STUDY GUIDE FOR MONTESQUIEU

Part I. Basic Interpretation of Montesquieu
If you are interested in the thought of Montesquieu after reading Rahe’s essay, please go to the Primary Source Documents to read some of the essential passages of The Spirit of Laws that relate to the article. A biography of Montesquieu is also available. As you go back to the primary sources, keep in mind the following questions:

1. Describe Montesquieu’s understanding of God. Explain the interrelation of God, or “prime reason,” and the laws.

2. Rahe distinguishes the theory of natural law found in Chapter One of Book One of The Spirit of Laws from that found in Books Two and Three. Create your own definition of “natural law” based only on what Montesquieu says about natural law in Chapter Two of Book One of The Spirit of Laws. Contrast your definition with Montesquieu’s definition in Chapter One. How are they different? What premises distinguish one definition from the other?

3. Describe Montesquieu’s hypothetical history of man in the state of nature. Explain the reasoning behind the transition from each stage into the next. What are the four laws of nature that these stages indicate? What is the role of the instinct of self-preservation in this history?

4. Describe Montesquieu’s distinction between natural laws and positive laws. How do positive laws depend on the natural laws? What is the difference between the laws that govern the physical world and the laws that govern the intelligent world? Why does the physical world conform more exactly and the intelligent world less exactly to the respective laws that govern them?

5. What is prudence and why is it important for Montesquieu? How does it relate the natural law to positive law?

6. Why does Montesquieu reject political idealism? How does his understanding of human nature provide a basis for this rejection?

Part II. Connections to Other Thinkers
With The Spirit of Laws Montesquieu became an extremely influential political thinker, especially for those responsible for the development of the American Constitution. But Montesquieu was also greatly influenced by the early modern political philosophies, especially those of his near contemporaries Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Although the modern tradition marked a distinct break with the traditions of classical and medieval philosophy, modern thinkers were still influenced by the significant works of Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas. As you look deeper into Montesquieu’s writings, consider the following questions in light of this broader history of ideas.

1. Montesquieu believed that the complexity of human nature prohibited the establishment of any one form of government as, in Rahe’s words, “always and everywhere superior.” Consider what Montesquieu says on this point in Chapter Three, Book One of The Spirit of Laws and compare it to the passage in Plato’s The Statesman that Rahe mentions.

2. In Book One, Chapter One, Montesquieu calls laws “necessary relations.” Compare and contrast this definition with that of Aquinas in Summa Theologiae I-II, Q. 90.

3. As Rahe points out, Montesquieu was indebted to Thomas Hobbes for much of his thinking. Compare and contrast their respective understandings of humanity’s “state of nature.” What are the reasons for the differences between Hobbes and Montesquieu? Defend each position separately.

4. For Montesquieu, society is founded upon each individual’s instinct of self-preservation, or to use another term, self-interest. Compare this understanding of society to that of Hobbes. Contrast it with Aquinas’s understanding that society is founded upon the pursuit of a “common good.” Are the views of Aquinas and Montesquieu compatible on this point, or is self-preservation unavoidably at odds with the pursuit of a common good?

5. According to Rahe and other scholars, of all the thinkers who influenced the Framers of the Constitution, no single person was more significant than Montesquieu. With this in mind, consider the following:

a. How are his ideas about natural law reflected in the Constitution, either in content or in structure?

b. Montesquieu said that no one form of government was best for all people. Does the Constitution see itself as suited for any people or only for Americans?

c. How does the Constitution reflect Montesquieu’s commitment both to universal truths and to changing circumstances?

Part III. Critical Interpretations of Montesquieu
With a basic understanding of Montesquieu’s thought, let us examine his work more critically. Are his arguments persuasive? Can we expand on Montesquieu’s thought to determine what he would say about issues that he did not directly address? Use the questions below as your guide:

1. According to Book One, Chapter One of The Spirit of Laws, laws are “necessary relations.” However, in that same chapter Montesquieu says that intelligent beings “[do] not conform to [their laws] so exactly as the physical world” because “their nature requires them to be free agents.” How could one be subject to “necessary” laws without necessarily having to follow them always? In thinking about this question, consider what Montesquieu must mean here by “necessary.”

2. Rahe suggests that Montesquieu’s work may have a hidden agenda, veiled for fear of being censored by those in authority. Where can you find evidence of such an attempt in the readings from Montesquieu presented here? If you find no such evidence, explain how Chapter One harmonizes with Chapters Two and Three.

3. How or why could Montesquieu both oppose enlightened despotism (as Rahe points out) and nevertheless think that absolute monarchy, a type of despotism, need not be a bad form of government?

4. In Book One, Chapter Two of The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu says this of man in the state of nature: “Plain it is that his first ideas would not be of a speculative nature; he would think of the preservation of his being, before he would investigate his origin.” What does this suggest about man’s practical and theoretical capacities? Further, Montesquieu begins his hypothesis by envisioning man “before the establishment of society.” Does this mean, then, that for Montesquieu it is necessary to consider man first in isolation from others and driven by the desire to preserve himself in order to understand human nature? What about Montesquieu’s belief, as related by Professor Rahe, that “in politics, there is no one passion to be reckoned on, no single, all-encompassing imperative to be fulfilled”? How could one harmonize these two seemingly opposed views?

5. Montesquieu says, “The law which, impressing on our minds the idea of a Creator, inclines us towards Him, is the first in importance, though not in order, of natural laws.” However, if man’s inclination toward God is first in the order of importance, how could it not be first in the order of natural laws? What must Montesquieu mean when he makes this distinction?

Part IV. Connections to Contemporary Concerns:
Montesquieu had a tremendous impact on the political thinkers of the 18th century. Let us consider some contemporary issues in political theory and philosophy and see how Montesquieu’s thought might be applied to them:

1. Some today have suggested that the existence of Islamic fundamentalism in some countries makes them ill-suited for democracy. This view is contrasted with the assertion that democracy is the best form of government for all people because of its presumed compatibility with the way all human beings really are. What would Montesquieu have to say to either side of this debate?

2. The notion of self-interest or self-preservation is foundational to Montesquieu’s vision of human nature and consequently to his vision of society and government. Is contemporary American society united around self-interest, a common good, or both? Do the interests that motivate our society comport well with our form of government (democratic republic) as Montesquieu suggests it ought?

3. In the Advertisement preceding Book One Montesquieu writes, “in all countries and governments morality is requisite.” Is this a natural law argument? What role does positive law play in ensuring morality? Given his understanding of the role of self-interest, is morality opposed to, or in accord with, self-interest? How does the American understanding of a separation of Church and State complicate or clarify this issue?

4. There are widely divergent opinions as to whether man is fundamentally self-interested or fundamentally altruistic. Those who advocate an understanding of man as primarily altruistic argue that a society built on self-interest would be necessarily unstable: the members of that society would inevitably come to distrust one another to the point of civil war. Does Montesquieu (who viewed man as primarily motivated by self-interest) provide a sufficient response to this criticism? How does Montesquieu’s theory reconcile self-interest and the possibility of civil peace? What kind of laws might characterize the political society that was primarily altruistic rather than self-interested, and vice versa? Is there a third viewpoint that could harmonize the insights of both positions?

5. In the Advertisement Montesquieu argues that love of equality is the political virtue which “sets the republican government in motion,” whereas love of honor “gives motion to monarchy.” Love of equality has been an essential part of the American political experiment; this principle was affirmed first in the Declaration of Independence and again in the Civil Rights Movement. However laudable this political virtue may be, the famous political commentator Alexis de Tocqueville also noticed a potential downside. Echoing Montesquieu’s separation of equality and honor, republic and monarchy, Tocqueville writes: “democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy” (Democracy in America, Vol. II, Book II, Ch. 1). Tocqueville goes on to analyze how customs soften as social conditions become more equal, a process which in turn gives rise to what he calls the “tyranny of the majority”: an altogether new and unique kind of despotism that arises due to “an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each of them…is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest…he exists only in himself and for himself alone” (Democracy in America, Vol. II, Book IV, Ch. 6). Do you agree with Tocqueville’s analysis? Can a love of equality produce negative consequences under certain circumstances? How might these consequences be remedied? Is a love of honor necessarily incompatible with the love of equality? What other political virtue (or virtues) might mediate the negative consequences?