Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Montesquieu and Empiricism in Positive Law: The Diversity of Governments and Laws

  • Chapter
Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law

  • 115 Accesses

Abstract

A purely logical approach to the question of the origin of society might result in the following argument: if men in the state of nature are all equal, they are all the same; if they are all the same, then they all need identical governments and laws; yet there are several different kinds of government, and laws vary from country to country; either this diversity is inexplicable, or it results from the corruption of an ideal universally-valid legislation. This attitude, which seems to be fostered by the philosophy of natural law, did not appeal to Montesquieu. His very purpose in the Esprit des lois was to show why governments and laws are different from country to country. How far was he innovating?

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
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. Cf. Montesquieu: Textes choisis et commentés par F. Strowski, Plon, 1912, p. 97; Dedieu, Montesquieu, pp. 120-1; Delbos, La Philosophie française, p. 183; Mercier, ‘La Notion de loi morale chez Montesquieu’, p. 190.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. R. Grimsley, ‘The Idea of Nature in the Lettres persanes’, French Studies, 1951, pp. 293–306.

    Google Scholar 

  3. La Méthode de l’histoire, traduite et présentée par P. Mesnard, Les Belles Lettres, 1941, Book VI, p. 266; in spite of his claim that royal authority is absolute (Les Six livres de la république, I, viii, Lyons, Du Puys, 1579, p. 85), Bodin admitted that the monarch must obey the laws of nature (ibid., p. 92).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Politique tirée de l’ Écriture sainte, II, i, 7, p. 332; cf. Domat, op. cit., Le Droit public, I, i, vol. II, pp. 2-5.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Patriarcha and Other Political Writings, pp. 57–8. Hobbes, on the other hand, had not been very interested in the example of paternal power, cf. Leviathan, II, xx, pp. 186-7 and 190-1.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thèse de Bordeaux, p. 410; cf. p. 422; cf. also Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, vol. IV, p. 130, who talks of the “vain débordement d’utopies métaphysiques” of M.’s contemporaries, without mentioning the more empirical attitude of M.’s predecessors.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Op. cit., p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Montesquieu, p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Op. cit., pp. 401-2.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Politics, III, xi, io, pp. 269–71.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. also Gravina, Origines iuris civilis, II, xviii, p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Émile, V, p. 836.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cinna, II, i, 11. 535–48, in Œuvres de Corneille, vol. III, p. 408-9. Cf. Fénelon, Les Devoirs de la royauté, in Écrits et lettres politiques, p. 94: Toutes sortes de gouvernements sont nécessairement imparfaites, puisqu’on ne peut confier l’autorité suprême qu’à des hommes; et toutes sortes de gouvernements sont bonnes, quand ceux qui gouvernent suivent la grande loi du bien public. Dans la théorie, certaines formes paraissent meilleures que d’autres; mais, dans la pratique, la faiblesse ou la corruption des hommes, sujets aux mêmes passions, exposent tous les États à des inconvénients à peu près égaux.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Though Domat had established a relationship between the size of a country and its type of government, showing that republics are “restreintes à peu d’étendue” while monarchies need larger territories (op. cit., Le Droit public, I, i, vol. II, p. 4); but he did not develop this idea.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dg., I, in, 8, vol. I, pp. 122-3; Dn. VII, v, 9 and 22, vol. II, pp. 275 and 289; Dv., II, viii, 4-8, pp. 305-8.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Montesquieu, pp. 134–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Montesquieu, p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., pp. 136-7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Montesquieu e la scienza della società, pp. 342–3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Op. cit., pp. 169-70.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Politics, III, xi, 10, pp. 269–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, pp. 66–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. S.t., II, ii, Q. 154, A. 2, vol. XIII, p. 135, and Dn., VI, i, 5 and 15, vol. II, pp. 152-3 and 163-4.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eg. Lois, XXIII, xiii, N. I, ii, pp. 51-2, PL II, p. 690, on the effect that eating fish has on fertility.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. Lanson, ‘Origines et premières manifestations de l’esprit philosophique dans la littérature française de 1674 à 1748’, Revue hebdomadaire des cours et conférences, 1907-9, vol. XVI, ii, 1908, p. 152, and ‘Formation et développement de l’esprit philosophique’,vol. XVII, ii, p. 717. Pufendorf gave various causes for which legislators might prevent marriage, but he did not include religion among them (Dn., VI, i, 8, vol. II, pp. 155-6).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Eg. Encyclopédie, art. ‘Célibat’, vol. II, pp. 803–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Histoire de la littérature française, XVIIIe siècle, vol. I, Colin, 1965, p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lettre au P. J. B., pp. 109–10; Examen critique, pp. 128-30; 1750: 5th and 6th Propositions; 1752: 8th and 9th propositions: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 118, n. 3, p. 119, n. 1, p. 120, n. 7, and p. 125, n. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 1750: Ist Proposition, and 1752: 7th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, p. 110, n. 1; cf. however the condemnation of Lois, XVI, xv: 1750: 2nd Proposition: Beyer, ibid., p. 125, n. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lettre au P. J. B., pp. 107–8 and 112-3; Examen critique, p. 127: the Jansenist merely said that M. was one of “ces messieurs de 1a religion naturelle” and that he was following “1a nature corrompue”.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lois, ibid.; Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 432, n. 45 to p. 257 and PL II, p. 1511; see also the Réponses et explications, N. III. p. 655, Pl. II, p. 1177.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 429, n. 22, to p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 426, n. 13, to p. 246; Pl. II, p. 1510.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, pp. 427–8, nn. 18-20, together with pp. 246-7; Pl. II, p. 1510 does not give the 1748 version of this passage. The italics are ours and indicate words that M. subsequently altered.

    Google Scholar 

  37. M. had criticized polyandry in Lois, XVI, vi, N. I, i, p. 354, Pl. II, p. 512; he referred to this criticism in the Défense, N. I, ii, p. 464, PL II, p. 1144; La Roche admitted his mistake in the Réponse à la Défense, pp. 225-6.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 1750: nth Proposition; 1752: 6th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 109, nn. 4 and 5.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See N. I, i, pp. 352-3 and PL II, p. 511; Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, pp. 425–6, n. 13, to p. 246, and p. 427, n. 19 to p. 246; M. also changed “j’ai peine à croire” to “je ne crois pas”, ibid., p. 427, n. 18, to p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cf. Ehrard, L’Idée de nature, vol. II, pp. 734–5.

    Google Scholar 

  41. L’ Orient dans la littérature française au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle, Hachette, 1906, p. 326; cf. Durkheim, Thèse de Bordeaux, p. 421.

    Google Scholar 

  42. L’Idée de nature, vol. II, p. 734, (Ehrard’s italics).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Monsieur de Pourceaugnac, II, xi, in Œuvres de Molière, Hachette, 1921-2, vol. VII, p. 316.

    Google Scholar 

  44. This statement is the premise to the objection; although the theologican rejected the conclusion drawn from it, he did not reject the premise itself (ibid., rep. obj. 2, p. 301).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Observations sur le livre de l’Esprit des lois, p.216.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 1750: 11th Proposition: Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 109, n. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  47. The Lettre au P. J. B., pp. 105–7, did not call either polyandry or polygamy unnatural; it merely disputed M.’s contention that they are “une affaire de calcul”; La Roche says that polyandry is “un désordre monstrueux” (Examen critique, p. 126); the 1752 condemnation by the Sorbonne says that polygamy is contrary to the Gospel and that polyandry is contrary to the Gospel and to natural law (6th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, p. 109, n. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cf. Dedieu, Montesquieu, pp. 229–30; Brethe de 1a Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 428, n. 20, to p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lois, vol. III, p. 449, n. 42, to p. 313.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Op. cit., p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dn., IV, xi, 2-3, vol. I, pp. 575-6; also ibid., x, 4, p. 568; cf. Locke, T.T., I, ix, 88, pp. 224-5.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Domat, op. cit., Part II, Preface, iv, vol. I, p. 302; Gravina, Origines iuris civilis, II, xli, p. 322.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lois, XXVII, N. I, ii, pp. 167–70, Pl. II, pp. 783-6 (our italics); see Shackleton, M., pp. 320-4, for a comparison of M.’s historical approach with the more descriptive approach of other writers to the Roman laws of succession.

    Google Scholar 

  54. An Age of Crisis, p. 12; see also ‘The Discussion of Suicide in the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 1952, pp. 47-72.

    Google Scholar 

  55. S.t., II, ii, Q. 64, A. 5, vol. X, pp. 203-4; Aristotle insists on the crime against the state, Ethics, V, xi, 3, pp. 318-9, while Clarke is more concerned with the crime against God, Discourse, pp. 622-4.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cartesian terms: “les lois de la création et de la conservation”, etc: cf. Discours de la méthode, V, p. 45; Spinozistic terms: Usbek’s right to disturb the whole of nature reminds us of Spinoza’s conception of right: “chaque type naturel a un droit souverain sur tout ce qui est en son pouvoir”, Tractatus theologico-politicus, xvi, p. 881.

    Google Scholar 

  57. N. I, iii, pp. 158-9, Pl. I, pp. 247-8; Lettres persanes, ed. Vernière, pp. 371-2, ru f, to p. 162 and Pl. I, p. 1591.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See Lettres persanes, éd. Vernière, pp. 371–2, Pl. I, p. 1591 (not in N.).

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Vian, ‘Montesquieu et la censure’, in Laboulaye, Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, vol. VI, p. 325.

    Google Scholar 

  60. “Il est clair que les lois civiles de quelques pays peuvent avoir eu des raisons pour flétrir l’homicide de soi-même”, Lois, XIV, xii, in Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 406, n. 48, to p. 203; Pl. II does not give this variant.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 1750: 10th Proposition; 1752: 10th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, p. 109, n. 1 and p. 115, n. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Cf. N. I, i, p. 319, n. a, Pl. II, p. 485, n. b; see also N. I, i, p. 320, Pl. II, p. 486, where “peuvent avoir eu des raisons” has become “ont eu des raisons”. P. 1890 (Bkn. 258), N. II, pp. 565-6, Pl. II, p. 1054), condemns suicide on the grounds that it is caused by pride. This Pensée was probably written after 1749, so Brethe de 1a Gressaye seems to be wrong when he says (Lois, vol. II, p. 406, n. 48) that it dates from long before the Lois; and that consequently M.’s opinions were orthodox even before 1748.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Examen critique, p. 125; cf. La Porte, op. cit., pp. 89-95.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Défense, N. I, ii, pp. 450-4, Pl.. II, pp. 1134-6; M. did however later justify himself on this point to the theologians of the Sorbonne, by claiming that his discussion of suicide in England was based on medical evidence (N. III, p. 659, Pl. II, p. 1180).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Op. cit., pp. 294-5.

    Google Scholar 

  66. St. Thomas (S.t., II, ii, Q.64, A. 5, rep. obj. 4, vol. X, p. 205) cited St. Augustine, who had said that not even Samson is to be excused for his action unless it was secretly inspired by God.

    Google Scholar 

  67. The propositions extracted from Lois XIV and XXIX were held by the theologians to be “falsae, legi naturali et divin æ contrariæ, verguntque in societatis detrimentum”, 1752: 10th Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, p. 109, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  68. An Age of Crisis, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ibid., p. 82; cf. P. 1266 (Bkn. 615), N. II, p. 343, Pl. I, pp. 1138-9.

    Google Scholar 

  71. An Age of Crisis, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Politics, I, iii, 23; in the Loeb edition, pp. 50-51.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Discours sur la permission des lois, où l’on fait voir, que ce qui est permis par les lois, n’est pas toujours juste et honnête, Geneva, Fabri et Barrillot, 1715, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Cf. Lanson, ‘Formation et développement de l’esprit philosophique’, vol. XVII, ii, 1909, P. 717.

    Google Scholar 

  76. For Domat, usury is contrary both to Divine and natural law, op. cit., Part I, I, vi, vol. I, pp. 68-73.

    Google Scholar 

  77. La Roche, Examen critique, pp. 127–8; also Réponse à la Défense, pp. 231-6. 1750: 3rd and 4th Propositions: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 111, nn. 1 and 2, and p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Réponses et explications, N. III, p. 667, Pl. II, p. 1188; cf. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. III, pp. 396-7, n. 70. to p. 173, and Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, pp. 128-9.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Réponses aux questions d’un provincial, III, xxviii, p. 980. In this connection it is interesting to note that M.’s intense dislike of Bayle’s theories led him to contradict himself. He particularly deplored Bayle’s suggestion (Réponses aux questions d’un provincial, III, xxvi-xxviii, pp. 972-83; Continuation des pensées diverses [1704], cxxiv, Œuvres diverses, III, i, pp. 359-61) that a state composed solely of Christians would not survive, and tried to refute it in the Lois (XXIV, vi, N. I, ii, pp. 86-7, Pl. II, p. 719): he maintained that the absolute honesty of the inhabitants of such a state, together with their sense of duty, would enable them to survive. Yet it has just been seen that M. considered commerce, and particularly usury, absolutely vital to the preservation of an economically viable state. Hence we must either assume that M. did not really believe that Christianity forbids usury, and that the first paragraph of Lois, XXI, xx, is not to be taken too seriously; or else, that he conveniently forgot about usury when he refuted Bayle.

    Google Scholar 

  80. ‘Introduction à l’ Esprit des lois’ in Œuvres complètes, vol. III, p. vi.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Lois, vol. I, p. xciii.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cf. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, pp. 331–2; Dedieu, Montesquieu, pp. 60-66; Vaughan, Studies in the History of Political Philosophy, vol. I, pp. 260-61; Bréhier, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 373-4; Dimoff, ‘Cicéron, Hobbes et Montesquieu’, pp. 43-4; Gotta, Montesquieu e la scienza della società, pp. 160-72 and 370-72; Courtney, ‘Montesquieu’, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Observations sur le vingt-neuvième livre de l’Esprit des lois, p. 418.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Politics, III, vi, 13, p. 231 and II, v, 10-14, pp. 127-33.

    Google Scholar 

  85. On Free Will, I, vi, 14, in Augustine, Earlier Writings, Library of Christian Classics, S.C.M. Press, vol. VI, 1953, pp. 120–1.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Op. cit., p. 44. As D. J. O’Connor shows (op. cit., p. 78), St. Thomas’s theory that human law may be altered is quite compatible with his probable belief that human nature is unchangeable.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Op. cit., Traité des lois, xi, 20, vol. I, p. xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Op. cit., Préface, vol. I [this general preface is not paginated but these words occur some seven sides after the title page].

    Google Scholar 

  89. République, V, i, pp. 461–88.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See below, Ch. 6, II and IV.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Cf. Derathé, op. cit., p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Prescription: Dn., IV, xii, 9, vol. I, p. 598 and Dv., I, xii, 12, pp. 195-6; restitution: Dv., II, xii, 5, p. 335; wealth: Dn., VIII, v, 3, vol. II, pp. 443-5 and Dv., II, xv, 2, p. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Op. cit., p. 42. The wording of this passage in Althusser is a little vague, but this is the implication he seems to be making.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Montesquieu, p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Montesquieu, pp. 186–7; cf. Montesquieu l’homme et l’œuvre, pp. 132-3 and Oudin, Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, pp. 55 and 63.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Montesquieu, p. 187.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid., p. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  98. See below, Ch. 7, III.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Grotius, Dg., II, xx, 20, vol. II, p. 596; Pufendorf, Dn., VIII, iii, 14, vol. II, pp. 388-9; Barbeyrac, Discours sur la permission des lois, pp. 10-13.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Op. cit., Le Droit public, III, i, vol. II, p. 196; also the introduction to Le Droit public, III, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  101. The theory of the “principes” is exposed in Lois, III, and its consequences in Books IV-VIII.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. I, p. 231, n. 12, to p. 13.

    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). Montesquieu and Empiricism in Positive Law: The Diversity of Governments and Laws. 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_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_5

  • 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