Abstract
In recent years, Montesquieu scholarship has seen a number of attempts to explain, critique, attack, or revise Montesquieu’s philosophy of liberalism. Today, scholars are less likely than they were in the past to take extreme positions, defending him either as the hero of the liberal tradition, or, even less plausibly, a “rationalizer of reaction.”1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Carcassonee and Mathiez: Carcassone is an example of the former, Mathiez, an example of the latter; see Franklin L. Ford 1953. Robe and Sword; the Regrouping of the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
See Annelien de Dijn. 2014. “Was Montesquieu a Liberal Republican?” The Review of Politics 76 (1): 21–41.
Thomas L. Pangle. 1989. Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism: A Commentary on the Spirit of the Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michael Sonenscher. 2007. Before the Deluge: Public Debt, Inequality, and the Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Copyright information
© 2016 Andrew Scott Bibby
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bibby, A.S. (2016). Conclusion. In: Montesquieu’s Political Economy. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477224_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477224_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-56707-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47722-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)