Montesquieu

For his entry in History of Political Philosophy, David Lowenthal summarizes Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, who is often simply called Montesquieu. To begin his essay, Lowenthal notes that while Montesquieu produced many works, he is chiefly remembered for The Spirit of the Laws, a massive 31-book work from which Lowenthal draws on for his discussion of Montesquieu. Lowenthal notes that while many critics of Montesquieu view his work as lacking any sort of overall plan or cohesion, such critics are shortsighted as there is in fact a god deal of cohesion under the surface of The Spirit of the Laws.

Lowenthal begins is essay by discussing book 1, which according to him has two basic goals. These goals are as follows: 1) Comprehend the diversity of human laws and mores and 2) to assist wise governments everywhere. Montesquieu also wants to understand human laws as existing objectively and by necessity, but also wants to break with the Thomist tradition. There are two ways in which Montesquieu attempts to accomplish this. These ways are as follows: 1) By appearing to leave no room for the miraculous, and 2) Depicting a universal based more on sheer, blind necessity than on a governing rationality aimed at good. For Montesquieu, doing this is highly important as there is a need for a new science of human affairs consistent with Cartesian and Newtonian physics. Ultimately this leads Montesquieu to focus on history and elevate its importance as history established the link between theory and practice. This link can be seen in Montesquieu’s conception of political practice, as political practice requires each society to be understood in its particularity in light of its history.  

On the matter of laws, Montesquieu sees laws as arising by people seeking both protection and advantage, which Montesquieu also views in the light of particularity. What the importance of particularity of Montesquieu’s view of laws means is that both Aquinas’ natural law and Locke’s natural right are to be rejected, the quest for the best state is thus relative. From the discussion of laws arise ideas on government. According to Montesquieu, there are three basic forms of government. These forms of government are as follows: 1) the republic, 2) monarchy, and 3) despotism. It should be noted that for Montesquieu, a republic can be either democratic or aristocratic.

In a democratic republic, the people will delegate authority to others to do what they themselves cannot do. It should be noted that by “democracy”, Montesquieu does not merely mean voting as representatives are to be chosen both by lot and by popular vote. Furthermore, democracy is to be grounded in virtue and this virtue is seen as requiring equality. By contrast, an aristocratic republic is defined by the contrast between the governing nobles and the non-governing people. Montesquieu further thinks that the larger the number of nobles, the smaller and poorer will be the non-noble class. This is highly interesting as in a sense this makes democracy the perfection of aristocracy. Monarchy on the other hand is defined by one person governing by fixed laws, a move which requires intermediaries between the king and the people as well as an independent depository or guardian of the laws. Without this, a monarchy cannot be stable. Furthermore, much as democracy is seen as being grounded in virtue, Montesquieu sees monarchy as being grounded in honor. The last form of government to be discussed here is despotism, which Montesquieu seen as one man ruling as he wishes. It is seen as the worst form of government and should only be used if despotism is the only way to avoid what Montesquieu sees as an even greater evil than despotism. That greater evil is anarchy.

Next, Montesquieu turns to a more specific theory of governance. Unlike Locke, Montesquieu combines domestic and foreign policy while also creating an independent judiciary. Furthermore, though the base of legislative power is to be rooted in the duly elected, it is permissible for the nobility to form their own body to protect themselves while the monarch is to have a check on legislative power through the veto. Considering Montesquieu’s views here, it is perhaps not surprising that he greatly admires the English system of governance, and indeed, Montesquieu notes that the English have liberty by law, if not necessarily in practice. Montesquieu further admires England from being able to draw benefit from the vices it allows.

For Montesquieu climate matters greatly in political practice as warmer climates as warmer climates are more likely to encourage sloth and despotism while colder climates are more likely to encourage hard work and democracy, thus demonstrating a further illustration of Montesquieu’s focus on particularity. His unique focus on nature is also displayed in his ideas on natural law as natural law is to be respected because of the good results it produces. Because of this, it should be respected by all, not because it was originally known to people or because it was originally intended on moral grounds. Natural law is based in self-preservation and obligations to the family. The importance of nature in Montesquieu’s thought also leads him to seek to establish liberty in France in accordance with its own particularity, not by overthrowing the monarchy in an attempt to establish liberty.

One of the more interesting aspects of Montesquieu’s theory, particularly as it relates to the development if political philosophy is his ideas on commerce for Montesquieu sees commerce as the driving force in history and praises it for its ability to establish liberty. Commerce brings different types of lives together, thus increasing tolerance, refinement, and new technologies. Though Montesquieu does admit that commerce brings with it vices, he maintains that the best political regimes will be built on these vices, an idea that connects back to his praising of England for its ability to draw benefit from the vices it allows. And indeed, according to Montesquieu, England is the most free because it most honors commerce. On the subject of vices, Montesquieu goes on further to note that as political virtues and political vices are both passions, politics cannot be guided by morality.

On the subject of religion, Montesquieu does note that the Christian conception of perfection is incompatible with the political life. Despite this, he also maintains that Christianity is both true and a great ally in establishing liberty. Following this discussion, Lowenthal hits back on a point his made at the beginning of his essay, that though The Spirit of the Laws may appear at first to be disorientated, at its core it is indeed coherent.