Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Montesquieu’s Conception of Law

  • Chapter
Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law

  • 117 Accesses

Abstract

How far are the laws that govern the universe a creation of the free will of God, and how far is God Himself dependent on those laws? This is no new problem in philosophy, but it was one that intensely preoccupied the minds of the scientists and moralists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, who lived in a world where man seemed rapidly to be solving many of the mysteries that previous ages had attributed to the unfathomable power of God or nature.

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. Dix-huitième siècle, Boivin, [s.d.], p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Op. cit., p.197.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gotta, Montesquieu e la scienza della società, pp. 9–67; Vier, op. cit., pp. 140-48.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ‘La Religion de Montesquieu’, Congrès, pp. 287–94; M., pp. 349-54.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. 1096, Bkn. 672, N. II, p. 296, Pl. I, p. 1170 (date uncertain: seems to be 1734-8, but could be fragment of the Traité des devoirs); cf. Cicero, De natura deorum, II, xxxiv; in the Loeb edition, pp. 206-7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. 2095, Bkn. 2069, N. II, p. 641, Pl. I, p. 1540 (after 1748); cf. S.t., I, Q.2, A. 3, vol. 1, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Traité des devoirs, N. III, p. 159, Pl. I, p. 109; Lois, I, i, N. I, i, p. 2, Pl. II, p. 232; cf. Plato, Philebus, 29a-30a; in the Loeb edition, The Statesman, Philebus, Ion, pp. 263-7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. 1454, N. II, pp. 420-1 (not in PL); cf. P. 1699, Bkn. 378, N. II, p. 508, Pl. II, pp. 1097-8; see Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. III, p. 437, n. 32, and Pl. II, p. 1549.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Cotta, Montesquieu e la scienza della società, p. 43; Dedieu, Montesquieu, p. 286.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. Pensées, VIII, 556, vol. XIV, pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Loc. cit., pp. 2-3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cf. É. Gilson on St. Thomas’s attitude: “II y a […] deux théologies qui, si elles ne se continuent pas à la rigueur pour nos esprits finis, peuvent au moins s’accorder et se compléter: la théologie révélée qui part du dogme, et la théologie naturelle qu’élabore la raison” (La Philosophie au moyen âge, Payot, 1922, vol. II, p. 18).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Discourse, p. 600.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rousseau, Du Contrat social, etc., Garnier, 1962, p. 430; cf. ibid., p. 422.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Many critics see M. as a man without deep emotions (see above, pp. 165-6), and some extend this judgment to his religious life too: “1e sentiment religieux lui échappa toujours”, says V. Giraud, (’sur l’ Esprit des lois’, in Moralistes français, Hachette, 1923, p. 99); cf. Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vol. VII, p. 52; Dedieu, Montesquieu, p. 288; Caillois, ‘Montesquieu et l’athéisme contemporain’, p. 327. They have not seen the whole picture because they have ignored the emotion in P. 57 (Bkn. 2083): “je ne suis point si humble que les athées.] […] je ne veux point troquer […] l’idée de mon immortalité contre celle de la béatitude d’un jour” (N. II, p. 20, Pl. I, p. 1543); in the Traité des devoirs (P. 1266, Bkn. 615, N. II, pp. 341-3, Pl. I, pp. 1137-9); and in P. 1805, Bkn. 206, N. II, p. 536, Pl. II, p. 1041. They were also unaware of the Lettre persane to which É. Gayrol has recently drawn attention (‘Des Lettres persanes oubliées’, RHLF, 1965, pp. 15-26), where Hagi Ibbi tells a friend of the intense agony he suffered when he was unable to make his usual prayers to God. According to É. Gayrol, this letter reveals in M. “une certaine effusion de sensibilité religieuse authentique et presque mystique” (loc. cit., p. 21).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abbé de La Roche, Examen critique, p. 118; La Porte, op. cit., p. 10; Destutt de Tracy, Commentaire sur l’Esprit des lois, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, vol. VII, p. 74; Sorel, op. cit., p. 71; Sir Courtenay Ilbert, ‘Montesquieu’, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1904, p. 23; Dedieu, Montesquieu, p. 121; Charmont, op. cit., p. 38; P. Martino, ‘De Quelques résidus métaphysiques dans l’ Esprit des lois’, p. 237.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Barckhausen, Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres, p. 40; Brethe de la Gressaye, ‘La Philosophie du droit de Montesquieu’, pp. 201-4; G. Vedel in the Seuil edition of M.’s works, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. For a very clear explanation of M.’s definition of law, see Janet, Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, pp. 333–4; Janet unfortunately fails to place the definition in its historical context and embarks instead on speculations about primitive man.

    Google Scholar 

  20. On this question see G. Tonelli, ‘La Nécessité des lois de la nature au XVIIIe siècle, et chez Kant en 1762’, Revue d’histoire des sciences, 1959, pp. 224–41; also R. Lenoble, ‘L’Évolution de l’idée de nature du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle’, Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 1953, pp.108-29.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Op. cit., p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Letter to Mersenne, 15th April 1630, Œuvres, vol. I, p. 145; Méditations métaphysiques, pp. 232–3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meditationes, in Œuvres, vol. VII, p. 380: ego non puto essentias rerum, mathematicasque illas veritates quae de ipsis cognosci possunt, esse independentes a Deo.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ethics, I, xxix, p. 394; cf. Tonelli, ‘La Nécessité des lois de la nature’, pp. 227-8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. For comparisons of Malebranche and Spinoza, see J. Moreau’s introduction to Malebranche, Correspondance avec J.-J. Dortous de Mairan, Vrin, 1947, pp. 1–98, and Vernière, Spinoza et la pensée française, vol. I, pp. 259-70 and 279-86.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Méditations chrétiennes et métaphysiques, V, vii, in Œuvres complètes, Vrin, 1958-68, vol. X, 1959, p. 49; cf. Tonelli, ‘La Nécessité des lois de la nature’, p. 227, who appears to accept rather uncritically this affirmation by Malebranche.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Because Malebranche did not say that the laws are arbitrary à l’égard de Dieu — this would have been in contradiction with the principles of his philosophy — but only “à l’égard des êtres créés”.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Entretiens sur la métaphysique et sur la religion, X, xvii, p. 247

    Google Scholar 

  29. Principia, III, General Scholium, pp. 544–6; cf. Burtt, op. cit., pp. 290-1.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Opticks, III, pp. 375–8; cf. Burtt, op. cit., pp. 292-3.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Of The High Veneration Man’s Intellect Owes to God, Works, vol. V, pp. 139–40.

    Google Scholar 

  32. The Excellency of Theology Compared with Natural Philosophy, Works, vol. IV, p. 43; cf. Burtt, op. cit., pp. 168 and 187-96.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Discourse, pp. 574 and 696-8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Letter to Maupertuis, no. 516 in Voltaire’s Correspondence, edited by T. Besterman, Geneva, Institut et musée Voltaire, 1953-65, vol. II, p. 382; cf. Y. Beiaval, ‘La Crise de la géométrisation de l’univers dans la philosophie des lumières’, Revue internationale de philosophie, 1952, pp. 350-1.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lettres philosophiques, XIV, Œuvres complètes, vol. XXII, p. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  36. It is true that this notion seems to be contradicted by Spicilège 390, Bkn. P. 2070, N. II, p. 787, Pl. I, p. 1541.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, pp. 135–47.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huntington Cairns, ‘The Separation of Powers’, in Law and the Social Sciences, New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1935, p. 132; Starobinski, op. cit., p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See above, pp. 24-5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cf. Brunet, op. cit., p. 340.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cf. Malebranche, De la Recherche de la vérité [1674-1712], in Œuvres complètes, Vrin, vols. I-III, 1962-4, X e éclaircissement, vol. III, p. 152: “Dieu connaît l’étendue puisqu’il l’a faite”; ibid., p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cf. De la Recherche de la vérité, VI, ii, 4, vol. II, p. 343: “Monsieur Descartes a pensé que Dieu avait formé le monde tout d’un coup. […] cette pensée est digne de la puissance et de la sagesse de Dieu”; ibid., XV e éclaircissement, vol. III, p. 219; Malebranche, Traité de morale [1683], II, ii-iii, in Œuvres complètes, Vrin, vol. XI, 1966, pp. 157-75; cf. Maupertuis in Histoire de l’Académie royale des sciences, année 1744, Amsterdam, Mortier, 1750-51, p. 576; Burlamaqui, Principes du droit naturel, II, i, 12, pp. 151-2.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. Malebranche, Méditations chrétiennes et métaphysiques, XI, xiv, p. 121: “Si deux corps se choquent, ils se communiquent mutuellement leur mouvement d’une manière constante et uniforme”; ibid., VI, v, p. 59; Traité de morale, I, x, 5, p. 118. For similar phraseology in other writers, see: Clarke, Discourse, p. 698; Duverney cited in J. Roger, Les Sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siècle, Colin, 1963, p. 230; Buffon in Œuvres philosophiques, p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See: P. 156, Bkn. 2061, N. II, pp. 49-50, Pl. I, pp. 1536-7; P. 157, Bkn. 2066, N. II, p. 50, Pl. I, p. 1540; P. 1195, Bkn, 2107. N. II, p. 320, Pl. I, p. 1548; P. 1946, Bkn. 673, N. II, p. 589, Pl. I, p. 1177; Geographica, N. II, p. 955, not in Pl.

    Google Scholar 

  45. On the attitude of the Oratoire to Cartesianism and to Malebranche see: P. Lallemand, Histoire de l’éducation dans l’ancien Oratoire de France, Thorin, 1888, pp. 113–39; also Sainte-Beuve, Port-Royal, Hachette, 1922, vol. V, p. 396, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Such, at least, is the implication of P. 305, Bkn. 2108, N. II, p. 131, Pl. I, p. 1549: “Jamais visionnaire n’a eu plus de bon sens que le père Malebranche”. Cf. Voltaire, Dictionnairephilosophique, art. ‘Idée’, Œuvres complètes, vol. XIX, p.396; Condillac, Traité des systèmes, in Œuvres philosophiques, vol. XXXIII of the Corpus général des philosophes français, tome I, pp. 150-1.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Encyclopédie, Discours préliminaire, vol. I, p.v.

    Google Scholar 

  48. De l’esprit, Durand, 1759, III, ii, p. 192.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Dictionnaire des synonymes in Œuvres philosophiques, tome III, p. 474; for the date of this work, see tome III, p. ix.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. Discours de la méthode, II, p.20: all sciences based on mathematics are similar in that although the “objets” they study are different, “elles n’y considèrent autre chose que les divers rapports ou proportions qui s’y trouvent”.

    Google Scholar 

  51. T. S. Jouffroy, Cours de droit naturel, Prévost-Crocius, 1834-42, vol. II, pp. 369–80; Camille Jullian, op. cit., pp. 10-13; Dedieu, Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise, pp. 274-5; Brethe de la Gressaye, Lois, vol. I, pp. 232-3; Shackleton, M., pp. 245-6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Discourse, p. 571. This quotation cornes from the first part of the Discourse, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, which Clarke gave as a Boyle lecture in 1704.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Janet, Histoire de la science politique, vol. II, p. 330: F. Strowski, Montaigne, Alcan, 1906, p. 310; Crisafulli, ‘Parallels to Ideas in the Lettres persanes’, pp. 773-4; Barrière, Un Grand provincial, p. 16; Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et l’esprit cartesien’, pp. 160-1; Shackleton, M., pp. 245-6. It has also been noted that the source of M.’s definition of justice in L.p. LXXXIII could be Leibniz’ Théodicée [1710] (I, 73, in Œuvres philosophiques, Alcan, 1900, vol. II, pp. 123-4): cf. Crisafulli, loc. cit. and Lettres persanes, ed. Vernière, p. 174, n. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  54. M., p. 246; Traité de morale, I, i, 14, p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Méditations chrétiennes et métaphysiques, IV, viii, p. 39 (our italics).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., IV, v, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cf. also Bayle’s Continuation des pensées diverses, clii, p. 409: “Dieu a pu créer la matière, un homme, un cercle, ou les laisser dans le néant, mais il n’a pu les produire sans leur donner leurs propriétés essentielles” (our italics).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Malebranche’s most forceful attack on voluntarism occurs in the X e éclaircissement to De la Recherche de la vérité, vol. III, pp. 132–9.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cf. Destutt de Tracy, loc. cit.; Seguin in Callot, op. cit., pp. 83-4; Althusser, op. cit., pp. 23-5; Brethe de la Gressaye, ‘La Philosophie du droit de Montesquieu’, p. 203; D. Oster in introduction to Lois, Seuil edition of M.’s works, p.527.

    Google Scholar 

  60. M., pp. 244-5.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cf. Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment [1932], translated by F. C. A. Koelln and J. P. Pettegrove, Princeton University Press, 1951, pp. 242–3, and Courtney, ‘Montesquieu’, p. 36. Gassirer and Courtney are the only scholars to have drawn attention to the similarities between M. and Grotius on this fundamental question.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Is there any possibility of Burlamaqui having influenced M.? The Principes du droit naturel appeared in 1747, the Lois in 1748, and both works were published by the same firm. M. knew of the existence of Burlamaqui’s work (cf. Vernet to M., N. III, p. 1136 and Mussard to M., N. III, p. 1092), but it is uncertain whether he ever saw it in full; it does not feature in his catalogue. It is most unlikely to have influenced him at this late date since his conception of law as a relationship is not an after-thought, but inspires the whole of the Lois.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cf. Bréhier, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 708-30.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cf. É. Gilson, Le Thomisme, Vrin, 1927, pp. 281–2.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Euthyphro, 10d; in the Loeb edition, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phædo, Phædrus, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Op. cit., p. 64.

    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’s Conception of Law. 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_7

  • 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