Charles de Montesquieu
Article abstract: Montesquieu’s most lasting contribution was his defense and development of the theory behind separation of powers in government. His work in this area significantly influenced the framers of the United States Constitution. Philosophically, he is best known for positing history as the basis for normative judgment. Before Montesquieu, normative judgment had always been based on nature.
Early Life
Montesquieu’s youth was a strange mixture of luxury and scarcity. His family was of noble heritage, yet his parents wanted him to be sensitive to the needs of the poor. His godfather was a beggar, and his first three years were spent nursing with a peasant family. His mother died when he was seven, which contributed to his shy and withdrawn manner.
At age eleven, Montesquieu was sent to school at Tuilly, where he spent the next five years. The school, which was maintained by the Congregation of the Oratory, provided him with a solid classical education. He was a good student who took a special interest in language. Drawn especially to Latin, Montesquieu acquired a special interest in Stoic philosophy. In 1705, Montesquieu, fulfilling the wish of his uncle, began to study law. Three years later, he received his license and became a legal apprentice in Paris. In 1713, he returned to Bordeaux, in the same year his father died, which forced him to settle down and assume the responsibilities of head of the family.
In 1716, when his uncle died, Montesquieu inherited wealth, land, and office. The office was the presidency of the Parliament of Bordeaux, a chief judgeship in the local court. He worked hard at his legal duties but did not enjoy them. After ten years, he sold his position to pursue his true interests in science, literature, and the more theoretical aspects of law.
Life’s Work
Once he was freed from his judicial responsibilities, Montesquieu moved back to Paris to enjoy the literary fame acquired by publication of his Lettres Persanes (1721; Persian Letters, 1722). The Persian Letters were initially published anonymously and were a fictitious account of two Persians touring Europe. The book focused on the corruption of humanity. The accounts cited in the letters were critical of both French and Parisian society. For this reason, they proved to be a mixed blessing when Montesquieu was identified as the author. The instant fame he received was accompanied by the French court’s displeasure. While Montesquieu considered his comments a reflection on European society at large, the court blocked his initial proposal to the French Academy.
Montesquieu spent the years from 1728 to 1731 traveling in Europe. The last two years of his travels were spent in England; this period greatly influenced his later works. His admiration for the English government made him a favorite at the court of Queen Caroline, which led to his election to the Royal Society. It is believed that this is where he first recognized the virtues of separation of powers. Many commentators on his work note the curiosity of his basing so much on a misreading of the British system of government.
When Montesquieu returned to France, he spent considerably more time at his family estate in La Brède. At this point in his life, he settled into more scholarly pursuits. His next major work was his Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence (Reflections on the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans, 1734). Published in 1734, this work developed his notion of historical causation. This book also set the groundwork for his more famous political writing, De...
(This entire section contains 1986 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
l’éspirit des loix: Ou, Du rapport que les loix doivent avoir avec la constitution de chaque gouvernement, les mouers, le climat, la religion, le commerce, . . . (1748; The Spirit of the Laws, 1750). Montesquieu’s examination of the history of Rome led him to conclude that the strength of the Roman republic could not be sustained by the larger and more authoritarian Roman Empire. At the heart of his argument was his commitment to a free society. Much like Niccolò Machiavelli and William Shakespeare, Montesquieu believed that the tensions and conflicts that characterize free societies are the key to their political stability and strength. According to Montesquieu, tranquil republics are not as free as turbulent and divided ones.
The Spirit of the Laws is Montesquieu’s best-known work. Montesquieu had spent some twenty years on this book. In his preface to The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu indicates that this is at least his most and possibly his only mature work. This book is often criticized for its lack of organization. Yet Montesquieu claimed that there was a method to the work and that he chose to keep the method obscure so that he could present unorthodox views without being punished by church or state. After Montesquieu’s death, Jean le Rond d’Alembert supported this thesis, claiming that the book was designed with two audiences in mind and that the structure of the book allowed Montesquieu to address both audiences at once.
The Spirit of the Laws is certainly one of the most detailed and sweeping examinations of law ever attempted. Montesquieu’s historical approach permitted him to make vast generalizations about human nature and its consequences on society, generalizations that were unheard of in previous works on law. For him, law was the application of human reason, and, therefore, the range of law must parallel the range of human reason. All things are governed by laws, and human laws must be understood in the light of this fact.
Montesquieu’s goal was to establish a social science that would rival the natural sciences; this aim led to his abandonment of spirituality as a basis for human activity. In spirituality’s place, he put history: All human activity was assessed in the light of historical studies. According to Montesquieu, history was the only key that could unlock the mysteries of causation; it was history that would make sense of the relationship between theory and practice.
The hallmark of Montesquieu’s teachings was his conviction that laws can only be understood in relationship to the form of government that produced them. This assertion led to his detailed examination of the different types of political structures. Montesquieu identified three species of government: republican, monarchical, and despotic. He believed that a republican government can be either democratic or aristocratic and that types of government are distinguished by the passions and prejudices that are permitted to guide the political institutions. He also considered moderation to be one of the most important civic virtues. According to Montesquieu, the principles of a government are what shape and direct the actions of the government.
Montesquieu believed that republics place power in the hands of many of its citizens or in only a few and that this distinction determines whether a republic is a democratic-republic or an aristocratic-republic. In either case, for Montesquieu, virtue is the guiding principle of republics. It is important to remember that his was not a Christian understanding of virtue but a political one. Montesquieu understood virtue as a kind of patriotism that is derived from love of one’s republic and the laws that are produced by the republic. Montesquieu believed that the main strength of republics is their ability to maintain the devotion of their citizens and that such devotion is best maintained in a political society wherein there is not great wealth. Montesquieu understood republican virtue to be strongest when a fair degree of equality exists among the citizens. For this reason, he argued that the natural place for a republic is a small society. He considered the history and development of Rome a good example of a small, healthy republic that outgrew its basic principle. In contrast, Montesquieu believed that the principle behind monarchy is honor and that the principle behind despotism is fear. Thus honor and fear are the respective principles that integrate these types of societies as virtue integrates republics. While Montesquieu did not consider any particular political system the best purely and simply, he did harbor a decided preference for republican government.
Montesquieu’s political and social trademark was his unswerving commitment to liberty. Liberty, as he described it, is the right to do whatever the law permits. For Montesquieu, the key element to liberty is that it helps produce a stable, well-ordered society. His devotion to the separation of powers derives from these ideas, for only a restrained government could guarantee the liberty he so strongly desired.
Montesquieu’s adult life was largely consumed by his writings, so much so that some biographers have complained that even his appearance remained a mystery to many outside his immediate circle of friends. Yet it is known that he had blue eyes, a long pointed chin, and a prominent nose—features that were rumored to make him appear much older than he really was.
Summary
Although some have criticized Montesquieu for placing greater faith in history than in nature, his approach to social and political matters is now commonplace. He may not have been an inventor in the purest sense, but there is little question about his intellectual independence. It would probably be an exaggeration to call him one of the great political thinkers of the Western world, yet his impact on practical politics—especially in the United States—is without question. Despite the confusion over the organization of The Spirit of the Laws, few works of political theory have had such a lasting impact on political practice.
Montesquieu’s thoughts on commerce may help illustrate this point. He was the first theorist to consider commerce a topic deserving of serious consideration in a major political treatise. He believed that commerce is an important form of communication for modern societies and that it not only draws people together but also forges links between nations. Like separation of powers, commerce is another device that complicates social systems, which, to Montesquieu, is one of commerce’s great virtues. Montesquieu further argued that commerce is one of the main social forces that encourage the arts and sciences. Montesquieu believed that the industry created by commerce serves every aspect of life, mental as well as physical. This broad perspective is characteristic of Montesquieu’s prescient political thought.
Bibliography
Jones, W. T. “Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.” In Masters of Political Thought: Machiavelli to Bentham. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947. After a short biography, this essay mixes selections from Montesquieu’s writings with commentary. Though limited in scope, it does highlight Montesquieu’s key political teachings.
Lowenthal, David. “Montesquieu.” In History of Political Philosophy, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. A concise but thorough topical breakdown of Montesquieu’s political teachings covering topics such as nature, commerce, religion, and political liberty.
McDonald, Lee Cameron. “Montesquieu.” In Western Political Theory: The Modern Age. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962. A standard short essay that mixes biographical information with some analysis. The analysis is presented in a topical format with an especially long section on separation of powers. Not as probing or complete as the Lowenthal essay.
Montesquieu, Baron de. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. New York: Hafner Press, 1949. A complete volume of Montesquieu’s most important work. This edition includes a useful introductory essay by Franz Neumann.
Pangle, Thomas L. Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. A book- long commentary on The Spirit of the Laws, this work examines Montesquieu’s thought in a complete and objective manner. Pangle is especially strong on Montesquieu’s understanding of nature and normative reasoning.
Shackleton, Robert. Montesquieu: A Critical Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. The most complete biography on Montesquieu available in English. Presented in chronological order, this book is a mix of biographical data and analysis. A wonderful resource work on every aspect of Montesquieu’s life and writings. Includes a complete bibliography of Montesquieu’s works.
