Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Originality of Montesquieu’s Method

  • Chapter
Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law

  • 115 Accesses

Abstract

It is often thought that the président’s method of studying positive law precluded any reference to natural law. What was Montesquieu’s method? Was it really different from that of the School of Natural Law?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Joseph de La Porte, Observations sur l’Esprit des lois, ou l’art de lire ce livre, de l’entendre et d’en juger, Amsterdam, Mortier, 1751, pp. 10–11; cf. Domat, op. cit., Livre préliminaire, i, 2, paragraph 1, vol. I, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2_We use the word moral here in the French sense of mental or intellectual.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Criticisms of the plan of the Lois are too numerous to mention; among the most remarkable defences of the plan are Barckhausen’s (Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, pp. 253–66) and Oudin’s (De l’unité de l’Esprit des lois, Rousseau, 1910 — a work greatly superior to his Le Spinozisme de Montesqueiu).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. N. I, pp. B-C.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Three modern scholars holding this view are Seguin, ‘Montesquieu’ in É. Gallot, La Philosophie de la vie au XVIIIe siècle, étudiée chez Fontenelle, Montesquieu, Maupertuis, La Mettrie, Diderot, d’Holbach, Linné, Rivière, 1965, pp. 74–6 and 90; S. Gotta, Montesquieu e la scienza delia società, Turin, Ramella, 1953, p. 90; Starobinski, op. cit., p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brunet, op. cit., pp. 84, n. 2, and 89-90.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid., pp. 104-7, 113-21, and 124-9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. In particular, he accepted the Cartesian theory of vortices and rejected Newton’s theory of gravitation: P. 206, Bkn. 1458, N. II, p. 79, PL I, p. 1345 (1721-31); Spicilège 565, N. II, p. 848, PL II, p. 1370 (1730-34); P. 1380, Bkn. 927, N. II, p. 408, PL I, p. 1252 (1734-45).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See N. III, p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See also P. 76, Bkn. 690, N. II, pp. 23-4, PI. I, pp. 1187-8; cf. C. Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et l’esprit cartésien’, Congrès, pp. 161–2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. The sentence in square brackets was later deleted by M. and is not printed in PL I, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cf. Descartes, Discours, VI, p. 63 and Principes, II, xxxvii, xxxix and xlii, pp. 84, 86, 87-8, also Blake, Ducasse and Madden, op. cit., pp. 75-103; for a more favourable account of Descartes as an experimenter, see G. Milhaud, Descartes savant, Alcan, 1921, pp. 191-212, but even Milhaud admits (pp. 197, 204) that Descartes was only a good experimenter when he forgot his a priori theories. For two specialist accounts of M.’s Cartesianism in the sciences, see D. André,’ sur les écrits scientifiques de Montesquieu’, Correspondant, 1880, pp. 1054-81 and J. Jaffray, ‘La Carrière scientifique de Montesquieu’, La Nature, 1928, pp. 465-7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Montesquieu, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid., pp. 10 and 68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Montesquieu l’homme et l’œuvre, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cf. n. 1 to p. 29 of the Ehrard edition of Montesquieu l’homme et Vœuvre.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Even though Oudin, Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, p. 116, claims that Descartes put forward “les principes de la vraie méthode scientifique”.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, p. 399.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 15; G. R. Havens, From Reaction to Revolution, The Age of Ideas in Eighteenth-Century France, New York, Holt, 1955, pp. 101-2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Étiemble, ‘Montesquieu’, in Encyclopédie de la Pléiade, vol. III, Gallimard, 1958, pp. 707–8; Loy, op. cit., p. 92-3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Montesquieu, pp. 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. Berlin, Montesquieu, p. 277.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The following scholars, the first three of whom have a specialized knowledge of constitutional law, claim that M.’s picture of the English Constitution is distorted: E. Eichthal, Souveraineté du peuple et gouvernement, Alcan, 1895, pp. 93, 123-4, 126-39; O. W. Holmes, Collected Legal Papers, Constable, 1920, p. 263; B. Mirkine-Guetzévitch, ‘De l’Esprit des lois à la démocratie moderne’, Bicentenaire, p. 14; Ehrard, Politique de Montesquieu, p. 127. For a contrary view, also by an expert, see C. Eisemann, ‘L’Esprit des lois et la séparation des pouvoirs’, Mélanges R. Carré de Malberg, Sirey, 1933, p. 184, n. 1; cf. also Loy, op. cit., pp. 110-11.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Among innumerable critics holding this view, see especially P. Vernière, ‘Montesquieu et le monde musulman’, Congrès, pp. 200–1.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Op. cit., Champion, 1929, p. 153.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., pp. 153-6.

    Google Scholar 

  29. ‘Le Manuscrit des Geographica et l’Esprit des lois’ RHLF, 1952, pp. 456–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. ‘L’Influence de la philosophie cartésienne sur la littérature française’ [1896], Études d’histoire littéraire, Champion, 1929, p. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  31. ‘L’Influence de la philosophie cartésienne’, pp. 85–9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lanson made this point in ‘Le Rôle de l’expérience dans la formation de la philosophie du XVIIIe siècle en France’, Revue du mois, 1910, p. 6. He restated it in a note to his ‘Le Déterminisme historique et l’idéalisme social dans l’Esprit des lois’ p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  33. ‘Montesquieu et la science politique’ IIe Centenaire, p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Montaigne, Essais, II, xii, Les Belles Lettres, vol. III, 1947, pp. 365–74; Pascal, Pensées, V, 294, in Œuvres de Blaise Pascal, Hachette, 1908-21, vol. XIII, pp. 214-22.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cf. Davy, ‘Montesquien et la science politique’, pp. 153–4.

    Google Scholar 

  36. ‘Montesquieu in 1948’, French Studies, 1949, pp. 309–12; M., p. 260.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cours de philosophie positive, vol. IV, pp. 127–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thèse de Bordeaux, p. 425; cf. p. 452.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  40. In the Disc, prél., xli, vol. I, p. 24, Grotius claimed that universal consent is an indication only of the law of nations, not of the law of nature; but in the body of the work, I, i, 12, vol. I, pp. 53-4, he said that natural law itself can be derived a posteriori from universal consent; he used this a posteriori method particularly in the case of slavery and of international relations (see below, Ch. 6, II and IV).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding, cited in Pierre Coste’s famous translation, Essai philosophique concernant l’entendement humain, Amsterdam, Schelte, 1700, IV, iii, 18, p. 698. It was through this translation that many eighteenth-century philosophes became acquainted with Locke; cf. J. Hampton, ‘Les traductions françaises de Locke au XVIIIe siècle’, Revue de littérature comparée, 1955, pp. 240-51. M. owned Goste’s translation (D. 1489). Like Locke, Cumberland believed that morality can be foimulated scientifically, Traité philosophique des lois naturelles, i, 7, p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Thèse de Bordeaux, p.415; C.-J. Beyer, in ‘Le Problème du déterminisme social dans l’ Esprit des lois’, Romanic Review, 1948, pp. 103-4, exaggerates M.’s originality in the same way as Durkheim.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. Courtney, ‘Montesquieu’, p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cours de philosophie positive, vol. IV, p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Alengry, op. cit., p. 392; Bréhier, op. cit., vol. II, p. 374.

    Google Scholar 

  46. De republica, III, xxii, 33; in the Loeb edition, De republica, De legibus, p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dn., VIII, i, 5, vol. II, p. 358; Malebranche, Entretiens sur la métaphysique et sur la religion [1688], VIII, xiv, in Œuvres complètes, Vrin, 1958-68, vol. XII, 1965, p. 192; Samuel Clarke, A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God [1704-5] [hereafter Discourse], in Works, Knapton, 1738, vol. II, p. 624-6.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Apart possibly from the slight doubt revealed in the last sentence, there is no evidence to support R. Caillois’ view that for M. justice is merely a convention (‘Montesquieu et l’athéisme contemporain’, Congrès, p. 335).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cf. Aron, Les grandes doctrines, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Politique d’Aristote, Dumont, 1848, Préface, p. lxxxviii.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cf. P. Martino, ‘De Quelques résidus métaphysiques dans l‘Esprit des lois’ Revue d’histoire de la philosophie et d’histoire de la civilisation, 1946, p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Op. cit., pp. 44 and 33-4.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See below, Ch. 4, IV.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, pp. 69–70.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See below, Ch. 4, IV.

    Google Scholar 

  56. An Essay on Man [1733-4], I, x, 1.294, Methuen, 1950, p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cf. E. Bersot, ‘Montesquieu’, in Études sur le XVIIIe, siècle, Durand, 1855, vol. II, p. 317.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cf. Lanson, ‘Le Déterminisme historique’, pp. 138–9.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Thèse de Bordeaux, pp. 420–1.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 1752: I2th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, pp. 107–8, and p. 108, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  61. N. I, i, p. 43; Pl. II, p. 265; cf. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. I, p. 259, n. 9, to p. 77, and M.’s Réponses et explications. N. III, p. 662, PL II, p. 1

    Google Scholar 

  62. Alengry, op. cit., pp. 390-1; G. Gurvitch, ‘La Sociologie juridique de Montesquieu’, Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 1939, p. 623.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cf. Barrière, ‘L’Humanisme de l’Esprit des lois’, p. 49, and Meyer, ‘Politics and Morals …’, pp. 871-2.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Durkheim, Thèse de Bordeaux, p. 420, n. 2; Alengry, loc. cit.; Gurvitch, loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, pp. 427–8, n. 20, to p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See below, pp. 112-5.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, p. 366; cf. P. Archambault, Montesquieu, choix de textes et introduction, Michaud, 1883, p. 42; J. Charmont, La Renaissance du droit naturel, Chauny et Quinsac, 1927, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Cf. Franck, op. cit., p. 73; É. Faguet, La Politique comparée de Montesquieu, Rousseau et Voltaire, Lecène et Oudin, 1902, pp. 14–15; Dedieu, Montesquieu, p. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cf. V. Delbos, La Philosophie française, Pion, 1921, pp. 183–4, and Ehrard, Politique de Montesquieu, p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Montesquieu, livre premier de l’Esprit des lois, accompagné d’un commentaire, Hachette, 1897, P. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cf. De legibus, II, iv, 10; in the Loeb edition, De republica, De legibus, pp. 382-3.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Cf. Montesquieu e la scienza delia società, p. 372.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See Barckhausen, Montesquieu, l’Esprit des lois, p. 23; not given in Nagel, Pléiade or Brethe de la Gressaye editions.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Among the many critics who accept this interpretation of Lois, I, iii, see: Janet, Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, p. 330; Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 46; Brethe de la Gressaye, ‘La Philosophie du droit de Montesquieu’, Archives de philosophie du droit, Sirey, 1962, p. 208; Ehrard, ‘Les Études sur Montesquieu’, p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Exeter, UK

    Mark H. Waddicor (Lacturer in French)

Authors
  1. Mark H. Waddicor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1970 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Waddicor, M.H. (1970). The Originality of Montesquieu’s Method. In: Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law. Archives Internationales D’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3240-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3238-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation