Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law pp 134–176Cite as

Rationalism in Positive Law: Montesquieu the Reformer

  • Chapter

  • 114 Accesses

Abstract

In spite of the importance accorded by certain philosophers to the state of nature and the original contract, the doctrine of natural law is not basically dependent on either of these concepts. Grotius and Burlamaqui managed to found their theories without much reference to the state of nature, and Burlamaqui was not interested in the original contract either. Neither hypothesis features prominently in the work of Cicero or of Aristotle, and yet it cannot be said that they disbelieved in natural law.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Cf. Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 95.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M., p. 287. On the influence of Locke, see also Dedieu, Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise, pp. 160–91. Bolingbroke’s Dissertation on Parties is another possible source of M.’s theory (cf. Shackleton, M., pp. 296-301 and ‘Montesquieu, Bolingbroke, and the Separation of Powers’, French Studies, 1949, pp. 25-38).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. the passage devoted to ‘La liberté politique, dans un citoyen’, in Book XI, vi, N. I, i, p. 208, Pl. II, p. 397).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Pufendorf, Dv., II, xii, 6-7, pp. 336-7; Domat, op. cit., Traité des lois, xi, 6, vol. I, p. xv.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cf. the phrase “La politique est une lime sourde, qui use et qui parvient lentement à sa fin” (Lois, XIV, xiii, N. I, i, p. 321, Pl. II, p. 487).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Utopia [1515-16], translated by R. Robynson, edited by J. R. Lumby, Cambridge University Press, 1897, PP-126–7 (original spelling).

    Google Scholar 

  7. In an early Pensée, M. condemned revenge, on the grounds that it is ineffective in procuring its “but naturel” or “vrai but”, namely the ending of vicious intentions in the offender (P. 29, Bkn. 1102, N. II, p. 8, Pl. I, p. 1286). Grotius had similarly condemned revenge (Dg., II, xx, 5, vol. II, p. 572).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cf. Grotius, Dg., II, xx, 20 and 34, vol. II, pp. 596 and 608-9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. R. Anchel, Crimes et châtiments au XVIIIe siècle, Perrin, 1933, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pufendorf, Dn., VIII, iii, 9, vol. II, p. 384; Grotius, Dg., II, xx, 7, vol. II, p. 574; Hobbes, The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance, p. 177; Domat, on the other hand, here out of tune with the trend of natural law at his time, also emphasized the need to revenge society, op. cit., Le Droit public, III, vol. II, p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See above, Chapter 3, I.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Les Caractères [1688-94], XIV, 51, in Œuvres de La Bruyère, Hachette, 1922, vol. III, i, p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Politique d’Aristote, pp. cii–ciii; cf. Destutt de Tracy, Commentaire sur l’Esprit des lois, p. 77.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The three places are: Lois, XII, xiv, N. I, i, pp. 267–8, Pl. II, pp. 444-5 (on la pudeur, already discussed); Lois, VI, xvii, N. I, i, pp. 123-4, Pl. II, P. 329 (on torture); Lois, XV, viii, N. I, i, pp. 333-4, Pl. II, pp. 496-7 (on slavery, see below, pp. 160-1).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, p. 380.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Some of those who condemned torture are listed in Dn., VIII, iii, 4, n. 10, vol. II, pp. 376-7. L. M. Levin says that writers in Antiquity had not condemned torture (The Political Doctrine of Montesquieu’s Esprit des lois, New York, Institute of French Studies, [1936], pp. 229-30); however, the Digest had advised the greatest caution in its use (XLVIII, xviii, pp. 811-13).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. A. Chéruel, Dictionnaire historique des institutions, mœurs et coutumes de la France, Hachette, 1874, vol. II, pp. 1219–20; also R. Anchel, op. cit., p. 139.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cf. Utopia, pp. 28 and 37-9; Dg., II, i, 14, vol. I, pp. 219-20.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cf. Grotius, Dg., II, xx, 35, vol. II, p. 610.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Montesquieu, pp. 221–2.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cf. Deuteronomy, XXV, 2; Digest, XLVIII, xix, u, p. 815; S.t., II, ii, Q. 99, A. 4, vol. XI, p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Op. cit., Le Droit public, III, vol. II, p. 194; cf. ibid., tit. 1, pp. 196-200.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. Chéruel, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 963-5 and 1122-3; also Anchel, op. cit., passim, and Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, pp. 372-3, n. 10, to p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deuteronomy, XVII, 6; S.t., II, ii, Q. 70, A. 2, vol. X, pp. 267-8; Dn., V, xiii, 9, vol. II, p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. Dg., II, xx, 18, vol. II, pp. 593-4; Dn., VIII, iii, 14, vol. II, p. 388.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See N. III, pp. 469-70.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See N. III, p. 470 and p. 476, n. a.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cf. Faguet, La Politique comparée de Montesquieu, Rousseau et Voltaire, p. 174.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cf. Lois, XXV, xi, N. I, ii, pp. 124–5, Pl. II, pp. 749-50; also the satirical letter from “Le roi du Thibet”, denouncing the activities of Christian missionaries, perhaps intended for the Lois: Brethe de 1a Gressaye, Lois, vol. III, pp. 440-1, n. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  30. La Roche, Examen critique, pp. 135–6 and Réponse à la Défense, pp. 226-9; 1750: 7th Proposition, and 1752: 2nd Proposition: see Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et la censure religieuse’, p. 115, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  31. N. I, ii, p. 118, n. a, Pl. II, p. 744, n. a; cf. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. III, p. 437, n. 34, to p. 277, and Pl. II, p. 1526.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cf. Bérard, ‘L’ Esprit des lois devant la Congrégation de l’Index’, pp. 623–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cf. Vernière, Spinoza et la pensée française, vol. II, p. 457; Spinoza, Tractatus theologico-politicus, xx, pp. 952-64.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jésus-Christ, Contrains-les d’entrer, [1686-7], in Œuvres diverses, vol. II, pp. 355–560.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Letters Concerning Toleration [1689-1706], in Works, Strahan, etc., 1777, vol. II, pp. 313–681.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Montesquieu, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  37. On the development of this attitude, see Shelby T. McCloy, The Humanitarian Movement in Eighteenth-Century France, University of Kentucky Press, 1957, pp. 172–209.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hachette, 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Montesquieu, pp. 200–10.

    Google Scholar 

  40. The following examples show the uncertainty of Dedieu’s conjectmes: in L.p. LXXV, N. I, iii, pp. 155-6, Pl. I, p. 245, Usbek showed that the Christians started by freeing their slaves, because all men are equal, but ended by enslaving the negroes in order to cultivate land in the colonies. It is difficult to say how far this ironical criticism is sentimental or rational. In L.p. XXXIV, N. I, iii, p. 71, Pl. I, p. 180, Usbek showed that slaves have a bad effect on their masters: this argument is utilitarian, not sentimental. Dedieu conjectured that P. 174 (Bkn. 1935) and P. 2194 (Bkn. 171) were written after 1733 (Montesquieu, p. 204). In fact, though he was right about P. 2194 (after 1749), he was wrong about P. 174, which was probably written as early as 1721-31. Thus it is not correct to say that between 1721-33, M. “obéit […] plus au sentiment qu’à la raison” (Montesquieu, p. 202). Dedieu did not of course have any positive means of dating the Pensées.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See above, p. 61, n. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See P. van Tieghem, Le Préromantisme, SFELT, 1948, vol. I, pp. 10–11 and 165-6, for a discussion of the influence of this idea.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. Ehrard, L’idée de nature, vol. II, pp. 509–15.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, pp. 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Cf. Coplestone, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 94-5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Politics, I, ii, 14–15, pp. 23-5; cf. ibid., 19-20, pp. 27-9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Montesquieu e la scienza délia società, p. 370.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cf. Aristotle, Politics, I, ii, 20-21, p. 29; Digest, I, vi, 1, p. 8; Pufendorf, Dn., VI, iii, 7-8, vol. II, pp. 204-6; see also Levin, op. cit., pp. 262-4.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Jameson, op. cit., pp. 59-66.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Exodus, XXI, 20-21. Barbeyrac discussed this law (Dn., VI, iii, 4, n. 3, vol. II, p. 203) in the sort of impartial tone that the positivists pretend to find in M., whereas M.’s criticism was expressed in emotive terms.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Locke was probably refuting Hobbes, eg. Leviathan, II, xviii, pp. 159-70: he was principally concerned with the political implications of the theory.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Op. cit., p. 202, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Following the order of P. 174; in Lois, XV, ii, this argument comes first.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Politics, I, ii, 16-18, pp. 25–7.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jameson, op. cit., p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Eg. Institutes, I, iii, 2-3, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  57. St. Thomas, S.t., II, ii, Q.57, A. 3, rep. obj. 2, vol. X, p. no; Domat, op. cit., Livre préliminaire, ii, 2, paragraph 3, vol. I, p. 14. See Jameson, op. cit., pp. 82-212 for a full account of this question.

    Google Scholar 

  58. République, I, v, pp. 32–47.

    Google Scholar 

  59. The jurists did not say that it was necessarily in order to prevent an enemy from killing a soldier at the moment of capture, that the former was enslaved, but rather in order to prevent him from returning home and then renewing the war. M. does not, in this passage, say how it is possible to “s’assurer de [la] personne [des captifs], qu’ils ne puissent plus nuire”, without enslaving them permanently.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Op. cit., loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Politics, I, ii, 20-21, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 418, n. 45, to p. 224; Pl. II, p. 1510.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cf. Dedieu, Montesquieu, pp. 204–5 and 207.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jameson, op. cit., pp. 318-9; cf. Dedieu, Montesquieu, p. 207; Dodds, op. cit., pp. 120-3; Levin, op. cit., p. 251; Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 212; Crocker, Nature and Culture, p. 321.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cf. Lois, XVII, ii, N. I, ii, pp. 368–9, Pl. II, pp. 523-4: hot climates turn people into political slaves; also Lois, V, xv, N. I, i, p. 85, Pl. II, p. 297.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. II, p. 417, n. 42, to p. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See the Histoire naturelle de l’homme of 1749, in Œuvres philosophiques, pp. 312–3, where Buffon, deploring the maltreatment of the negroes, clearly reveals his personal emotions.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cf. Fletcher, Montesquieu and English Politics, p. 228: “Never do we see his powers of reason and feeling more closely mated”.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Starobinski, op. cit., p. 109; Shelby T. McCloy, op. cit., p. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Montesquieu, pp. 186–7; Montesquieu l’homme et l’oeuvre, pp. 132-3.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Montesquieu, p. 210; Montesquieu l’homme et l’oeuvre, p. 163.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, p. 80; cf. a similar statement in Fletcher, Montesquieu and English Politics, p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  74. A notable exception to this tendency was the eighteenth-century philoshopher Morelly: cf. his Code de la nature [1755], edited by G. Chinard, 1950, pp. 206–7; on Morelly, see R. N. C. Coe, ‘A 1a recherche de Morelly’, RHLF, 1957, pp. 321-34 and 515-23.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Vian, op. cit., p. 316; Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 42; Gharmont, op. cit., p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sée, Les Idées politiques, p. 137.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Eg. Vian, op. cit., pp. 337-8; Sorel, op. cit., p. 164; Sabine, op. cit., p. 551. This view has been convincingly challenged by A. Laborde-Milaâ, ‘La Sensibilité de Montesquieu’, Revue des études historiques, 1908, pp. 333-40. It is time somebody pointed out that M.’s refusal to reveal his identity to the batelier whose father’s ransom he paid, indicates not so much “un caractère de bonté dédaigneuse” (Vian, loc. cit.), as modesty or timidity — M. admitted that timidity had been “le fléau de toute ma vie” (P. 1005, Bkn. 7, N. II, p. 278, Pl. I, p. 980).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cf. Shackleton, M., p. 203.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Edgar Zévort is surely mistaken when he claims that M. “restera […] jusqu’à la fin, le partisan du communisme” (Montesquieu, Lecène et Oudin, 1888, p. 109).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cf. Sorel, op. cit., p. 128; Ehrard, Politique de Montesquieu, p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Op. cit., Le Droit public, I, xviii, vol. II, pp. 131-2.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See below, p. 174.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cf. PJato, Laws, I, 626a, vol. I, p. 7, where one speaker says that each Greek state is “by a law of nature, engaged perpetually in an informal war with every other state”. See also Levin, op. cit., pp. 48-9.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Continuation des pensées diverses, cxxiv-cxxv, pp. 359–62.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Cf. S.t., II, ii, Q. 25, A. 9, vol. IX, p. 324: “charity does not require us to do that which belongs to its perfection. Therefore charity does not require us to show the signs and effects of love to our enemies”.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ibid., Q.40. A. 1, vol. IX, pp. 500-503.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Cf. Grotius, Dg., I, ii, 6-10, vol. I, pp. 76–106.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cf. Levin, op. cit., pp. 135-7.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Commentaire sur quelques principales maximes de l’Esprit des lois, Œuvres complètes, vol. XXX, p. 412; Dictionnaire philosophique, art. ‘Guerre’, Œuvres complètes, vol. XIX, pp. 321-2. The latest study of the attitude of M. to Machiavelli is by Shackleton, Comparative Literature Studies, 1964, pp. 1-13.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cf. Grotius, Dg., II, i, 17, vol. I, p. 221; Pufendorf, Dn., VII, vi, 5, vol. II, p. 458; Burlamaqui, Principes du droit politique, Amsterdam, 1751, IV, ii, 11, vol. II, pp. 18-19.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Cf. Ehrard, Politique de Montesquieu, p. 308.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lettres persanes, éd. Vernière, p. 375, n. c, and Pl. I, p. 1593.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 202.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Even though it must be admitted that he did not show that the “Germains” attacked the Roman Empire in self-defence.

    Google Scholar 

  95. P. 1814, Bkn. 390, N. II, p. 538, Pl. II, p. 1100; Pufendorf, Dn., VIII, vi, 2, vol. II, p. 455; Gravina, Origines iuris civilis, II, xiv, p. 253; cf. Levin, op. cit., pp. 138-9.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Grotius, Dg., III, xx, 27-40, vol. II, pp. 953–9; Pufendorf, Dn., VIII, vii, 2, vol. II, p. 475, and ibid., viii, 1-4, pp. 480-2.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Cf. Lettres persanes, ed. Vernière, p. 375, n. c, to p. 197, and Pl. I, p. 1593.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Several points of detail also show this influence. In P. 1814, Bkn. 390, N. II, p. 538, Pl. II, p. 1100, M. stated that it is wrong to poison the waters of an enemy country or to assassinate its monarch. These two points had been discussed by Grotius, who implied that it is wrong to poison waters, but that it is not wrong for a king to be assassinated by a man who is not his subject (Dg., III, iv, 16-18, vol. II, pp. 778-83); Pufendorf also thought that such assassination is not wrong (Dn., VIII, vi, 16, vol. II, p. 469). In the Lois, M. showed that the rights of ambassadors are governed by the law of nations and not by political law (XXVI, xxi, N. I, ii, pp. 154-5, Pl. II, p. 773); Grotius (Dg., II, xviii, vol. II, pp. 531-47) and Pufendorf (Dn., II, iii, 23, vol. I, p. 215) had spoken in similar terms. In the L.p., Usbek said that “une alliance, faite entre deux nations pour en opprimer une troisième, n’est pas légitime” (XCV, N. I, iii, p. 190, Pl. I, p. 272); Grotius (Dg., II, xxv, 4, vol. II, pp. 695-6) and Pufendorf (Dn., VIII, vi, 14, vol. II, p. 467) again held similar views.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Dictionnaire philosophique, art. ‘Patrie’, Œuvres complètes, vol. XX, p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Politique tirée de l’écriture sainte, I, i, 3-4, pp. 313–4.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Œuvres, vol. II, p. 567; see Shackleton, M., p. 71, n, 3. for a further parallel between M. and Fénelon.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Cf. Lp. XLVI, N. I, iii, pp. 88-9, Pl. I, pp. 194-5.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Cf. also Samuel Clarke’s “agreeing community of all mankind”, Discourse, p. 622.

    Google Scholar 

  104. The Communings with Himself of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, VI, xlvi, Loeb edition, PP. 155–7.

    Google Scholar 

  105. For example: Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, vol. IV, p. 128; Vaughan, Studies in the History of Political Philosophy, vol. I, p. 290; R. Hubert, ‘La Notion du devenir historique dans la philosophie de Montesquieu’, Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 1939, p. 609; G. Chinard, ‘Montesquieu’s Historical Pessimism’, pp. 163-4; Vyverberg, op. cit., pp. 161-9; Crocker, Nature and Culture, p. 510; P. Gay, The Party of Humanity, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964, p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Cf. P. 478, Bkn. 2171,N. II, p. 171, Pl. I,pp. 1564-5; P. 551, Bkn. 2172, N. II, p. 187, Pl. I, p. 1565; P. 1993, Bkn. 658, N. II, p. 611, Pl. I, p. 1161 ;Lois, XXIV,ii, N. I, ii, pp. 81-2, Pl. II, pp. 715-6.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Cf. Vyverberg, op. cit., pp. 66-70.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Ibid., pp. 175-88.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Ibid., p. 155.

    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). Rationalism in Positive Law: Montesquieu the Reformer. 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_6

  • 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