What do you think?
Rate this book
روح القوانين
هدف منتسکیو از نوشتن کتاب روح القوانین، تبیین قوانین و نهادهای اجتماعی بوده است. البته دستیابی به این هدف در نگاه اول دست نیافتنی به نظر می رسد بنابر نظر منتسکیو بر خلاف قوانین فیزیک که خداوند آن را بنا نهاده و در عالم طبیعت جاری می کند، قوانین اثباتی و نهادهای اجتماعی را بشر ایجاد کرده است؛ بشری که دائم در معرض خطا، غفلت و وسوسه های گوناگون است. بنابراین، حق دارین تصور کنید قوانینی که ما از آن صحبت می کنیم نیز از همان نوعی است که در همه جای دیگر دنیا می توان یافت، چرا که به راستی تنوع قرانین بشری در گوشه و کنار جهان، حکایت از نسبی اندیشی انسان می کند و به ما هشدار می دهد قوانین موضوعه مطلقی که بتواند زندگی انسانی را به نحو مطلوب سروسامان دهد، وجود ندارد. مضمون این کتاب از این قرار است که چند فر ایرانی که از فرانسه دیدن می کنند، طی ارسال نامه هایی، وضع عجیب آداب و رسوم فرانسه را برای دوستان هم وطن خود تشریح می کنند. چهارچوب این کتاب به منتسکیو فرصت کافی داد تا کلیسا، دولت، پادشاه و همه مقامات و موسسات مهم کشورش را آزادانه به باد انتقادی هجوآمیز بگیرد و با چشمان تیزبین خود به کاوش در جریانات سری و پشت پرده بپردازد
1036 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1748
672 people are currently reading
12.3k people want to read
About the author
Montesquieu
1,200books450followersCharles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, which is taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms "feudalism" and "Byzantine Empire."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 165 reviews
June 15, 2016
I beg one favour of my readers, which I fear will not be granted me; this is, that they will not judge by a few hours reading of the labour of twenty years; that they will approve or condemn the book entire, and not a few particular phrases.
Reviewing big, old tomes like this is difficult, partly because they cover so much ground, and partly because whatever there is to say about them has already been said. Yet I was often surprised by what I found in this book, and therefore think it worthwhile to collect my impressions into some sort of coherent order.
First, his style. I quickly got the impression that Montesquieu was aiming for a large audience. His style, although stately and elegant, is also quite straightforward and easy to digest. He subdivides every one of his arguments into little atoms of thought; every paragraph makes one point and one point only, and then the thinker moves on. This strategy is also used in the chapter and book divisions, which are similarly laconic and lapidary. Some of Montesquieu’s chapters are so short that they only occupy half a page—sometimes less. This makes for a somewhat odd reading experience. For it is easy to assimilate the subject of one of his paragraphs or chapters; yet, as these little atoms of thought flow by, like autumn leaves drifting down a stream, it is also easy to lose focus. The points are so neatly divided as to sometimes seem unconnected; and this made it a trial of concentration to read the book for long periods of time.
As a thinker, Montesquieu is broad rather than deep. He relies mainly on his wide reading and robust common sense. Compared with Hobbes, Locke, or even Rousseau, his arguments almost seem cursory; he aims to convince the reader by the sensibleness of his maxims, rather than the ingenuity of his mind. He is not one for deep analysis, but for a wide synthesis. Thus, he moves from topic to topic, now discussing taxes, now liberty, now Roman history, now climate, now slavery. And as we follow Montesquieu on his intellectual peregrinations, we encounter both good sense and nonsense.
At times, Montesquieu is penetrating and prophetic. In terms immediately familiar to a modern reader, he describes the basic plan of the Unites States government, effectively filling in any gaps left by Locke. He also has quite modern ideas on criminal justice, particularly on due process and the tailoring of punishments to the severity of crimes. But in some ways, Monstesquieu’s most original contribution to sociological thought is his emphasis on the influence of climate on culture. To a modern reader, the specifics of Montesquieu’s theories will seem silly.
A cold air contringes the extremities of the external fibres of the body; this increases their elasticity, and favours the return of the blood from the extreme parts to the heart. It contracts those very fibres; consequently, it increases also their force. On the contrary, a warm air relaxes and lengthens the extremes of the fibres; of course, it diminishes their force and elasticity.
Nevertheless, silly as this seems, the influence of climate on the destiny of nations has been shown to be tremendous; Jared Diamond’s famous book is, in essence, Montesquieuian. Yet Montesquieu does often veer into the straightforwardly foolish. Since he does not reason from explicit principles, but more often relies on his common sense, he is apt to make assertions without evidence, which to us seem (to say the least) far-fetched.
If there is no more respect for old age, there will be none presently for parents: deference to husbands will be likewise thrown off, and submission to masters. This licentiousness will soon become general, and the trouble of command be as fatiguing as that of obedience. Wives, children, slaves, will shake off all subjection. No longer will there be any such things as manners, order, or virtue.
Furthermore, great chunks of this book stray so far off topic as to be hardly worth reading. I found the several treatises on the history of French law particularly soporific. In these sections, Montesquieu presupposes a lot of knowledge which I do not possess; besides, his style is little suited to history, since history relies on narration, and Montesquieu’s writing is relentlessly aphoristic. Owing to this, I often found myself skimming, and sometimes skipping chapters, since I was unable to extract anything of value from these digressions anyway. This book is, perhaps, a prime candidate for a good abridgement; Montesquieu crammed everything he knew and thought into this volume, and not all of it is worth your while. For my part, I regret not picking up , put out by Hackett Classics, instead of dedicating the many weeks and train rides it took to get to the end of this work; but what's done is done, and perhaps I learned something in the process.
To sum up Montesquieu as best I can, I say that he was a man not terribly original, not astoundingly brilliant, not wonderfully eloquent; he was, rather, a man eminently sensible, a man widely learned, and a man with enough independence of mind and diligence of thought to put together here, with all its flaws and infelicities, what is in fact a monumental summation of Enlightenment political thought. So if we are, as Montesquieu asks, to judge the book entire, and not just a few particular phrases, we must pronounce it a brilliant success.
October 1, 2023
اجرای ناگهانی تقسیم اراضی یکمرتبه دارایی را از بعضی گرفته و به بعضی می‌ده� و در خانواده‌ه� تولید انقلاب مینماید و ممکن است انقلاب خانواده‌ه� تبدیل به انقلاب عمومی کشور بشود
—منتسک�
شاهکار عالم بشریت و کره� خاک. زمانی مترجم فارسی آنقدر تدبیر و توان داشت که اثر سترگ منتسکیو-از سنگ‌بناها� سیاست جدید-را به خواننده� فارسی هدیه کند. درست برعکس حالا که مترجمان با آغشتن ذهن خواننده� بینوا به انواع و اقسام اراجیف، عوض واسطه� فرهنگی، شده‌ان� عملجات سوءتغذیه� فرهنگی. امیدوارم فرد متخصصی در فلسفه� سیاسی از اهمیت کار مهتدی بنویسد و قدرش را بشناساند
تکمله: پیش از ترجمه� کامل مهتدی، ذکاءالملک فروغی (پدر فروغی) و دهخدا هم پاره‌های� از روح‌القوانی� را به فارسی برگردانده بودند
October 13, 2009
This is almost as huge as Leviathan and possibly scarier...
*EDIT*
I love how Montesquieu makes DIRECT rebuttals. Locke, that dear old fellow, addresses Hobbes' arguments, but not Hobbes himself. Montesquieu says, "Hobbes says X argument. HE'S WRONG. I shall now show you WHY."
To whoever wrote the immensely illuminating (and legible!) notes in my used copy: Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I love you.
*EDIT*
I would've given this 4 stars, but I had to read about 150 pages in one night, so...I can't honestly say that I "really liked it". Too bad though, because I really like Montesquieu's style. He reminds me of Chesterton...
Plus, Montesquieu has the most hilarious quotes of any political theorist EVER! Like "if [a republic:] is composed of happy people, it will be very happy." Or his example: "Charles XII, meeting some resistance in the senate of Sweden..., wrote that he would send one of his boots to command it. The boot would have governed like a despotic king."
Hobbes never wrote about happy people...or despotic boots...
It's like I've left the dark, dank, and depressing stomach of Leviathan and stepped right into the light and bliss of Montesquieu's Wonderland, where people are happy and boots are Kings!
I think these political analyses have driven me completely insane.
*EDIT*
I love how Montesquieu makes DIRECT rebuttals. Locke, that dear old fellow, addresses Hobbes' arguments, but not Hobbes himself. Montesquieu says, "Hobbes says X argument. HE'S WRONG. I shall now show you WHY."
To whoever wrote the immensely illuminating (and legible!) notes in my used copy: Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I love you.
*EDIT*
I would've given this 4 stars, but I had to read about 150 pages in one night, so...I can't honestly say that I "really liked it". Too bad though, because I really like Montesquieu's style. He reminds me of Chesterton...
Plus, Montesquieu has the most hilarious quotes of any political theorist EVER! Like "if [a republic:] is composed of happy people, it will be very happy." Or his example: "Charles XII, meeting some resistance in the senate of Sweden..., wrote that he would send one of his boots to command it. The boot would have governed like a despotic king."
Hobbes never wrote about happy people...or despotic boots...
It's like I've left the dark, dank, and depressing stomach of Leviathan and stepped right into the light and bliss of Montesquieu's Wonderland, where people are happy and boots are Kings!
I think these political analyses have driven me completely insane.
Read
March 1, 2022I was intermittently fascinated, often bored, always reminded that if I had a better (any) grounding in medieval history and a more sufficient (any) grasp on Rome, its empire and downfall, then I would be in a better position to award this never-ending tome the coveted star-rating that all books these days seem to be vying and/or pining for. For to award such an absolute ranking requires a felt sense**, regardless of what the GR system tries to convince one of, of a book's internal capacity for meeting of its own criteria for what Aquinas once memorably summed up as "wholeness, harmony, and radience" —its inherent worth, that is....
**or so goes my pet "theory" of the "Subjective Experience of Objectivity"
I think it may have been brother Ken who inadvertently put me up to reading this: if you so much as even mention an 18C book to me in passing, I will (alas) feel compelled to look it up, chase it down, then scrutinize it with a never-too-very-sufficient gaze....
For anyone other than graduate students in the history of jurisprudence, or something, you'll likely be better served by the VSI forerunner "Oxford Past Masters" (out of print, & which I still do need to finish), or his (much shorter, and therefore more complaisant) .
NR: No Rating? is that what the NR in Nathan "NR" Gaddis means? Though I am now informed of an Infinite Jest character named John NR (NoRelation) Wayne I had always previously assumed it was a William Gaddis in-joke (a variant on "JR") or something!
**or so goes my pet "theory" of the "Subjective Experience of Objectivity"
I think it may have been brother Ken who inadvertently put me up to reading this: if you so much as even mention an 18C book to me in passing, I will (alas) feel compelled to look it up, chase it down, then scrutinize it with a never-too-very-sufficient gaze....
For anyone other than graduate students in the history of jurisprudence, or something, you'll likely be better served by the VSI forerunner "Oxford Past Masters" (out of print, & which I still do need to finish), or his (much shorter, and therefore more complaisant) .
NR: No Rating? is that what the NR in Nathan "NR" Gaddis means? Though I am now informed of an Infinite Jest character named John NR (NoRelation) Wayne I had always previously assumed it was a William Gaddis in-joke (a variant on "JR") or something!
January 3, 2013
Modern pundits and general yappers would do well to read more Montesquieu and less of whatever they are reading now -- if they are, in fact, reading anything at all.
May 28, 2022
اگر این کتاب در دنیا ملاک و معیار باشه.بی شک اوضاع خیلی بهتر از این چیزی میشه که میبینیم.
این کتاب قطور علاوه بر نکات بسیار ارزشمند سیاسی و اجتماعی نثر و ترجمه� روانی داره و خوشخوان هست و ابدا کسالت بار نیست.
بخوانید و پیشنهاد کنید
این کتاب قطور علاوه بر نکات بسیار ارزشمند سیاسی و اجتماعی نثر و ترجمه� روانی داره و خوشخوان هست و ابدا کسالت بار نیست.
بخوانید و پیشنهاد کنید
October 18, 2013
I’m not sure what can compare in the West to The Spirit of Laws before its publication in 1748. Sure, there were the Greeks. Plato’s Republic and Laws were extensive dialogues on constructing political systems. But those were primary intellectual exercises. The debate was more about the ideal rather than the practical. Plato made some comparisons of Athenian and Spartan systems, but he was not surveying systems, he was attempting to take what was best. Aristotle was arguably more thorough with his comparisons of constitutions in Politics, however it’s all still done with the goal of maximizing the Greek notion of virtue.
Later, there was, of course, eponymous Machiavelli, with his own realpolitik approach to governance and his advice for the most effective prince. Freedom being only useful in placating the governed.
Then there were the Englishmen: Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes, unrestrained by the virtue of the Greeks, had his own pragmatic advice for those serving as the authoritative leviathan. But Locke was different. He gave us a hint of what was to come with Montesquieu. His empirical approach to epistemology, along with his second Treatise on Government, echo a hundred years later in this Frenchman’s work.
Montesquieu built on Locke’s sketched out separation of powers principle to demonstrate the check such a system can serve on historically competing governmental interests. Whether the overlying government is a form of monarchy, republicanism or despotism, there are three powers that must be assigned: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Containing and balancing these powers define the government. But Montesquieu did not come to his conclusions a priori like his ancient Greek predecessors. He, like Locke, was much more Baconian. Montesquieu used induction and became a political empiricist. He surveyed the world, ancient and modern (at that time) to provide examples to draw upon. If there was any Greek he was most like, it's Herodotus.
Like Herodotus, his impressions of far-off lands sounds naïve to the modern ear. His stereotyping of conniving Chinese, docile Indians, and unsophisticated Africans makes his writing cringe-worthy at times. With such general assumptions, he constructed theories of how governance in those lands must be adaptable to the character of its' people and climate. Though fundamentally flawed in his understanding of foreign cultures, it was still an impressive attempt at recognizing that unique cultures may benefit the most from different approaches. There is no universal “best� government. Montesquieu was probably the first political anthropologist.
His discussions of Europe fare much better for the modern reader. He walks the reader through countless Frankish, German and English examples of government. Almost all of Volume II is a historical walkthrough from the Greeks and Romans to a couple generations after Charlemagne. I’m not sure what his points are, or even if had any, but it is an impressive summary of European political development.
He thought slavery was generally bad, but made exceptions. Based on climate. And skin color. Oh yeah, and he thought women weren't really up to the task of much outside the home. These ideas are not going to win many converts today. But much can be taken from Montesquieu based on what you want. His writings inspired the American Revolutionaries and the autocrat Catherine the Great. Few books can accommodate such an ideological range. His presence is still felt today. Though we may question our ability to implement his better ideas, many still cherish the concept of separation of power and checks and balances.
Later, there was, of course, eponymous Machiavelli, with his own realpolitik approach to governance and his advice for the most effective prince. Freedom being only useful in placating the governed.
Then there were the Englishmen: Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes, unrestrained by the virtue of the Greeks, had his own pragmatic advice for those serving as the authoritative leviathan. But Locke was different. He gave us a hint of what was to come with Montesquieu. His empirical approach to epistemology, along with his second Treatise on Government, echo a hundred years later in this Frenchman’s work.
Montesquieu built on Locke’s sketched out separation of powers principle to demonstrate the check such a system can serve on historically competing governmental interests. Whether the overlying government is a form of monarchy, republicanism or despotism, there are three powers that must be assigned: the executive, the legislative and the judicial. Containing and balancing these powers define the government. But Montesquieu did not come to his conclusions a priori like his ancient Greek predecessors. He, like Locke, was much more Baconian. Montesquieu used induction and became a political empiricist. He surveyed the world, ancient and modern (at that time) to provide examples to draw upon. If there was any Greek he was most like, it's Herodotus.
Like Herodotus, his impressions of far-off lands sounds naïve to the modern ear. His stereotyping of conniving Chinese, docile Indians, and unsophisticated Africans makes his writing cringe-worthy at times. With such general assumptions, he constructed theories of how governance in those lands must be adaptable to the character of its' people and climate. Though fundamentally flawed in his understanding of foreign cultures, it was still an impressive attempt at recognizing that unique cultures may benefit the most from different approaches. There is no universal “best� government. Montesquieu was probably the first political anthropologist.
His discussions of Europe fare much better for the modern reader. He walks the reader through countless Frankish, German and English examples of government. Almost all of Volume II is a historical walkthrough from the Greeks and Romans to a couple generations after Charlemagne. I’m not sure what his points are, or even if had any, but it is an impressive summary of European political development.
He thought slavery was generally bad, but made exceptions. Based on climate. And skin color. Oh yeah, and he thought women weren't really up to the task of much outside the home. These ideas are not going to win many converts today. But much can be taken from Montesquieu based on what you want. His writings inspired the American Revolutionaries and the autocrat Catherine the Great. Few books can accommodate such an ideological range. His presence is still felt today. Though we may question our ability to implement his better ideas, many still cherish the concept of separation of power and checks and balances.
August 10, 2015
Montequieu placed emphasis on reason as the guide for laws and society, but also respected tradition, historical precedent, and the "spirit of the people". Laws should be based on reason +customs and mores.
3 forms of government correspond to size: despotic (large), monarchy (medium), republic (small). Despotism is sustained by fear (and thus is inherently corrupt and short-lived), monarchy by honor (class distinctions), and republics by civic virtue. These types tend to correspond to certain climactic, historical, economic, etc conditions of a particular region and can't be explained abstractly.
Constitutional monarchies are the best possible government for the time, though republics are ideal. Republics require civic virtue; i.e. the sublimation of personal interest to the good of the state. To increase civic virtue, people should be educated to love their country and value equality and frugality.
Liberty involves equality. The rising of the middle class protects liberty.
Western Europe in good shape for development of liberty, especially Switzerland. Cold countries & Protestants more suited to liberty because less centralized.
Trade and commerce make people more tolerant.
November 9, 2017
I'm at a loss for words trying to describe my experience reading this book. The scope of this book is immense, the topics are so varied and the lessons one could (should?) draw from it are so numerous, that trying to explain it all would require another book of 700 pages. Nevertheless, I will try to describe some important points (while leaving many equally important ones out).
Montesquieu starts of this book by explaining the importance of principles in law. When trying to evaluate a legal system, we should always consider the principles on which this system is founded. The principles determine the appropriateness of the legal system and not vice versa: a (seemingly) superb legal system based on the wrong principles is corruption.
Second, these principles are mainly related to the type of state. Montesquieu distinguishes three types of government that each require their own set of principles and laws: (1) republic (democracy, aristocracy), (2) monarchy and (3) despotism. The difference between them is that in a republic the laws determine what the people can and cannot do and in a monarchy what a king can or cannot do, while in a state of despotism anything goes.
After this, Montesquieu tries to explain how differences in government evolved and in a big sweep he includes climate, soil, religion and commerce (amongst other things) as factors that determine the type of state. Some of these factors are ridiculous, such as hot climates leading to despotism (he cites the Turks many times as an example) and cold climates to hard-working and fair republics mainly interested in money (Holland, Switzerland, etc.). Of course one is allowed to laugh at these claims, but we should not be too hasty in laughing too hard: as far as I know, Montesquieu is the first thinker who tried to come up with sociological and psychological explanations of civil and political events. Even though (some of) his claims are laughable, his method of explaining is ingenious. I think we could rank Montesquieu as the founding father of sociology and economics (among other things).
It is fascinating to read Montesquieu applying his comparative method of sociology to explain differences in economic success. The republic of Holland is wealthy, because these people live for money and try to make more; they're not interested in making war, since as a small republic they will not win any major war anyways. A monarchy such as France is not so well suited for the economic mindset, because people have no incentive to earn more than they need: everything else ends in the coffers of lords and kings. This interaction between type of state and behavior as a state, is one of the main lessons we should draw from The Spirit of Laws.
Another, quite important, thing, and which Montesquieu is most famous for, is his division of powers within a state. As Lord Acton said so eloquently: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." To counter the (inevitable?) fall of a republic or monarchy into despotism, we should split up the executive, legislative and judicial powers of a state. Parliament should make the laws, the goverment or king should execute the laws and an independent judicial power should judge individual cases. Even though Montesquieu is famous for this, and most us in western countries are (vaguely) familiar with his thoughts, I think one can't stress enough the importance of this. Especially the accumulation of the legislative and executive power in the hands of one person or group of persons, is extremely dangerous to the rest of the state.
This is a book of two volumes, spread out over almost 700 pages, so not everything can be equally gripping or important. It is towards the end of the book, that I started to grow a little bit tired of it. In the last 150-200 pages, Montesquieu meticulously explains the evolution of the kingdom of France. It can be summarized as: german tribes invades the Roman provinces; the Franks ended up (after conquests) with most of what we now call France; gradually a new system of law evolved (leaving the Salic law of the Franks and the Roman law of the Gauls behind); monarchs went from having much power owing to their right to assign fiefs to selected families to having almost none owing to the giving away of the rights of fiefdom to the nobility; foreign threats (Normans, European struggles) led to some restoration of power to the kings. This is where Montesquieu ends his book. This latter part can thus be seen as a case study of all the theories he expounded in the first 500 pages.
Before ending this review, I would like to add that Montesquieu's continual comparison of the laws of the ancient Greeks and the different law systems of the Roman kingdom, republic and empire are a big plus to this book. He compares different systems of laws on specific subjects, which leads to more useful insights for the reader. One of the things I learned was that there are many differences between times and places on subjects such as marriage, suicide and slavery - even within one civilization. One always hears about "the Roman law" or "the wisdom of the ancient Greeks", but these are mere sophisms; these civilizations had many different systems of laws, depending on time and place. This made me realize how easy we, in the 21st century, can slide back into the abyss regarding human rights and equality before the law.
Once again, this book is too big (in scope as well as in depth) to fully understand, let alone explain: I can only recommend it to anyone interested in the interaction between laws and life. There are many lessons to learn, many insights to grasp, perhaps nowadays even more so than in 1748 when this book was published.
"Knowledge humanizes mankind, and reason inclines to mildness; but prejudices eradicate every tender disposition." - Montesqueieu
Montesquieu starts of this book by explaining the importance of principles in law. When trying to evaluate a legal system, we should always consider the principles on which this system is founded. The principles determine the appropriateness of the legal system and not vice versa: a (seemingly) superb legal system based on the wrong principles is corruption.
Second, these principles are mainly related to the type of state. Montesquieu distinguishes three types of government that each require their own set of principles and laws: (1) republic (democracy, aristocracy), (2) monarchy and (3) despotism. The difference between them is that in a republic the laws determine what the people can and cannot do and in a monarchy what a king can or cannot do, while in a state of despotism anything goes.
After this, Montesquieu tries to explain how differences in government evolved and in a big sweep he includes climate, soil, religion and commerce (amongst other things) as factors that determine the type of state. Some of these factors are ridiculous, such as hot climates leading to despotism (he cites the Turks many times as an example) and cold climates to hard-working and fair republics mainly interested in money (Holland, Switzerland, etc.). Of course one is allowed to laugh at these claims, but we should not be too hasty in laughing too hard: as far as I know, Montesquieu is the first thinker who tried to come up with sociological and psychological explanations of civil and political events. Even though (some of) his claims are laughable, his method of explaining is ingenious. I think we could rank Montesquieu as the founding father of sociology and economics (among other things).
It is fascinating to read Montesquieu applying his comparative method of sociology to explain differences in economic success. The republic of Holland is wealthy, because these people live for money and try to make more; they're not interested in making war, since as a small republic they will not win any major war anyways. A monarchy such as France is not so well suited for the economic mindset, because people have no incentive to earn more than they need: everything else ends in the coffers of lords and kings. This interaction between type of state and behavior as a state, is one of the main lessons we should draw from The Spirit of Laws.
Another, quite important, thing, and which Montesquieu is most famous for, is his division of powers within a state. As Lord Acton said so eloquently: "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." To counter the (inevitable?) fall of a republic or monarchy into despotism, we should split up the executive, legislative and judicial powers of a state. Parliament should make the laws, the goverment or king should execute the laws and an independent judicial power should judge individual cases. Even though Montesquieu is famous for this, and most us in western countries are (vaguely) familiar with his thoughts, I think one can't stress enough the importance of this. Especially the accumulation of the legislative and executive power in the hands of one person or group of persons, is extremely dangerous to the rest of the state.
This is a book of two volumes, spread out over almost 700 pages, so not everything can be equally gripping or important. It is towards the end of the book, that I started to grow a little bit tired of it. In the last 150-200 pages, Montesquieu meticulously explains the evolution of the kingdom of France. It can be summarized as: german tribes invades the Roman provinces; the Franks ended up (after conquests) with most of what we now call France; gradually a new system of law evolved (leaving the Salic law of the Franks and the Roman law of the Gauls behind); monarchs went from having much power owing to their right to assign fiefs to selected families to having almost none owing to the giving away of the rights of fiefdom to the nobility; foreign threats (Normans, European struggles) led to some restoration of power to the kings. This is where Montesquieu ends his book. This latter part can thus be seen as a case study of all the theories he expounded in the first 500 pages.
Before ending this review, I would like to add that Montesquieu's continual comparison of the laws of the ancient Greeks and the different law systems of the Roman kingdom, republic and empire are a big plus to this book. He compares different systems of laws on specific subjects, which leads to more useful insights for the reader. One of the things I learned was that there are many differences between times and places on subjects such as marriage, suicide and slavery - even within one civilization. One always hears about "the Roman law" or "the wisdom of the ancient Greeks", but these are mere sophisms; these civilizations had many different systems of laws, depending on time and place. This made me realize how easy we, in the 21st century, can slide back into the abyss regarding human rights and equality before the law.
Once again, this book is too big (in scope as well as in depth) to fully understand, let alone explain: I can only recommend it to anyone interested in the interaction between laws and life. There are many lessons to learn, many insights to grasp, perhaps nowadays even more so than in 1748 when this book was published.
"Knowledge humanizes mankind, and reason inclines to mildness; but prejudices eradicate every tender disposition." - Montesqueieu
August 1, 2022
History must be illustrated by the laws, and the laws by history.
When I read Montesquieu, I envision him holding the globe in his hand, or rather in his mind, as he studies the history of mankind, the laws and customs of nations and peoples around the world. The Laws are deposits of wisdom, and indirect reflections of the characters and histories of the peoples. If one comprehends the spirit of the laws, one comprehends the world.
Montesquieu is to political science what Darwin is to biology, in that he subsumed all the diverse elements in the field into a unified system, and laid the groundwork for further studies. Unlike Darwin's magnum opus, however, The Spirit of the Laws is full of humour, so much so that Montesquieu had to check himself, "lest I should be suspected of writing a satire". (Book III. Ch. VI)
The framers of the Constitution of the United States cited Montesquieu as an preeminent authority on the principle of separation of powers, the bedrock principle of the constitutions of some of the greatest nations; The fact that he, an 18th-century Frenchman who had never been to China, captured the spirit of that ancient empire, long before modern scholars arrived at similar conclusions, is another testament to his acumen as a philosopher-scholar.
(Read full review at )
Read
May 23, 2016روح الشرائع ___ مونتسكيو
كتاب سياسي يتكلم عن القوانين "في مناح شتى "في شعوب أوربا والصين والمغول وطبيعة القوانين في كل من السلطات الملكية والجمهورية والمستبدة
للحظة تظنه نبياً لفهمه معنى العدل والحقوق حين يكون نور الفطرة "المودعة في داخل كل منا حسب تلقيه لها" هو القائد الباعث لتلك الأفكار و القوانين مثل قوله"
((إذا ماغدا القانون السياسي،الذي أقام في الدولة نظاماً لوراثة العرش،هادماً للهيئة السياسية التي وضع في سبيلها وجب ألا يشك في قدرة قانون سياسي آخر على تغيير هذا النظام ، وإنه مع استبعاد معارضة هذا القانون نفسه للقانون الأول يكون مطابقاً له تماماً من حيث الأساس مادام كل منهما خاضعاً لهذا المبدأ وهو:
إن سلامة الأمة هي القانون الأعلى "
أما إشكالية الكتاب التي رأيتها حسب اطلاعي عليه هو حكم المؤلف عن الدين الاسلامي أحكاما تنص على فقر اطلاعه الشخصي بل باكتفائه بمقولات الناس عنه ،
من ذلك بأنه انتشر بالسيف وبأنه دين جبري وجبريته جاءت بسبب ثقله على النفوس
وبأن الحكومة المستبدة أكثر ملاءمة للإسلام ...
وهذا فهم خاطىء بعيد عن الصواب والحقيقة
وخاصة في دليل ورود آيات كثيرة واحاديث ومواقف من السيرة تثبت عكس ذلك
)
إناس ....٢٠/٩/٢٠١٥
كتاب سياسي يتكلم عن القوانين "في مناح شتى "في شعوب أوربا والصين والمغول وطبيعة القوانين في كل من السلطات الملكية والجمهورية والمستبدة
للحظة تظنه نبياً لفهمه معنى العدل والحقوق حين يكون نور الفطرة "المودعة في داخل كل منا حسب تلقيه لها" هو القائد الباعث لتلك الأفكار و القوانين مثل قوله"
((إذا ماغدا القانون السياسي،الذي أقام في الدولة نظاماً لوراثة العرش،هادماً للهيئة السياسية التي وضع في سبيلها وجب ألا يشك في قدرة قانون سياسي آخر على تغيير هذا النظام ، وإنه مع استبعاد معارضة هذا القانون نفسه للقانون الأول يكون مطابقاً له تماماً من حيث الأساس مادام كل منهما خاضعاً لهذا المبدأ وهو:
إن سلامة الأمة هي القانون الأعلى "
أما إشكالية الكتاب التي رأيتها حسب اطلاعي عليه هو حكم المؤلف عن الدين الاسلامي أحكاما تنص على فقر اطلاعه الشخصي بل باكتفائه بمقولات الناس عنه ،
من ذلك بأنه انتشر بالسيف وبأنه دين جبري وجبريته جاءت بسبب ثقله على النفوس
وبأن الحكومة المستبدة أكثر ملاءمة للإسلام ...
وهذا فهم خاطىء بعيد عن الصواب والحقيقة
وخاصة في دليل ورود آيات كثيرة واحاديث ومواقف من السيرة تثبت عكس ذلك
)
إناس ....٢٠/٩/٢٠١٥
September 24, 2023
A French aristocrat spent his life looking at the laws of various people, though mostly those of his native country, to develop political theories related to different governments that would influence the coming “Age of Revolution�. The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu is a treatise on political theory that covers a large range of topics including law, social life, and the study of anthropology that would change the way people would look at the development of government.
In a little over 700 pages Montesquieu covers a lot of material but three major themes throughout this treatise that influenced readers of his time and up to the modern day. Those three themes were the classification of political systems and the “principles� that motivate them and that the lack of means they don’t endure, the political liberty that is defined as personal security especially that provided by system of dependable and moderate laws, and the development of political sociology in which geography and climate interact with particular cultures to produce a spirit of the people that influences their politics and laws. Based on these themes Montesquieu pleads for a constitutional system of government with separation of powers, the preservation of legality and civil liberties, and the end of slavery. At times the material Montesquieu covers could be somewhat tedious especially close to the end of the treatise as he covered the transition of French institutions from the Frankish conquest of Gaul to the medieval French monarchy. Yet even with that tediousness the reader gets the thoroughness in which Montesquieu dedicated a lifetime of study to produce this treatise, which influenced the American Founding Fathers, French republicans, and others around the world.
The Spirit of the Laws is the life’s work of Montesquieu, a pioneering work on comparative law, but a treatise on political theory that would be influential almost immediately after it’s publication and be relevant to this day.
In a little over 700 pages Montesquieu covers a lot of material but three major themes throughout this treatise that influenced readers of his time and up to the modern day. Those three themes were the classification of political systems and the “principles� that motivate them and that the lack of means they don’t endure, the political liberty that is defined as personal security especially that provided by system of dependable and moderate laws, and the development of political sociology in which geography and climate interact with particular cultures to produce a spirit of the people that influences their politics and laws. Based on these themes Montesquieu pleads for a constitutional system of government with separation of powers, the preservation of legality and civil liberties, and the end of slavery. At times the material Montesquieu covers could be somewhat tedious especially close to the end of the treatise as he covered the transition of French institutions from the Frankish conquest of Gaul to the medieval French monarchy. Yet even with that tediousness the reader gets the thoroughness in which Montesquieu dedicated a lifetime of study to produce this treatise, which influenced the American Founding Fathers, French republicans, and others around the world.
The Spirit of the Laws is the life’s work of Montesquieu, a pioneering work on comparative law, but a treatise on political theory that would be influential almost immediately after it’s publication and be relevant to this day.
September 18, 2023
me in my gov class like 🧍♂�
October 21, 2020
“Freedom is the right to do what the laws allow.”—Montesquieu, French Judge, a man of letters, and political philosopher.
Montesquieu worked for 15 years on this book,� On the Spirit of the Laws.�
“Montesquieu called the idea of dividing government power into three branches the "separation of powers." He thought it’s most important to create separate branches of government with equal but different powers.�
Remember, Montesquieu wrote fifteen years of profound analysis in each chapter of this book; somehow, The Spirit of Law is a pillar of our modern world.
Montesquieu worked for 15 years on this book,� On the Spirit of the Laws.�
“Montesquieu called the idea of dividing government power into three branches the "separation of powers." He thought it’s most important to create separate branches of government with equal but different powers.�
Remember, Montesquieu wrote fifteen years of profound analysis in each chapter of this book; somehow, The Spirit of Law is a pillar of our modern world.
June 15, 2013
As for Rousseau I have to admit I started this lecture with some prejudice: whereas I mistakenly imagined Rousseau to be this half autistic failed novelist wearing rose-tinted glasses, I imagined Montesquieu to be somewhat his rigorous, legalistic counter-part (probably owing to my complete ignorance in the field of legal theory) bent on ossifying every well-meaning, politically correct and moralizing precept the Enlightenment might have produced. Once again I was wrong - it might seems to my reader, that this mea culpa is becoming a staple of my reviews: indeed my lectures have brought me to regard with much more interest and respect that republican tradition, whose only crime was to be so common and so prevalent, that I was not aware of my own lack of understanding in area.
First of all, let's face it, The Spirit of the Laws is a mammoth, a very ambitious work whose angle, if indeed starting from the notion of law (which Montesquieu, at any rate, understand in very broad terms) does not limit itself to considerations of purely judicial nature, far from it: Identifying laws allow the author to build a representation of the world, and of societies in particular, largely mechanistic and anthropocentric: from his early typology of societies (Republics / Monarchies / Tyrannies) the baron goes on to analyze a insane array of subjects, most notably luxury or benevolence, sweeping, in the process, the areas unearthed by political thinkers from Machiavelli to Locke.
Clearly there is a methodological break between previous thinkers and Montesquieu: here little if any of the conjectural history dear to other proponents of the social contract, we are closer, in some ways, to the pragmatic and analytically approach of Machiavelli, whose pervasive attempts at neutrality permeates in some way The Spirit of the Laws: although the author's sympathies are made clear the work attempt less to convince the reader than it does offer a model from which to understand societies, be them tyrannies, monarchies or republic. Beyond this many similarities in terms of terminology and ideology lead me to think that Machiavelli must have been an important influence.
Indeed it is actually Montesquieu's account of monarchy that captured most acutely my interest, with his emphasis on honour as the appropriate counter part to republican virtue. The author develops a reasonably complex 'symbolic economy' of honour as the currency of monarchies, which of course, like many of his ideal types, prove to be way to clear-cut to be applicable as such, but prefigures many of the social and anthropological analysis that will define the XIXth century.
Fashion and luxury being an other of my particular interests, his analysis of luxury proved delightful: a very different view of the republic arises from this text, far from the indulgent, fearful, bourgeois commonwealth of Hobbes and the likes, but one where the scarcity assumption is positively sustained by a drastic, spartan and 'virtuous' republican tradition, rejecting, in my analysis, the conspicuous for frugality, less on the ground of morality than on pragmatic political motives (in other words - equality is not a duty or a purpose to the republic, but merely a tool towards unity and valor).
First of all, let's face it, The Spirit of the Laws is a mammoth, a very ambitious work whose angle, if indeed starting from the notion of law (which Montesquieu, at any rate, understand in very broad terms) does not limit itself to considerations of purely judicial nature, far from it: Identifying laws allow the author to build a representation of the world, and of societies in particular, largely mechanistic and anthropocentric: from his early typology of societies (Republics / Monarchies / Tyrannies) the baron goes on to analyze a insane array of subjects, most notably luxury or benevolence, sweeping, in the process, the areas unearthed by political thinkers from Machiavelli to Locke.
Clearly there is a methodological break between previous thinkers and Montesquieu: here little if any of the conjectural history dear to other proponents of the social contract, we are closer, in some ways, to the pragmatic and analytically approach of Machiavelli, whose pervasive attempts at neutrality permeates in some way The Spirit of the Laws: although the author's sympathies are made clear the work attempt less to convince the reader than it does offer a model from which to understand societies, be them tyrannies, monarchies or republic. Beyond this many similarities in terms of terminology and ideology lead me to think that Machiavelli must have been an important influence.
Indeed it is actually Montesquieu's account of monarchy that captured most acutely my interest, with his emphasis on honour as the appropriate counter part to republican virtue. The author develops a reasonably complex 'symbolic economy' of honour as the currency of monarchies, which of course, like many of his ideal types, prove to be way to clear-cut to be applicable as such, but prefigures many of the social and anthropological analysis that will define the XIXth century.
Fashion and luxury being an other of my particular interests, his analysis of luxury proved delightful: a very different view of the republic arises from this text, far from the indulgent, fearful, bourgeois commonwealth of Hobbes and the likes, but one where the scarcity assumption is positively sustained by a drastic, spartan and 'virtuous' republican tradition, rejecting, in my analysis, the conspicuous for frugality, less on the ground of morality than on pragmatic political motives (in other words - equality is not a duty or a purpose to the republic, but merely a tool towards unity and valor).
August 24, 2015
“The Spirit of the Laws�, Montesquieu’s widely read and, in its time, highly influential treatise on the nature of government was one of the vegetables that I resolved to consume in 2015. I made it through half of the book, which is pretty good given that at about a third of the way through I realized that “The Spirit of the Laws� is to my list of books on Enlightenment political philosophy what Brussel Sprouts are to my list of least favorite vegetables.
In the books initial sections Montesquieu articulates a very helpful and interesting taxonomy of the types of government mankind has historically embraced, and the various social spirits that animate those governments and their workings � despotic governments are animated by fear, monarchical governments are animated by honor (by which he means titles and public distinctions) while democratic governments are animated by equality. In exploring these, he goes on to characterize the various institutions that support each government type, and relates them and their function to each type of government’s animating spirit. One can see, for example, in his description of the egalitarian imperatives that drive “democracy�, shadows of the agrarian utopia of independent yeoman farmers that Jefferson yearned for as the ideal social model in his “Notes on the State of Virginia�. Along a similar vein, Montesquieu’s discussion of the need to balance (or, with a despotic government, not to balance) the executive, legislative and judicial function in each type of government finds it actual, real-life incarnation in the American system of checks and balances established through the U.S. Constitution � Madison, one of the Constitution’s principal architects, was, along with many other Founding Fathers, an avid admirer of Montesquieu.
After this initial section, however, Montesquieu sets about to expand upon his points by exploring real life examples from governments around the world that existed when he wrote his treatise. The problem for the modern reader, of course, is that many of these governments no longer exist, and for the ones that still do, they operate under radically different principles than the ones Montesquieu cites in his book. The result, at least for me, became a stupefying line of now-irrelevant examples that seemed to sweep past me with all the permanence of individual trees one passes by the side of the road while driving to work at 80 miles an hour. In other words, it was not that the book was bad so much as it has, unlike, say, Hobbs or Locke, worn poorly with time.
The bottom line is that I put it on my vegetable list, and now I’ve eaten it. As a result, I am somewhat smarter about the ideas oan important Enlightenment thinker whose work influenced the architecture of my country’s constitution.
Up next, eggplant�.or, as it is otherwise known to scholars and historians, de Toqueville’s “Democracy in America�.
I friggin� hate eggplant.
In the books initial sections Montesquieu articulates a very helpful and interesting taxonomy of the types of government mankind has historically embraced, and the various social spirits that animate those governments and their workings � despotic governments are animated by fear, monarchical governments are animated by honor (by which he means titles and public distinctions) while democratic governments are animated by equality. In exploring these, he goes on to characterize the various institutions that support each government type, and relates them and their function to each type of government’s animating spirit. One can see, for example, in his description of the egalitarian imperatives that drive “democracy�, shadows of the agrarian utopia of independent yeoman farmers that Jefferson yearned for as the ideal social model in his “Notes on the State of Virginia�. Along a similar vein, Montesquieu’s discussion of the need to balance (or, with a despotic government, not to balance) the executive, legislative and judicial function in each type of government finds it actual, real-life incarnation in the American system of checks and balances established through the U.S. Constitution � Madison, one of the Constitution’s principal architects, was, along with many other Founding Fathers, an avid admirer of Montesquieu.
After this initial section, however, Montesquieu sets about to expand upon his points by exploring real life examples from governments around the world that existed when he wrote his treatise. The problem for the modern reader, of course, is that many of these governments no longer exist, and for the ones that still do, they operate under radically different principles than the ones Montesquieu cites in his book. The result, at least for me, became a stupefying line of now-irrelevant examples that seemed to sweep past me with all the permanence of individual trees one passes by the side of the road while driving to work at 80 miles an hour. In other words, it was not that the book was bad so much as it has, unlike, say, Hobbs or Locke, worn poorly with time.
The bottom line is that I put it on my vegetable list, and now I’ve eaten it. As a result, I am somewhat smarter about the ideas oan important Enlightenment thinker whose work influenced the architecture of my country’s constitution.
Up next, eggplant�.or, as it is otherwise known to scholars and historians, de Toqueville’s “Democracy in America�.
I friggin� hate eggplant.
May 13, 2015
Have you ever been curious as to why we have certain laws and why they have the effects they have. That is what is covered in this book. It opens by talking about why he thinks humans established laws and civilization, then it discusses what he labels as the three main forms of government: Republics, Monarchies, and Tyrannies. While there are many different themes throughout the book, I think one of the main ones is that for a government to be successful it often needs to stay true to its principles whatever they may be. A personal connection I had with this book is when it discusses republics and how they should function, it reminds me of our government and the political events of our day. In conclusion I would recommend this book to anyone who doesn't mind doing some really heavy reading on political theory with a little bit of sociology. If you do not enjoy doing a lot of reading or having to think about every line you're reading then this is not a book for you.
May 15, 2024
Easily my favorite of the major early-modern political theorists. Montesquieu is far more cognizant of the effects of νόμοι on the souls of individuals and peoples than are any of the contractarians; he is, for this reason, a far better interlocutor with the ancients than any of his contemporaries are. Likewise, he is a deeply historical thinker: rather than indulging in idle speculation about how an abstract human being with no ties to others would behave, Montesquieu time and again roots his observations in his rich acquaintance with English and Roman history.
To my mind, these facts make him a more level-headed and wise thinker than Locke or Rousseau. Unlike them, he comes very close to actually understanding the irreducible essence of political life, rather than seeking to abolish, minimize, or dissolve it.
To my mind, these facts make him a more level-headed and wise thinker than Locke or Rousseau. Unlike them, he comes very close to actually understanding the irreducible essence of political life, rather than seeking to abolish, minimize, or dissolve it.
November 18, 2014
tome 1:
tome 2:
tome 2:
May 27, 2021
Sách được xếp vào một trong những cuốn sách Khai sáng của Pháp, cùng với Kh� ước xã hội của Rousseau. Không dài nhưng mà thực s� là không h� d� đ� đọc một tí nào. Có những chương mình cảm thấy rất tâm đắc, như chương v� T� do của công dân trong chính th� và Tam quyền phân lập. Tuy nhiên có những chương thấy không h� thuyết phục, như chương v� Ảnh hưởng của thời tiết khí hậu đến tính cách dân tộc (có l� do hạn chếlịch s�).
Tuy nhiên, giá tr� của cuốn sách này là không cần bàn cãi, và có l� mình s� đọc lại nó trong tương lai. � ph� lục của cuốn sách tình c� mình thấy một đánh giá v� cuốn sách này mà mình khá tâm đắc: "Giá tr� chính yếu của "Tinh thần pháp luật" là thiết lập quyền cho mọi người được t� mình suy nghĩ"
Tuy nhiên, giá tr� của cuốn sách này là không cần bàn cãi, và có l� mình s� đọc lại nó trong tương lai. � ph� lục của cuốn sách tình c� mình thấy một đánh giá v� cuốn sách này mà mình khá tâm đắc: "Giá tr� chính yếu của "Tinh thần pháp luật" là thiết lập quyền cho mọi người được t� mình suy nghĩ"
October 22, 2023
Yaklaşık 300 yıl önce yazılmış bir hukuk başlangıcı, siyaset bilimi kitabı.
Muhammed'e ve İslam dinine ilişkin ilginç bölümler var. Irkın ve iklimin; dine, siyasete ve hukuka etkilerine ilişkin bölümleri cesur tespitler içeriyor. Hukukun üstünlüğünü ve güçler ayrılığını üç asır önce yazıp tartışmış Montesquieu. Bugün bu derinlikte yazıp tartışamıyoruz çoğu zaman.
Bilmek, haz vermeden fazlası değil malesef artık memlekette. Öyle olsaydı ufuk açıcı olarak nitelerdim bu eseri.
Çeviri çok iyi. Berna Ünen'e ve İş Kültür Yayınevine bu önemli eser için teşekkür ederim. Oğluma devredeceğim önemli bir kitap olacak.
Muhammed'e ve İslam dinine ilişkin ilginç bölümler var. Irkın ve iklimin; dine, siyasete ve hukuka etkilerine ilişkin bölümleri cesur tespitler içeriyor. Hukukun üstünlüğünü ve güçler ayrılığını üç asır önce yazıp tartışmış Montesquieu. Bugün bu derinlikte yazıp tartışamıyoruz çoğu zaman.
Bilmek, haz vermeden fazlası değil malesef artık memlekette. Öyle olsaydı ufuk açıcı olarak nitelerdim bu eseri.
Çeviri çok iyi. Berna Ünen'e ve İş Kültür Yayınevine bu önemli eser için teşekkür ederim. Oğluma devredeceğim önemli bir kitap olacak.
June 27, 2017
ŷ has linked "Defense de l'esprit des lois" with Montesquieu's magnum opus.
The "Defense" is merely a pamphlet, a reply to one or two critics of L'esprit des lois.
I can't say I read it easily, but I read it all (61 pp.) which is more than I could do when I first got it for Kindle (in 2012).
This passage, I think, is as true today as it was in the 18th C., especially if one bears in mind which 'theologians' (i.e., upholders of orthodoxy) of today seek to suppress free thought and free expression:
La théologie a ses bornes, elle a ses formules; parce que les vérités qu'elle enseigne étant connues, il faut que les hommes s'y tiennent; et on doit les empêcher de s'en écarter: c'est là qu'il ne faut pas que le génie prenne l'essor: on le circonscrit, pour ainsi dire, dans une enceinte. Mais c'est se moquer du monde, de vouloir mettre cette enceinte autour de ceux qui traitent les sciences humaines. Les principes de la géométrie sont très vrais; mais, si on les appliquait à des choses de goût, on ferait déraisonner la raison même. Rien n'étouffe [suffocates] plus la doctrine que de mettre à toutes les choses une robe de docteur: les gens qui veulent toujours enseigner, empêchent beaucoup d'apprendre; il n'y a point de génie qu'on ne rétrécisse, lorsqu'on l'enveloppera d'un million de scrupules vains. Avez-vous les meilleures intentions du monde ? on vous forcera vous-même d'en douter. Vous ne pouvez plus être occupé à bien dire, quand vous êtes sans cesse effrayé par la crainte de dire mal, et qu'au lieu de suivre votre pensée, vous ne vous occupez que des termes, qui peuvent échapper à la subtilité des critiques.
The "Defense" is merely a pamphlet, a reply to one or two critics of L'esprit des lois.
I can't say I read it easily, but I read it all (61 pp.) which is more than I could do when I first got it for Kindle (in 2012).
This passage, I think, is as true today as it was in the 18th C., especially if one bears in mind which 'theologians' (i.e., upholders of orthodoxy) of today seek to suppress free thought and free expression:
La théologie a ses bornes, elle a ses formules; parce que les vérités qu'elle enseigne étant connues, il faut que les hommes s'y tiennent; et on doit les empêcher de s'en écarter: c'est là qu'il ne faut pas que le génie prenne l'essor: on le circonscrit, pour ainsi dire, dans une enceinte. Mais c'est se moquer du monde, de vouloir mettre cette enceinte autour de ceux qui traitent les sciences humaines. Les principes de la géométrie sont très vrais; mais, si on les appliquait à des choses de goût, on ferait déraisonner la raison même. Rien n'étouffe [suffocates] plus la doctrine que de mettre à toutes les choses une robe de docteur: les gens qui veulent toujours enseigner, empêchent beaucoup d'apprendre; il n'y a point de génie qu'on ne rétrécisse, lorsqu'on l'enveloppera d'un million de scrupules vains. Avez-vous les meilleures intentions du monde ? on vous forcera vous-même d'en douter. Vous ne pouvez plus être occupé à bien dire, quand vous êtes sans cesse effrayé par la crainte de dire mal, et qu'au lieu de suivre votre pensée, vous ne vous occupez que des termes, qui peuvent échapper à la subtilité des critiques.
February 26, 2019
To be honest, I would have greatly preferred this book had it been just Montesquieu's excellent and thoughtful work on the spirit of laws. Although Montesquieu and Rousseau are both 18th century French thinkers with a massive world historical importance (good enough to make the top 40 of the University of Chicago's Great Books collection, no mean feat), they exist on two different sides of a very important line. In reading Montesquieu, one understands one is dealing with a suave and sophisticated writer who has a deep and abiding interest in exploring historical examples for reflection in the present-day (for him) as well as a high degree of interest in comparing Europe with the rest of the world as well, and France to other countries within Europe as well as the wider world. On the other side of the line is Rousseau, who lacks the suave and easy-going style of Montesquieu and also has very little interest in history and a great deal of interest in presumptions and assumptions about the noble savage and the importance of the general will and other catchphrases which would eventually become a horror to the rest of the world. It requires no great insight to understand which I prefer.
About 3/4 of this book's material (over 400 pages total) is taken by Montesquieu's Spirit Of The Laws. And if one has never read this book, it is a revelation of close historical analysis and seemingly encyclopedic knowledge about ancient realms and rulers as well as the thoughts of travelers for nations like China and the Ottoman Empire and other realms. This masterpiece contains 31 smaller books, with numerous subheadings, that read like some of the best writings of Calvin, a man I am not used to praising. This book is one of the best ways to become familiar with the laws and politics of late antiquity among the late Roman Empire as well as various successor kingdoms like the Franks and Burgundians, for example. And that is no mean feat. The writing by Rousseau is less pleasing, containing three influential but not very worthwhile works, two of them discourses on the origin of inequality and on political economy where the author shows himself familiar with other contemporary thinkers of a similar bent but not as familiar with cultural or historical context, and a short work on the social contract where the author confuses his first principles with the state of the actual past, a common affliction among theorists.
And while I greatly prefer Montesquieu to Rousseau, it makes sense to put these two thinkers together for a variety of reasons. For one, they were both contemporaries working with the problems of the legitimacy of social and legal systems within the French Enlightenment tradition. Yet they form a natural contrast to each other as well, for while Montesquieu's close analysis of history as well as contemporary societies helped inspire the classical American political tradition of the founding fathers of our nation and read similar to clear-thinking successors in the French political economy tradition like Bastiat and de Tocqueville, Rousseau's thinking is ancestral to Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and other authoritarian theorists that followed in the aftermath of the French Revolution and its continuing turmoil throughout Europe. Again, it is no secret which of these two roads forward I prefer, but in reading these works one can see the parting of the ways at their beginning based on how they approached the subject of political economy and how they approached their subject matter as well as the implications of their thinking and reasoning on the lives of the people who would be influenced by their writings, some for good and some for ill.
About 3/4 of this book's material (over 400 pages total) is taken by Montesquieu's Spirit Of The Laws. And if one has never read this book, it is a revelation of close historical analysis and seemingly encyclopedic knowledge about ancient realms and rulers as well as the thoughts of travelers for nations like China and the Ottoman Empire and other realms. This masterpiece contains 31 smaller books, with numerous subheadings, that read like some of the best writings of Calvin, a man I am not used to praising. This book is one of the best ways to become familiar with the laws and politics of late antiquity among the late Roman Empire as well as various successor kingdoms like the Franks and Burgundians, for example. And that is no mean feat. The writing by Rousseau is less pleasing, containing three influential but not very worthwhile works, two of them discourses on the origin of inequality and on political economy where the author shows himself familiar with other contemporary thinkers of a similar bent but not as familiar with cultural or historical context, and a short work on the social contract where the author confuses his first principles with the state of the actual past, a common affliction among theorists.
And while I greatly prefer Montesquieu to Rousseau, it makes sense to put these two thinkers together for a variety of reasons. For one, they were both contemporaries working with the problems of the legitimacy of social and legal systems within the French Enlightenment tradition. Yet they form a natural contrast to each other as well, for while Montesquieu's close analysis of history as well as contemporary societies helped inspire the classical American political tradition of the founding fathers of our nation and read similar to clear-thinking successors in the French political economy tradition like Bastiat and de Tocqueville, Rousseau's thinking is ancestral to Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Hitler and other authoritarian theorists that followed in the aftermath of the French Revolution and its continuing turmoil throughout Europe. Again, it is no secret which of these two roads forward I prefer, but in reading these works one can see the parting of the ways at their beginning based on how they approached the subject of political economy and how they approached their subject matter as well as the implications of their thinking and reasoning on the lives of the people who would be influenced by their writings, some for good and some for ill.
July 24, 2013
Someone said this was almost as long and scary as Hobbes's Leviathan? Hardly. This book is a breeze to read if you have a good translation. Every chapter is between .5-2 pages at the most. It's all in bite-sized idea chunks. I have flown through 130 pages in just over a day. For a normal academic work I'd probably be on page 20 or 25 by now.
My problem is that, to the modern reader, much of what Montesqiueu says is nonsensical. His ideas are also shallow, and he tries to force his model on a world that is far more complex.
For instance he declares all societies are either republics, monarchies, or despotates. He lays down rules as to how each three of these archetypes operate. He shoehorns countries into one of the categories, even when they clearly don't meet all the requisites that he himself listed. It's ridiculous. See his rant about China at the end of Part I for more.
He also assigns principles to the three types: republics (divided into democracies and aristocracies) are supposedly motivated by VIRTUE; monarchies by HONOUR; and despotates by FEAR. All this sounds well and good, but it becomes ridiculous when he concludes countries like China, and Japan, for instance, are despotic. This forces him to conclude, with a straight face, that the peoples of China and Japan for instance have no honour. Seriously? No honour? Their entire culture was based on it.
Reading through the work, it is shockingly obvious how ignorant even the learned were of other cultures during the early enlightenment period.
Finally, I would hasten to add--as you may have guessed--that most of my problems with this work are due to the more than 250 years that have passed since its publication. It hasn't aged well. And it is not fair to blame an author for the shortcomings of his time. As someone smart once said: a great man's weaknesses are those of his time; his strengths are all his own. And Montesquieu was a great man. In many passages one may easily see his genius at play. However, it was not an all-encompassing genius. Nor indeed a very systematic genius.
All in all, I take as a failure his attempt at categorising, shoehorning, and explaining societies by putting them all into one of three categories. On the other hand, he developed the theory of separation of powers. The work is also well-written and full of interesting reflections upon historical events and eras, which will be very pleasant for someone who has actual knowledge of them.
My problem is that, to the modern reader, much of what Montesqiueu says is nonsensical. His ideas are also shallow, and he tries to force his model on a world that is far more complex.
For instance he declares all societies are either republics, monarchies, or despotates. He lays down rules as to how each three of these archetypes operate. He shoehorns countries into one of the categories, even when they clearly don't meet all the requisites that he himself listed. It's ridiculous. See his rant about China at the end of Part I for more.
He also assigns principles to the three types: republics (divided into democracies and aristocracies) are supposedly motivated by VIRTUE; monarchies by HONOUR; and despotates by FEAR. All this sounds well and good, but it becomes ridiculous when he concludes countries like China, and Japan, for instance, are despotic. This forces him to conclude, with a straight face, that the peoples of China and Japan for instance have no honour. Seriously? No honour? Their entire culture was based on it.
Reading through the work, it is shockingly obvious how ignorant even the learned were of other cultures during the early enlightenment period.
Finally, I would hasten to add--as you may have guessed--that most of my problems with this work are due to the more than 250 years that have passed since its publication. It hasn't aged well. And it is not fair to blame an author for the shortcomings of his time. As someone smart once said: a great man's weaknesses are those of his time; his strengths are all his own. And Montesquieu was a great man. In many passages one may easily see his genius at play. However, it was not an all-encompassing genius. Nor indeed a very systematic genius.
All in all, I take as a failure his attempt at categorising, shoehorning, and explaining societies by putting them all into one of three categories. On the other hand, he developed the theory of separation of powers. The work is also well-written and full of interesting reflections upon historical events and eras, which will be very pleasant for someone who has actual knowledge of them.
September 6, 2016
Magisterial ! If you want to build a civilization from scratches, this book should serve as guide. It is overly complex and its erudition obvious. Of course some of the opinions exposed here have not passed the test of time, especially his analysis concerning the impact of the climate on societies and customs. This and some other ideas scientifically in character may be outdated now but the vast scope of the work, its erudition, its empirical and comparative approach to social problems and the spirit of moderation that permeates through every page, rate this book as a monumental achievement in the history of intellectual ideas.
Some (including Durkheim) have seen in Montesquieu, and in this book in particular, a precursor to modern anthropology and sociology. This is certainly a sound impression, but its influence - especially Montesquieu`s ideas of the separation of powers (which he worked out studying ancient historians such as Polybius) - may have been even greater in the minds and souls of the American Founders.
What is interesting about Montesquieu is the fact that he does not fit to well into the common stereotype of the Enlightenment philosopher: he was hardly the simple-minded rationalist seeking to impose his „reason� upon the world in novel and abstract political principles. He rather was a common-sense thinker with a vast knowledge of history and law and who sought to approach the matter through a pragmatic (not idealistic) perspective.
He used his expertise to provide solutions and guidelines with the aim to ameliorate the life and conditions of the people living in his epoch. He judged everything in its context and made a lot of comparisons with examples drawn from oriental cultures which really seem to have interested him.
All being said, Montesquieu remains important today as a prudent and pragmatic thinker, characterized by a broad erudition and vast aspirations. In this respect he resembles more his english counterparts, as economist Hayek once pointed out.
Some (including Durkheim) have seen in Montesquieu, and in this book in particular, a precursor to modern anthropology and sociology. This is certainly a sound impression, but its influence - especially Montesquieu`s ideas of the separation of powers (which he worked out studying ancient historians such as Polybius) - may have been even greater in the minds and souls of the American Founders.
What is interesting about Montesquieu is the fact that he does not fit to well into the common stereotype of the Enlightenment philosopher: he was hardly the simple-minded rationalist seeking to impose his „reason� upon the world in novel and abstract political principles. He rather was a common-sense thinker with a vast knowledge of history and law and who sought to approach the matter through a pragmatic (not idealistic) perspective.
He used his expertise to provide solutions and guidelines with the aim to ameliorate the life and conditions of the people living in his epoch. He judged everything in its context and made a lot of comparisons with examples drawn from oriental cultures which really seem to have interested him.
All being said, Montesquieu remains important today as a prudent and pragmatic thinker, characterized by a broad erudition and vast aspirations. In this respect he resembles more his english counterparts, as economist Hayek once pointed out.
June 23, 2017
Trông người lại nghĩ đến ta.
May 30, 2014
“The Spirit of Laws" (Britannica Great Books edition, 1952; Thomas Nugent, Trans.) is a long book. Montesquieu starts from his first principles. Unlike the laws of the Deity or the material laws of nature, man creates his own laws. As a physical being, man “is like other bodies governed by invariable laws.� But, unlike "brutes who are governed by laws of motion," man possesses a free will, although it is prone to error because, “as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions.� Standing before god and god’s creation, man was weak, impotent and fearful, and this prompted him to associate with his fellows for nourishment � to satisfy his wants. The desire for peace, association and satisfaction of need led him as an intelligent being to find structures of government to formulate and administer positive laws. These, along with climate, soil and social relationships, constitute the spirit of laws.
Montesquieu describes three forms of government and the animating principle for each: Republic-virtue; monarchy-honor; despotic-fear. For a republic, virtue is love of country. Love of country requires equality to bring people together. Inequality creates hatred and jealousy and divides people. Political liberty requires that power be checked. Montesquieu then discusses his well known separation of power principle that divides sovereign authority into the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
The rest of the book is a lengthy and tedious description of those customs, mores and practices from other cultures. Montesquieu gives great weight to climate and soil as determining factors for these laws, and he is particularly uncharitable about how these have influenced the nations from southern Europe, the Middle East, the Far East as opposed to northern Europe. Interestingly, Montesquieu comes across as more than a bit egocentric in his view of manners an customs different than his own.
Montesquieu describes three forms of government and the animating principle for each: Republic-virtue; monarchy-honor; despotic-fear. For a republic, virtue is love of country. Love of country requires equality to bring people together. Inequality creates hatred and jealousy and divides people. Political liberty requires that power be checked. Montesquieu then discusses his well known separation of power principle that divides sovereign authority into the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
The rest of the book is a lengthy and tedious description of those customs, mores and practices from other cultures. Montesquieu gives great weight to climate and soil as determining factors for these laws, and he is particularly uncharitable about how these have influenced the nations from southern Europe, the Middle East, the Far East as opposed to northern Europe. Interestingly, Montesquieu comes across as more than a bit egocentric in his view of manners an customs different than his own.
February 26, 2016
This monumental work is full of insight into how law comes into being and how and where it is useful in preserving order in society....
It is rich in provocative thought ....
These gems below I isolated from a single session with the text:
�(R)eform by law what is established by law, and change by custom what is settled by custom; for it is very bad policy to change by law what ought to be changed by custom.�
Nations are in general very tenacious of their customs; to take them away by violence is to render them unhappy: we should not therefore change them, but engage the people to make the change themselves.
All punishment which is not derived from necessity is tyrannical. The law is not a mere act of power; things in their own nature indifferent are not within its province.
There is this difference between laws and manners, that the laws are most adapted to regulate the actions of the subject, and manners to regulate the actions of the man.
As the enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man's being allowed to speak his thoughts, and to lay open his sentiments, a citizen in this state will say or write whatever the laws do not expressly forbid to be said or written.
It is rich in provocative thought ....
These gems below I isolated from a single session with the text:
�(R)eform by law what is established by law, and change by custom what is settled by custom; for it is very bad policy to change by law what ought to be changed by custom.�
Nations are in general very tenacious of their customs; to take them away by violence is to render them unhappy: we should not therefore change them, but engage the people to make the change themselves.
All punishment which is not derived from necessity is tyrannical. The law is not a mere act of power; things in their own nature indifferent are not within its province.
There is this difference between laws and manners, that the laws are most adapted to regulate the actions of the subject, and manners to regulate the actions of the man.
As the enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man's being allowed to speak his thoughts, and to lay open his sentiments, a citizen in this state will say or write whatever the laws do not expressly forbid to be said or written.
September 3, 2011
I feel like I need to justify giving an all-time classic text only two stars. The two stars doesn't reflect its importance or the depth of its thought. It reflects the fact that in spite of the very interesting and important arguments that Montesquieu makes - many of which being subtle and amenable to really interesting open-ended discussion - much of the book is a tough, tedious slog about mercantilism, and the history of the development of fiefdoms in Europe. If you don't know much about Middle Age France, good luck.
Political theorists who have to read this will read it in spite of the two stars, and all political theorists should read it at some point. Those who are political theory aficionados, on the other hand, should steer clear and go to works with less mind-numbing detail.
Political theorists who have to read this will read it in spite of the two stars, and all political theorists should read it at some point. Those who are political theory aficionados, on the other hand, should steer clear and go to works with less mind-numbing detail.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 165 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.