Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

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