres Completes (Pleiade Series; Paris, 1956-58), I, Pensees,977. Also, whether or not Montesquieu seemedtimid to others, he seems always to have felt very timid and insecure in conversation. 'Tay

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

608

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

Though written about a period several years later than the years in which he worked on the Code, this thought confirms the frustration expressedin the first recollection. The Code, with its emphasison principles, and the Parlement,bound as it was by interminableproceduresand rituals, causedhim frustration despite his efforts to apply himself. Owing to the lack of this sort of evidence our only alternative is to attempt to supplementthese glimpsesinto Montesquieu'searly life by making inferencesfrom his early works, and by analyzing his thought in the context of the political and social climate of Francein the Regencyof Louis

xv. 5

It is tempting to assertthat Montesquieudevelopedas he did as much becauseof the intense crisis which France experiencedimmediately after the death of Louis XIV as from a conflict with his father. The Persian Letters, as will be shown, were directly stimulatedby day-to-dayhappeningsin Paris which Montesquieu followed with almost a fixation and sense of despair. Without this intensereligious and political conflict after 1.71.5 Montesquieu might never have outgrown his provincialism, or developedfrom a local somebodyand amateurscientistinto a leading light of the eighteenthcentury. But the one recollection of an adolescentobedient to his father, yet resentful and frustrated with the study and practice of law, serves to temper any biographical analysis based solely on external conditions affecting his development. Montesquieugrew discontentedwith the heritagewhich his father attempted to force on him; the crisis of the Regency did the rest. toujours eu une timidite qui a souvent fait paroitre de l'embaras dans mes reponses. J'ai pourtant senti que je n'etois jamais si embarasseavec les gens d'esprit qu'avec les sots. Je m'embarrassoisparce que je me croyois embarasse,et que je me sentois honteux qu'ils pussent prendre sur moi l' avantage."Ibid., 979. • J. Dedieu, Montesquieu et la Tradition Politique Anglaise (Paris, 1909), does this for the social and political thought of the period, but a systematic analysis of the allusions to contemporarypolitical E!vents in Montesquieu's works is still to be done. F. Neumann'sintroduction to the Spirit of the Laws (New York, 1949) is brilliantly suggestiveof what couldbe done.

5

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

6

THE

PersianLetters I 609

ThoughMontesquieucameto rejecthis noblessede robe heritage, he remained bound and enthralled by it throughout his life. He studied physical sciences,he read Hume, Spinoza, Hobbes, Newton, and Locke; he gained entry into bright salons, academies, and finally the French Academy. But his mind remained the same: captured by the law. The striking thing about Montesquieu's thought is its continuity.6 The principles, the forms, and the assumptionsremained the same in his mind from the beginning to the end of his life. This was partly becausethey were broad, inclusive categorieswhich could be stated in the form of a maxim. Indeed, what appearsas maxim in the Persian Letters becomeslaws of sociology in the Spirit of the Laws, as Montesquieu expandedeach maxim, refined it, and supplied historical and later anthro-geographicalevidence to illustrate the force of suchlaws in societieseither deador living. By laws Montesquieumeant not only codes and other legislation either ancient or contemporary.His concern, indeed his passion, was to go beneath these to discover the reasons for their acceptanceor rejection as laws. In discovering these reasonshe found the relationships between morals, laws, and the classic forms of government. This reflective, deductive process of discovering relationshipsand analogiestypifies what J. G. A. Pocock calls the "common-law mind."7 By this term Pocock means the presence of assumptions, usually vaguely formulated political thought, the forms of governmentsuch as monarchy, aristocracy, and republic which, when supported by historical evidence, become a forceful ideology for changeand revolution. Pocock traces the evolution of the "common-law mind" in English political thought, and demonstrateshow it developedinto the Whig interpretationof history, and finally into historicism. There is much in Montesquieuwhich is akin to the thinking of Sir Edward Coke, chief justice of England in the reign of James I, and of his followers who, in the Great Rebellion and the 6 This is not to imply that Montesquieu never changed his mind. His definitions of monarchy and republics, for example, changed after he traveled about Europe, but this was more of a refinement than a break with the views he had held whenwriting the Persian Letters.SeeDedieu,1.37. 7 The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge, 1957), Chaps.

II, III.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

610

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

Glorious Revolution, developedsemi-historical,semi-mythical notions of the English constitution.8 For Coke and the Whigs of the late seventeenthcentury, English law was something handed down from "time immemorial," as custom. From this they proved to their satisfaction that both the Parliament and the Anglican Church were older than the Monarchy, more lawfully constituted, and therefore not the creationsof kings or the inferiors of royal courts. Scholarshave not sought to discover whether a parallel Whiggish tradition existed in France; but the French parlementaires and their heirs, the supportersof the these nobiliaire in the eighteenth century, may have shared certain Whiggish assumptions about the past with their English counterparts.From the great jurists of the sixteenth century, who were very interested in the Frankish constitution, to Loyseau, Omer Talon, and Joly de Fleury, a Whiggish view may have been formulated to oppose the Monarchy in the judicial Fronde of 1648. If a Whiggish tradition did not in fact develop in France, then it was brought over, as Dedieu suggests,in the late seventeenthcentury.9 Montesquieu's 8 Ibid., 42ff. In a fine new synthesisW. F. Church argues that Montesquieu was more philosophe than jurist; and after excluding him from the jurists Church concludesthat jurists declined as political theorists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. While this conclusion is obviously correct, Church defines the notion of jurist too narrowly and almost too professionally.Might it not be argued that some of the sixteenth-centuryjurists were more humanist than jurist? Not all of the prominent ones kept their chairs in law or their offices in royal courts. This is a false problem. Montesquieu'sthought had a deep affect on the Parlementsand robe generally in part becausethey thought of him as one of their company, just as Diderot did in the passageabout Montesquieu which Church quotes. Secondly, Church touches very lightly on jurists who believed in the myth of the "Ancient Constitution" and almost dismissestheir work as "little more than an effort to rewrite history so as to justify institutional changes that would protect natural rightsrights that were unknown in earlier French law." The importance of Joly de Fleury and Talon remains to be determined,since Church hastily defines the jurists as all supporting divine-right sovereignty and eager to ground French laws on religious principles and Cartesianism.By ignoring jurists who believed in the "Ancient Constitution" or excluding them as philosophes, Church defines the group as more unified or monolithic than they may have been. "The Decline of the French Jurists as Political Theorists, 1660-1789," French Historical Studies,V (1967), 1-40. 9 On this point Dedieu's emphasison the connectionsbetween English and French thought distorts rather than depicts Montesquieu's place in early eighteenth-centurythought.SeeNeumann,xxv ff.

7

8

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 61.1.

thought was from the beginning more like that of the English Whigs than that of the court reformersFenelonand Vauban,whom he admired for their criticisms of Louis XIV. But neither Fenelon nor Vauban were trained in the law, and, furthermore, neither came from Bordeaux,a city with a strong parlementairetradition and English sympathies. The most important predilection of the "common-law mind" was to revere the past, the era of Anglo-Saxonsand Franks, and to fear the future. Judges less bright than Montesquieu shared with Montesquieuthe fear that royal power had developedat the expenseof liberties and that it would pervert or corrupt society. They prophesieddoom. A despotismconstructedon the ashesof broken liberties would, they argued, inevitably result from increasedroyal power.1 0 This predilection toward fear is found in Montesquieu'sletters when he writes about the crisis of the Regency of Louis XV, and about French society. In the Persian Letters Montesquieuis a prophet of doom. Not restricting himself to France alone, Montesquieu made numerous and random reflections about the nature of society and states, and of early, post-RomanEuropean history, which demonstratethis love for the pastand fear of the future. Besidesfearing the future those imbued with the "common-law mind" believed that historical incidents in the remote past determined once and for all, and significantly, the evolution of states,institutions, morals, and personal freedom. Beneath all of Montesquieu'sthought lurks the historicist notion that some incident occurring several thousand years ago might permanently give characterto a society. Like the judge or lawyer with laws and procedures centuries old, Montesquieu considered time in years, decades,or centuriesas of little significance.The precedent, regardlessof its age, was still a precedentwhich could affect the proceedingsof a court and even condemna man to death. Not unlike other historical incidents in the remote past, such as the defeat of a nation in battle, it affected the society for its entire, organiclife. For the Whigs monarchy was thought to have come to Europe unnaturally, as the result of either conquestby foreigners or of 10

SeeC. P. Courtney,Montesquieuand Burke (Oxford, 1963), passim.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu 612

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

stupidity. Montesquieucould not appeal to the Anglo-Saxons,as did Coke, but he came close when he has Rica write: "Properly speaking these tribes [which conqueredEurope] were not barbarian, for they were free. But they have becomebarbariansince the day when, being subjectedfor the most part to an absolute authority, they lost that sweet liberty so in conformity with reason, humanity and nature."11 In the Persian Letters Montesquieu scarcelyventuresan explanationof how the tribes lost their liberty, and how individuals became corrupted by absolutism, but this problem is a theme in the Spirit of the Laws. He does include the Whiggish explanation,however,when Rica writes Rhedi: Who could imagine that the oldest and most powerful kingdom of Europe should have been governed for more than ten centuries by laws not madeby itself? If the Frenchhad beenconquered,this would not be hard to understand.But they are the conquerors!They have abandonedthe ancient laws, made by their first kings in general assemblies of the nation [the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon Parliament] and what is even more amazing is that the Roman laws they took in their place were in part made and in part written down by emperorscontemporarywith their own lawgivers.12

Mystified by what had happened,Montesquieu investigated the history of the Franks until he found an explanation. Franz Neumann'sessaysummarizesMontesquieu'splace in the quarrel over the Frankish constitution, showing that historically Dubaswas correct,and not Montesquieu.13 Coke and his followers, of course, were also incorrect in their interpretation of English history. But on nearly every other count Montesquieu'scareful researchand observationson human nature carried him far beyond the Whiggish and very partisan political quarrels of his heritage. On this crucial question of the origins of monarchy in Francethe "common-lawmind" enjoyeda completetriumph. II

Steepedas he was in legal and classicalhistory, Montesquieuwent far beyond the ordinary predilections of a judge to investigate 11 The J. R. Loy translation of the Persian Letters (New York, 1961), Letter CXXXVI. 12 Letter C. 13 Neumann,xxvi.

9

JO

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 613

the forms of government.In the Persian Letters this interest remainedsecondto his passionateconcernover changingthe course of politics in the Regencyof Louis XV. The forms are there, to be sure, but they remain on the secondplane as a kind of backdrop for the portrayal of a despotic governmentand its overthrow. It was Montesquieu'spurposeto describedespotismin its most violent form so that Frenchmenwould rally round the system of councils establishedby the Regent, the Duke of Orleans, to avoid the rise of an all-powerful minister suchas Richelieuor Louvois. Whether Montesquieuset about doing this deliberately,at least at first, is something we shall never know. But the genre with which he chose to depict despotism as it existed in Asia was something well established in political thought. Book III of Herodotus describedhow the Persianshad come to choose monarchy, and how that monarchyhad becomedespotic in the hands of kings who tried to conquer Greece. In the sixteenth century Parisian judges criticized the despotism of Henry III, accusing him of wanting to set up a Turkish despotismin France.1 4 Now clearly the Turks and the Persianswere not the same,but in the political traditions of the seventeenthand early eighteenth centuries they were thought to have despotism in common. It was believed that all Oriental governmentswere despotic, as Montesquieu had Usbek write to Rhedi: "Since I have been in Europe, my dear Rhedi, I have seen many governments.It is not like Asia, where the rules of politics are always the same."15 At this level the Persian Letters rely on cliche to evoke in the readersan interest which was most certainly there. The encyclopedistssuch as Moreri and Bayle, who were in vogue at the time, insist on the despotic form of government predominant in Asia. But going beyond this traditional mode of expressingopposition to royal authority, Montesquieuinvestigatesthe characteristicsof despotism. The political overtones must have been clear to his contemporaries, however, after he so closely defined the relationships between despotismand other forms of government.Usbek wrote to Ibben that "The anonymousHuguenot author of the France turquie (Paris, 1575) attacks Catherinede Medici for what he claims is her policy to install Turkish, despotic government in France. P. Robiquet, Histoire Municipale de Paris (Paris,1886),II, 105. 111 Letter LXXX.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

61.4

J

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

the majority of the governmentsof Europe are monarchies,or rather, called so, for I am not sure that there have ever been any true ones. At least it is difficult for them to exist very long in a pure state. For monarchy is a violent state, always degeneratinginto despotismor into a republic. Power must always diminish on one side and grow on the other. However, the advantageis usually on the prince's side, for he is the headof the armedforces.1 6

This represents the kernel of Montequieu's political thought. There exist pure forms of stateswhich are never in existencebut, becauseof the passionsof men, are always more or less tending to comeinto existence.In the Persian Letters Montesquieu'sscheme for the forms of government remains strictly classical, whereas in the Spirit of the Laws it actually comes to be a fourth form of government,somethingquite different from Aristotle's notion of despotism as perverted monarchy. But in the Persian Letters the point is clear: the danger of despotism is ever-presentin monarchical states. As A. Crisafulli points out, however, the only completeexpressionof the evolution of statesis almost poetical in the Persian Letters, set as it is in the society of the Troglodytes.17There everything is presentedalmost in the form of a parable.1 8 This small Arabian tribe overthrewits foreign king, then formed a republic which the Troglodytes then proceededto overthrow, only to find themselvesin a complete state of nature. Out of this violence wise men came forth to establisha new society of peaceand bliss. Montesquieucelebratesthe birth of this new Troglodytesocietyby describingit in poetic terms: In the evening, when the flocks had left the plains and the weary oxen had brought the plow home, they would congregate,and over a frugal meal, sing of the injustice and misfortunes of the first Troglodytes, of the rebirth of virtue in a new people, and of its felicity. They would celebrate the grandeur of the gods and their ever-presentfavors to men who turn to them, as well as their inevitable wrath visited upon those who fear them not. Then they would describethe delights of country living and the happinessthat 16 Letter CII. L. Althusser gives a succinct description of Montesquieu's idea of despotismin La Politique et l'Histoire (Paris,1959), 82ff. 17 Letters XI-XIV. See A. Crisafulli, "Montesquieu's Story of the Troglodytes," Publications of the Modern LanguageAssociation,LVIII (1943), 372-92. 18 Letters XI-XIV.

11

12

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 61.5

accompaniesa way of life continually crowned with innocence.Soon they would yield to a slumber never interrupted by cares and worries.1 9 At the end of what may be called a parableon the forms of gov'ernments, a desire to name a king develops in the minds of some of the Troglodytes. The wise men scorn this desire, but they accept it as fate. A monarchy is established,and the cycle is complete from monarchy to monarchy, through despotism,republicanism,a stateof nature,familial society, and finally to monarchy again. To comprehend this parable, and to understand the reasons for the changesin states became Montesquieu'slifelong aim. It would require investigations into the morals, religion, military exploits, and characterof statesmenin each society. In the Persian Letters his intentions were as yet unclear and his aims more immediate. III

Time in a historical sensewas of no consequenceeither to the Whig or to Montesquieu,becausehuman nature was consideredto be unchanging.So far as we know, when Montesquieupublished the Persian Letters in 1.721. he had not yet investigated the effects of climate and ethnic differenceson morals and politics. These researchescame later, not to be developeduntil the Spirit of the Laws. But what is clear is the need to investigatethe links which bind societies together and the forces which cause individuals to conform to the laws of the state. In the despotic state it is the presenceof love in its most intenseforms, adorationand worship, which binds subjectsto their prince, and fear for their lives which makes them expressthis love. On the subject of the relationships betweenthe forms of governmentand the kinds of justice which by nature emanatefrom them, Montesquieuhas Usbek write to Rhedi: If under a gentle government,the nation is as submissiveas under a strict government,then the first is preferable,since it is more in conformity with reasonwhereasseverityis a motive foreign to it. Be assured,my dear Rhedi, that in a state"the degreeof cruelty of 1•

Letter XII.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

61.6 I

POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

punishmentdoes not causepeople to obey the laws more. In countries where punishmentis moderate,the laws are respectedjust as well as in thosewherepunishmentis tyrannousandfrightful. Whether the governmentbe gentle or cruel, punishmentis always meted out by degrees . . . . One's imagination, of its own accord, conforms to the customs of the country where one is: a week of prison or a light fine impressesthe European,brought up under a gentle government, as much as the loss of an arm frightens an Asiatic.... The despair of losing his reputation will literally torment a Frenchmansentencedto the selfsamepunishmentthat would makea Turk losescarcelya quarterhour'ssleep.2 0 For Montesquieu, then, it was the custom, the mental image evoked by a law and a government,rather than the law and the punishmentitself, which best expressedthe characterof a society. This led him to revere ancient customs, if they had not been corrupted to some group's advantage.Thus Montesquieumakes a distinction between the judge, the priest, or the nobleman, as they should ideally behave, and their counterparts, his contemporaries,whom he so often scorned. But none in itself was evil and all were necessary,including the priest, becauseMontesquieu could not envisage a society which was not bound together by some religion, whether civic, or eschatological,or historical. Beneath justice lie the personal relationships which bind the state together.They are the sameas in a family, betweenhusband and wife, brother and sister, comrades in arms, old men and young men. In the Persian Letters Montesquieudiscussesin detail neither virtue nor honor, becausehe was striving to examine all the possiblebasesfor power in the hands of a despot. These bases are fear and love. Franz Neumann has justly pointed out that the Persian Lettersare aboutlove,21 but by also taking fear into account it is possible to go beyond his interpretation to analyze the seraglio as Montesquieu'sdescriptionof despoticgovernment. What is the dynamic principle of the seraglio?Curiously enough it is that the masterexpressesonly love to all his wives, and they in turn must expressonly love and submission to him. But between them are the eunuchs who regulate every minute detail 20 21

Letter LXXX. Neumann,xvii.

13

14

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 61.7

of life in the seraglio. When acting in the master's name they are given enormouspower to punish, and if need be, to murder personswho do not bend to their will. This tension between the overt expression of love which is forced on everyone in the seraglio and the covert mechanismof fear of punishment and death is the dynamic of the society that is the seraglio. But before describing the politics of the seraglio as despotic it is important to recall some of the historical events which occurred while the Persian Letters were being written. For it is through studying the work as political literature that the message of despotismbecomesapparent.Montesquieubelieved that at any moment a coup might occur in the Palais Royal, which, if it took place, would throw Franceinto a despotismas oriental as anything Persiahad ever known.22 Indeed,the messageof the Persian Letters to Frenchmenin :r72:r lay less in the attacks on hypocrisy in French religion and mannersfound in the letters from Paris than in the hystericaland explicit letters from Ispahan. France had been ruled for over fifty years by Louis XIV. This monarch and his ministers had used every .Political, religious, and cultural device to create a monolithic image of the king and his reign in the minds of all Frenchmen,and of many Europeans. Louis XIV's surveillance over the court of Versailles, his ministers, and judges, priests, poets, scientists,and playwrights had never once faltered in those fifty years. Then, finally, when Frenchmenwere perhaps beginning to think that he was immortal he died and left this great machine of state in the hands of a boy. The repercussionwas immediate and intense on every aspect of political and intellectual life. For his political administration, the Regent, in the name of Louis XV, dusted off plans for a group of councils, a polysynodie,to enablethose hungry for power in the state to be organized and effective in the adminis22 Apart from the tone which the Persian Letters conveys, Montesquieuexpressed a bitter disdain for ministers in general. "Les ministres travaillent toujours contre la liberte: ils trai:ssent !es lois, parce qu'elles genent toutes leurs passions.""II n'y a pas parmi nous de si petit ministre, ni de comis a 1,000 ecus d'appointements,qui n'ait plus. d'affaires que Jes grand-vizirs d'Orient, qui sont a la tete de la milice, de la justice et des finances de !'Empire." Pensees,Pleiade,I, 1444. J. Ehrard, Politique de Montesquieu(Paris, 1955), 13£, depicts Montesquieu as somewhatambitious and on the edges of power.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

6:18

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

tration of the state. These councils were composedof the most distinguished persons in the realm: princes of the blood, great nobles, cardinals, and also the ministers of the old king.23 These functionaries,descendingas they had from Colbert and Louvois, had become accustomedto great power. They had networks of friends in every segment of the state from the army, to the church,to the tax administration. To switch from a government by one man who counted on two or three men to execute all his decisions, to a government which placed enormouspower in a group of councils, proved to be impossible. The rush for pensions,the disagreementsover financial and foreign policy, and the rise of provincial officials and Parlements to insubordination if not rebellion made the polysynodie ineffective and unpopular almost from the beginning.2 4 These councillors also had to perform very unpopular tasks, notably the repudiation of much of the royal debt which was held in the form of rentes. Then, owing to France'sinvolvement in a war first with Spain and then with Englandover Spanishcolonies, a quarrel with the Papacy, and a clash of authority with the Parlement, the need for a strong government obliged the Regent to undermine the power of the Councils. The man who helped disgraceprinces and dukes who had been on these councils was Dubois, the son of an apothecaryfrom Brive. The demise of the councils enabled Dubois to rise in power and become a sort of first minister. Orleans' and Dubois' policy of eliminating the polysynodie was gradually instituted and marked by intrigue, violence, and bitter family feuding. The members who thought of themselves as reformers, as the heirs of Fenelon and Boullainvilliers, believed themselvesto have been deceived by the Regent, whom they saw as weak and, as Montesquieuput it, corrupted by Dubois. Montesquieu accused Dubois of having given the Regent Hobbes to read!25 But the councils had their defendersas well. One of the most influential hommes de lettres who came to ~• Dom. H. Leclercq, Histoire de la Regence(Paris, 1921), I, 127ff; Letter CXXXVIII. "'Leclercq, II, 55. "' "C'est l'abbe Dubois qui avoit gate le due d'Orleans et Jui avoit fait lire Hobbes et autreslivres de cette espece."Spicilege, Pleiade, II, 1.3.50.

15

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

16

THE

PersianLetters

61.9

the defense of the polysynodie was Charles Irenee de Castel, Abbe de St. Pierre. He lashed out in a speechon the subject in the French Academy in 1.71.8, after which he was ostracizedfrom that body, and his publisherwas imprisoned.2 6 St. Pierre'sDiscours has survived in a few copies from the second edition published in Amsterdam.It is worth mentioning becauseof the categoriesof governmentwhich St. Pierre discusses. The work is semi-historical,semi-political science,with its whole point being that in a monarchy there can be only four ways of exercizing power: by the monarch himself, by the grand vizirate, by the semi-vizirate, and by governmentby council. He names as Grand Vizirs both the mayors of the palace under the Merovingians, and Richelieu, who ruled as a "first Minister, or as the Turks call it today, Grand Vizir." Having given these definitions St. Pierre goes on to argue how superioris governmentby council over any which dependson power in the hands of ministers. St. Pierre staked his reputation on the defense of the polysynodie and suffered the consequences.He was dismissedfrom the Court and the Academy. Montesquieusaid of him: "the excellent Abbe de St. Pierre,the besthonnetehommethereeverwas."27 An homme de lettres ostracized from the Academy by the pressureof the governmentmight not alone have triggered a desire to attack despotism;but this incident-whencombined with the disgraceof ChancellorDaguesseau,the Duke of Noailles, and many other nobles; a plot to assassinatethe Regent; the betrayal of France's interests by the treasonousand frivolous Duke of Richelieu; the banishment of the Parlement to Pontoise; and finally the rise and fall of John Law, with all the emotional uproar and violence which this entailed-left the reformers despairing and anxious. Montesquieu,following all these incidents, also despaired. IV

The Persian Letters is not only a roman aclef; it is also a roman a calendrier. Robert Shackleton'sdiscovery that Montesquieuac26 A. M. Wilson, French Foreign Policy during the Administration of Cardinal Fleury, 1726-1743 (Cambridge,Mass., 1936), 25£. ""Quoted in Shackleton, Montesquieu,65; Pensees,Pleiade, I, 1295, 1718,

1940.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu 620

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

tually used Moslem calendarsin the dating of the letters makes it possible to infer connectionsbetween incidents in the seraglio of Ispahan with those in the Palais Royal.28 In the letters from Paris the dates never coincide completely, even in such obvious historical referencesas the death of Louis XIV; they are usually off about a month or six weeks.2 9 With this in mind, then, let us look at letter CXL VIII from Usbek to the first eunuch in the seraglio of Ispahan. It is dated the 1.1th of the Moon of Zilhage, 1718. Receive with this letter unlimited power over the entire seraglio. Command with the same authority as myself. May fear and terror walk with you; run from apartmentto apartmentbearing punishment and correction. May the whole seraglio live in consternation. May everyone melt in tears at your approach.Question the whole seraglio; start with the slaves.Do not sparemy love; let everything undergoyour fearsomejurisdiction....30

The date of this letter granting plenary power to the first eunuch is November5, 1718, on the Gregoriancalendar.What had happened in the Palais Royal? The promulgation of the arret which effectively ended governmentby council occurred on September 24, 1718.3 1 Cardinal Dubois was made secretaryof state for foreign affairs, which causedhis friends, enemies,and Dubois himself to believe that he had the power once exercizedby Richelieu and Louvois. The outcry that despotism had been established in France echoed across Europe in the pamphlet literature. It might be possible, with a good knowledge of court politics in the Regency,to find other adaptationsof historical events in the Letters. Despair, both personal and political, became focused in theseLetters,perhapson a day-to-daybasis,over a few months. Again before turning to an analysis of despotismin the work itself it is necessary to mention one more historical incident which undoubtedly influenced Montesquieu'scast of mind. This 28 Shackleton, "The Moslem Chronology of the Lettres Persanes," French Studies,VIII (1954),17-27. 29 If Montesquieuwas as careful in dating as he seems to have been, it is possible that he also allowed time for the actual transport of the letters from Paristo Venice,or to Ispahan. 80 Letter CXL VIII. 31 Leclercq,II, 223.

17

18

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 621

was the disgraceof the Duke de La Force.3 2 This gentleman,who descendedfrom an old, distinguished,Protestantfamily from the region of Bordeaux,had been one of the leading defendersof the polysynodie, and also the principal patron of the Academy of Sciencesat Bordeaux, to which Montesquieuhad been elected in 1716. La Force had not gone down in 1718 with most of the c9uncillors, becausehe had been a fervent supporterof John Law, who was then in favor with the Regent. Then with the collapse and flight of Law in 1720, anti-Law courtiers,officials, tax farmers, and the populace itself went out to purge his friends. Dubois and the Regentwere not above letting men like La Force fall as scapegoats. The discovery in Paris of a warehousefilled with luxury items, spices,chinaware,and cloth took on a special significance; it occurred at precisely the moment of John Law's Bubble and the consequentthreat of revolt.33 The warehouseguard at first refused to name the owner of the merchandise,but when incarcerated he acknowledgedthat it belongedto the intendantof the Duke de La Force. Not even the greatest scandalmongerof the period, Saint Simon, could bring himself to recount the narrative of how La Force was publicly humiliated by being brought before the Parlementand censuredfor the possessionof commercialgoods.34 The judges, after a long trial, nearly decided in favor of derogeance,or loss of his title for having done somethingso base as to engagein trade. La Forcehad beena supporterof the polysynodie,and to seehim fall as the scapegoatfor ministerial despotisminfuriated Montesquieu. Yet he was powerlessto help the duke; even the Parlement of Paris thought a victim was needed. Now one of the leading noblemen in the region suffered humiliation for a cause dear to Montesquieu.After La Force'sflight to EnglandMontesquieukept 82 Henri-Jacques-Nompar de Caumont, due de la Force (1675-1726). For the entire incident, see Leon Lecestre, "Affaire du due de la Force," Revue des QuestionsHistoriques, CIII (1925), 322-60, and Leclercq, III, 310 ff. La Force was somethingof a scapegoatfor the Regent and other aristocratswho, after seeing the great impact on public opinion which Law's failure had caused, joined the judges to humiliate the duke. 88 Lecestre, 325f. The warehousewas part of the monastery of the Grands Augustins. .. Memoires,ed. A. de Boislisle (Paris,1926),XXXVIII, 137.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu 622

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

him informed of events in France and negotiatedthe transfer of some funds which the duke had given for a building to house the Academy of Bordeaux.In fact, owing to the financial transactions over this building, Montesquieu at one point stood to lose ten thousandlivres. He had cosigned a note on this property which had to be forfeited becauseof the financial disorderswhich arose from Law's system.3 5 The question of whether he would have to honor this note was of concern to Montesquieuin the months directly precedingthe publication of the Persian Letters. Montesquieu'sattachmentto La Force ne;er diminished, and it was he who gave the eulogy before the Academy after the duke's death in 1.726. Montesquieu dared openly to defend the man and his actions in the ministry of the Regent,and he likened him to those great men in Greece and Rome who had been humiliated by the state they had sought to serve.3 6 His vision of the French contemporary political scene and his Whiggish presuppositionsjoined to make Montesquieusee despotism as a terrible evil.

v Montesquieudepictedthe seraglio as a society run exclusively for the gratification of one man. It was a place where all other men have been emasculated,castrated,and reduced to groveling for favor. The men of virtue have been crushed or brutalized by fear and physical violence. The wives are all equal, loved and longed for, ignored and unknown, yet unloved and frustrated. They can only sacrifice to and adore the one personwhose favor signifies either life or death; the sex act for them meant satisfaction in the ascetic pleasurederived from the pain of intercourse with a personwho cannotbe loved. That Montesquieu saw sexuality as the basis for all relationships between families, friends, subjects, and citizens becomes clearer when he observed what he thought to be the different Correspondance,Nagel, III, 735, n.b. "M. le due de la Force, plein de zele pour le bien public, fut la dupe de Ia grandeur et de l'etendue de son esprit. II etoit dans le Ministere; et charme d'un plan qui epargnoit tous !es details [Law's], ii y crut de bonne foi. ... Dans ce temps de trouble et de confusion, ii fit une infinite d'actions genereuses,dont le public ne lui a tenu aucun compte. £loge delivered Aug. 25, 1726,Nagel, III, 232. 35

36

19

20

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 623

sexual relationshipsinherent in republican societies, monarchies, 37 This explains his choice of Republican Venice and democracies. for so many of the letters.3 8 In Letter LVII Montesquieu has Usbek write: "The libertines here keep an infinite number of prostitutes and the devout a countless number of dervishes." But he did not criticize the morals of the citizens of St. Mark as a group, at leastnot in the PersianLetters. Then in the late seventeen-twentieshe journeyed to Venice, where he was astoundedto find an extraordinarynumber of prostitutes, or so he thought. Their presenceis a subject for comment on almost every page of his journal from Venice, becausehe began to wonder whether republics were in fact more virtuous 39 Virtue for Montesquieuwas not quite synonthan monarchies. ymous with monogamy; he did, however, think it a sign of a 37 Usbek writes: "The peoples of Europe are not all uniformly subjected to their princes. For example, the impatient temperamentof the English allows their king scarcely any time to consolidate his authority. Submission and obedienceare two virtues they make least of. On this score, they say extraordinary things. According to them, there is only one bond that can produce attachmentin men: gratitude. A husband, a wife, a father, and a son are bound mutually only by the love they have one for the other, or by the benefits they make possible one for the other. These various motives of gratitude are the origin of all kingdoms and all societies." Letter CIV. Miss Pauline Kra argues that Montesquieu is attacking polygamy. "The Invisible Chain of the Lettres Persanes," in T. Hesterman (ed.), Voltaire Studies (Geneva, 1963), XXIII, 9-60. This interpretation is a consequenceof not analyzing the political forms, chiefly despotism, in which Montesquieu discussed marriage and morals. She is on much firmer ground, however, in pointing out the analogy between the harem system and the Catholic religious orders (p. 44). That Usbek defines priests and nuns as eunuchs may be explained by his attempt to find a Persian equivalent for persons having made vows of celibacy. The discussion of celibacy which follows these remarks in Letter CXVII indicates clearly that Usbek understood the religious as not eunuchsin the technicalsense. 88 In the Voyages we discover what a profound impression his visit to Venice made on him. Expecting to discover virtuous, upright citizens in a republic, Montesquieu seems to have found indolence and prostitution. His disappointmentin this city of virtue was deep: "Mes yeux sont tres satisfaits a Venise; mon coeur et mon esprit ne le sont point. Je n'aime pas une ville ou rien n'engage a se rendre aimable ni vertueux. Les plaisirs meme que l'on nous donne, pour suppleer a tout ce qu'on nous ote, commencenta me deplaire. . . ." Ed. A. de Montesquieu (Bordeaux, 1894), I, 41. See also Letter LVII. 39 "Les Jesuites,grand directeurs a Venise. Comme chacun a sa p. . . . ., ils tolerent jusqu'a ce qu'ils puissent persuaderle mariage. . . ." Voyages, I, 68.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

624

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

good, virtuous society. But in the Persian Letters, written before the visit, there was as yet none of this doubt about the morality of republicans.He believedthat the brutalized sexual relationships of the seraglio in Asia were the basis for their despotic governments. And what had Louis XIV done? He had insisted on controlling the marriage plans of his nobles, which Montesquieu could interpret as one more sign of portending despotism.Usbek wrote of the Sun King: "He governswith equal talent his family, his court, and his state. Peoplehave often heard him say that, of all the governmentsin the world, that of the Turks, or that of our august sultan would please him best-so much significance doeshe attachto oriental politics."40 Montesquieumakes his point more explicit by insisting on the difficulties which husbandshave in leading their wives to the marriagebed, for in despoticfamilies and governmentseven physical attraction is destroyed.41 Neumann points out that in the Letters it is only the love between brother and sister, between Aphiridon and Astarte (Letter LXVII), which gives pleasureand which results in the birth of a child, for they are rebels who have escapedthe bonds of an intolerant and despotic society.4 2 Montesquieu connects the presenceof this freedom to the rise of populations in areas which are not despotic43 and concluded that Asian populations were low becauseof the harem, which is based on hate and envy. This same theme is representedin the differences betweenZelis and Roxanne, with the former expressing pleasureat being removed from the clutches of Usbek, who had imprisoned her, and Roxanne, whose faithfulness and love turn out to be only a disguise for the truth that any relationship based on one person'sbeing totally subservientto the other can lead to nothing but despair,rebellion, or suicide. Usbek •• Letter XXXVII. u The bride of a despotic husbandstruggles for months against his efforts to lead her to the marriage bed. Roxanne, in warding off Usbek's efforts to possess her, attempted to immoler or to kill her husband as a sacrifice. Letter XXVI. Montesquieu's choice of the word immoler suggests that he sought to convey the notion that the husband was the source of religious truth in the harem. The completion of marriage signifies total submissionto the despot. Montesquieucontraststhis custom to that of Europeanbrides, and has Usbek admire the relaxed, sophisticated,egalitarian manner of European women. ., Neumann,xviii: Letter LXVII . .. Letter CXII.

21

22

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters I 625

is filled with wonder at the behavior of Europeanwomen, yet he is attracted to them becausethey show independenceand something besidesthe overt submissionwith which Moslem wives hide their despair. VI Beyond the personaland familial basis for politics and sexuality, there remains the problem of how power is to be exercised.The Persian Letters is not only a roman a calendrier, but obviously also a roman a clef, depicting types more than it depicts real personages. As such it resemblesSt. Pierre's critique of the vizirate as he sawit developin the FrenchMonarchy. For Montesquieuthe mullahs are the learned doctors, such as the Sorbonne professors; the dervishes are priests and monks, chiefly the Jesuits;and the pashasare nobles who refuse to engage in trade. These masks are all quite obvious and have frequently beenpointed out. But to my knowledgeno one has pointed out that the eunuchsare the king's ministers, the Richelieus, Louvois, and John Laws, personified as men who have no power or status in their own right, but who exercize enormous power in the name of their lord. Like the ministers the eunuchsare of humble origin-one was a slave from Africa-yet they come to have enormouswealth and power through their service. But they are not really men.4 4 Their only pleasure is to order about the wives-or subjects-becausethey cannot enjoy them or speak with authority to them in a normal fashion. Physical violence damagedthem forever becausethey are incapable of executing the orders of Louis XV or of the Regentin their own names. Montesquieu's theoryof power is that it is impossible to delegate it without risking violence in the state.4 5 It is the eunuchs and the ministers who stand between the ruler and the ruled. The distance from Ispahan to Europe forces Usbek to give orders by letter. The distance from Versailles or the Palais Royal to some remote province also forced the king's ministers to at" In addition to referring several times to the sexual frustrations of the eunuchs,Montesquieuportrays the relations which ministers have with their mistresses as loveless and corrupted. Letter CVII. The implication is that ministers cannot attract women to them on the basis of their personalitiesor manly qualities,but only becausethey havepolitical power andwealth. '"Loy, 294.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

626

I POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY

tempt to impose the king's will by writing letters, using threats, and instituting repression. Finally, it is the eunuchs who keep buying wives for their lord.46 Are they not like provinces, beautiful but so dearly bought by the king's ministers through costly wars?47 Like Fenelon,Montesquieuabhorredexpansionistwars. Usbek and Rica are themselves quite pleasant, engaging, and normal.48 But what is done in their namesis brutal and barbarous. Rica wrote Usbek: "I can't explain how it happensthat there is practically never a prince so wicked as not to have a minister who is even more so."49 Or again, in referenceto Law: "What greater crime is there than the one a minister commits when he corrupts the morals of a whole nation, debasesthe most noble souls, tarnishesthe splendorof high office, obscuresvirtue itself, and confounds the highest birth with universal scorn."50 The only note of pity for the eunuchs in the whole work is soundedwhen the first eunuch writes: "I am never for one moment sure of being in my master'sfavor."51 Like ministers they lived in fear of death or exile. It is clear that Montesquieuplaces the burden of responsibility for corruption in the state and in the seraglioon the rulers themselves. Montesquieuthen derives his denoumentfor the Persian Letters from the inevitable effects of inefficient despoticgovernment. The end is as abrupt as the rebellion which is depicted as the disintegration of a despotic society. Readers who had pondered the parableof the Troglodyteswould know that Usbek was doomed to lose control becauseof his distancefrom the seraglio. "" Letter XCVI. "The right of being the husbandof a pretty wife, which is concededso carefully in Asia, is worn here with ease. Everyone feels readily disposed to seek a diversion wherever he can. A prince consoles himself for the loss of one fortress by taking another." Letter LV. Through literary device Montesquieu identifies the aims of the despot, which are to force all his subjects into submission,including his wife or wives, and to conquerforeign territories. '"Except, of course, that they believe in the submissionof every subject to them. Montesquieumakes this point clear by having Rica give his views on compassion:"I must confess, U sbek, that I have never been able to watch anyone shed tears without being touched. I feel compassionfor the unfortunate, as if they were the only ones who were men; and even the mighty, against whom I find my heart hardenedwhen they are exalted, these I love as soonas they are fallen." Letter CXXVI. •• Letter CXXVII. •• Letter CXL VI. "' Letter IX. '7

23

24

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu THE

PersianLetters

! 627

A society dispossessedof virtue cannot be stable without the ruler's presence,hence rebellions in Asia, princes in hiding, political assassination,and the general violent tenor of life in the seraglio could only end in rebellion.52 Usbek's direct appeal to his 5:i for his eunuchs are quarwives in letter CLIV goes unheeded, reling with each other, and his favorite wife Roxanne, in defiance, commits suicide. The need to shock his countrymen into realizing their danger probably went ungratified in Montesquieu'smind, for few of his readers seem to have interpreted the work as an attack on Dubois. The richness and intensity of the work defeated its immediate purpose,but it becameimmortal. When his old friend Dodart wrote in 1722 that the Grand Vizir had just died, no one needed to explain to Montesquieu that Dubois was dead.5 4 The literary image of Turks and Persianshad become firmly established in his little group of friends. After the Regent's death in 1723 and after the rise of Cardinal Fleury, whom Montesquieu was convinced was not a man to becomea Richelieu, the danger of despotic government diminished in France. Despite this improved political climate Montesquieucontinued to investigate the moral and ideological foundations of the different forms of government, which are, after all, the subjects of his concern in the Spirit of the Laws and most of his otherworks. In conclusion, we have seen that it is not possible to show the psychologicaldevelopmentof Montesquieuthrough an analysis of letters and other documents,or to know the personal origins of his anxieties.It seemsclear neverthelessafter studying the Persian Letters that the political crises and his own adolescentcrisis combined to fix him in his purpose for the rest of his life. The Spirit of the Laws was an outgrowth of the maturing young author of the Persian Letters. He abhorred despotism in all its forms, whether in Ispahan, the realm of political ideology, the Palais Royal, a source of unlimited power which made him despair,or in his father's chateauof La Brede. "'Montesquieu followed closely the rebellions going on in Persia when he was writing the Persian Letters; see Loy, 338 n. 342. It might be possible to discover the adaptation of some of these historical events of violence into incidentsin the Letters. 58 Letter CLIV. 04 Correspondance, Nagel, III, Letter 20, p. 743.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

Reference Price, E.H. (1947), 'Montesquieu'sHistorical Conceptionof the Fundamental Law', RomanceReview,38.

25

[2] THE IDEA OF NATURE IN THE LETTRESPERSANES RonaldGrimsley

As the satirical and 'oriental' aspectsof the Lettres Persaneshave been discussedby nearly all writers on Montesquieu,this article does not deal with problemsof literary techniqueor historical sources,1 but is concernedsolely with the main ideasand fundamentalattitudeof mind dominating the whole work. It has frequently beenpointed out that, as the work develops, the 'philosophical' content seemsto grow in importanceand the readermovesfrom the intrigues of the haremand the absurditiesof Frenchlife to discussionson divorce and suicide and an elaborateargumentabout the decline of world population. My own purposeis not to discuss thesespecific problemsin detail but to try and bring out the basic notions which underlie both the 'philosophical' and satirical aspects. It is evident that any satirical review of contemporarysociety and evena milder mockeryof the generalfoibles of our fellow-men will be largely inspired by a positive faith in 'nature' and 'reason' (vague though theseterms are); for the satirist, by his very function, implies that he is the representativeof the 'normal' and 'natural' viewpoint which refusesto identify itself with the various examplesof human extravagancethat are held up to ridicule. In this capacity, he also appealsto his readersto associatethemselveswith the 'normal' attitude. Although this generally acceptedcriterion may seemvery abnormal to later generations,it is sufficient for the satirist's immediatepurposes if he can persuadehis readersto seein everyday'normality' the gross distortion of a more basic, natural attitude. This constantmovement from the particularto the general,from the individual oddity (whether personalor social) to the realm of the universally human, helps to establish a certain continuity of satirical tradition. Moreover, it is scarcelynecessaryto insist that, by 1721, suchan attitudewas a familiar element of the French classical tradition and even those who knew nothing about Aristotle and his 'golden mean' had laughed often 1 Full bibliographicaldetails of theseaspects arc given in D. C. Cabcen,~ MontesquieuBfbli.r graphy (New York, 1947), alld in the article by Robert Shackleton,'Montesquieuin 1948', Frtndt Stwlin, October1949, pp. 29!rJl,J.

28

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu 294

RONALD GRIMSLEY

enoughwith Moliere to be able to pride themselveson their reasonableness. The convenient,thoughnot original, deviceof making the observers, Rica and Usbek,visitors from the EastenabledMontesquieuto achieve enoughdetachmentfrom the societyof his time to affect deepastonishment at the idiosyncrasiesof French and W estem civilization. This purely literary device was strengthened,as M. Barriere insists,' by the identificationof the Persians'reactionswith thoseof a provincial gentleman who was acquainting himself for the first time with the real meaningof Parisianlife and to whom the provinces,from every point of view, must have seemedcloser to 'nature' than the artificial and corrupt life of the capital. Whatever the precise significance of this point for Montesquieu'sbiography and psychology, the use of the Persiandevice certainly helps to representRica and Usbekas men who stand apart from the phenomenathey are observing and who can, therefore, constantly detach their readersfrom the familiar contemporary scene by imbuing it with an air of novelty and strangeness. The main point is well put by Rica when he says that his countrymen are not given to the 'etablissementssinguliers et bizarres' which bewilder him so much in France,because'nous cherchonstoujours la nature clans nos coutumes simples et clans nos manieres naives' (LXXIII). 1 What for Frenchmenare purely matter-of-factelementsof everydayexperiencebecome,from the 'natural' point of view, supreme examplesof human absurdity. If we limit the idea of nature to this generalattitude of what seems 'reasonable'and 'sensible'to the naturalman, we shall find it too broad to offer anything but a general framework for the whole satire. At various stagesin his work, however, Montesquieudoes give more preciseindicationsof his views concerningNature and a consideration of thesewill help us to de£nehis attitude more precisely. He sometimes uses the term 'nature', not merely to expressa generalcritical principle, but in the more concretesenseof the reality of the physical world. Behind the absurditiesof social life lie the more fundamental human characteristics,and behind man himselflies natureas an everpresentforce which not merely shapesand influenceshumanlife but is impressivein its own right. Let us hastento add that there is no question of consideringour author as a precursorof 'romantic' and sentimental reverie beforethe splendourof the cosmos,but rather as a very saneand ordinary observerwho saw in nature a vast and solid back1 Pierre Barriere: Un grand provincial: Charks-Louisde SwmdaJ,baron de la B,U~ et de Monusquieu, Bordeaux,1946, pp. ,38 ff. • We me the text of the edition of the Ldtres PtrS7.

Charles-Louisde Secondat,Baron de Montesquieu

The Historian To a large extent, then, one may agreewith Comte, Durkheim, and others who ha\'e seen Montesquieu as a methodological holisl. Montesquieudid not helie\'ethat social and political phenomena can be explained simply by reference to individual behavior or to the dispositions of persons. Ewn many of his judgmentswere founded upon the harmony or disharmonyof social structuresand roles, not upon a morality deri\'ing from psychological considerations.In his holism, Montesquieu parted rnmpany with the methodological individualists of the sen·nteenth-and eighteenth-centuryschool of natural law. No doubt he would ha\'e taken issue with 1wen1ie1hcentury championsof methodological indi\'idualism such as Isaiah Berlin. Karl Popper, and J.W.N. WatkinsY Their position would u1terly preclude a social scienceof the son which he was trying to establish. The difficulty with those who have seen Montesquieu quite rnmpkrely as a methodological holist is that they have all 100 often impwed an organicist outlook to him. That is, they have frequently suggestedthat Montesquieubdie\'edthat \'irtually all statementsabout personscan be totally reducedto statementsaboutsocialstructures;that personshaveno reality apartfrom the community;and1ha1psychology, the study of individual consciousnessor beha,·ior, if nor a totally specious discipline. explains \'ery little. 5 H Many nine1een1h-ce1llury critics of the methodologicalindividualism of the natural law JiChool did indeed espousesome form of organicism. Hegel, for instance, vehemently denied that Lhe individual has any mllological standing apart from the community. He insistedon this point particularly when he attackedsocial contract theories.=•9 More germane to the presentsubject, several writers and schools with an organicistoutlook have beeninclined to attributesimilar views to Montesquieu.Comte, who spoke of Montesquieuas a founder of positivesocial science,deniedthat the individual hasany properreality. Further,Comterejectedthe idea Lhat therecould be a positivescienceof psychology;his hinarchyof discipli11