Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:27:45.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Montesquieu and De Tocqueville and Corporative Individualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

William Henry George
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, prefixed to the French Constitution of 1791, reads as follows: “Every society in which a guarantee of rights is not assured nor a separation of powers determined does not have a constitution.” Without question the men of 1789 had come under the influence of Montesquieu as well as of John Locke. It is true that a separation of powers is to be found in the Two Treatises of Government; but that doctrine is set out in bolder relief and more sharply defined by Montesquieu than by Locke. However, the men of 1789 took only one half the teachings of Montesquieu; the other half they rejected. The exclusive, oligarchical, tyrannical spirit of the corporations of the ancient régime, the abuse of the principle of aristocracy—privileges without services, as Taine puts it—the growth of the spirit of equality as a result of the industrial revolution, all set men stoutly against a “corporative” (in contrast with a pulverized) structure of society. Rousseau, Turgot and the Physiocrats demanded a leveling of hierarchized society: the mountains must be brought low, the valleys filled up and a highway made for the plain man to walk thereon. It was only with the Restoration that the value of an aristocratic element—from Montesquieu's point of view a corporative element—came into prominence. It was widely discussed during that period, and Montesquieu was the authority of the day.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , February 1922 , pp. 10 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1922

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Barker, , Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 484.Google Scholar

2 Faguet, , La Politique Comparée, p. 46.Google Scholar

3 Montesquieu, , L'Esprit des Lois, bk. iii, ch. 2.Google Scholar

4 DeTocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique, (15me ed.), tome i, introduction. p. 1.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., tome iii, pp. 472–73.

6 DeTocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique, tome iii, p. 418.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., tome iii, p. 490.

8 DeTocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique tome iii, p. 510.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., tome i, p. 159.

10 Ibid., tome i, pp. 105–106.

11 Ibid., tomen ii, p. 253.

12 De Tocqueville, , L'Ancien Régime, (6me ed.), p. 240.Google Scholar

13 De Tocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique, tome i, p. 15.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., tome iii, p. 498.

15 DeTocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique, tome iii, pp. 529–30.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., tome ii, pp. 38, 39.

17 DeTocqueville, , Démocratie en Amerique, tome iii, pp. 528–29.Google Scholar

18 Montesquieu, , L'Esprit des Lois, bk. v, ch. 3.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., bk. ii, ch. 4.

20 Ibid., bk. xi, ch. 4.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.