Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:48:51.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was Montesquieu a Liberal Republican?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2014

Annelien de Dijn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sets out to criticize Thomas Pangle's and Paul Rahe's reading of The Spirit of the Laws as a contribution to liberal republicanism, arguing instead that Montesquieu's text is better understood as a defense of liberal monarchism. Pangle's and Rahe's interpretation of The Spirit of the Laws as an unequivocal defense of the English modern republic is wrongheaded. Montesquieu in fact spent much more of his time and energy outlining another and very different political model, moderate monarchy, embodied not by England but by the government under which he lived—France. This conclusion has profound implications for our understanding not just of The Spirit of the Laws but also of the history of early modern political thought more generally speaking, showing that the political debate of this period cannot be reduced to a struggle between classical and modern republicans.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , Winter 2014 , pp. 21 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2014 

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 Shackleton, Robert, Montesquieu: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961)Google Scholar 356.

2 David Hume to Montesquieu, 10 April 1749, in Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, ed. Masson, André (Paris: Nagel, 1950–55), 1217–22Google Scholar.

3 [Voltaire], L' A, B, C, dialogue curieux. Traduit de L'Anglais de Monsieur Huet (London, 1762).

4 Pangle, Thomas, Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism: A Commentary on “The Spirit of the Laws” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973)Google Scholar; Rahe, Paul, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

5 For two other recent if ultimately very different critiques of the “liberal” reading of Montesquieu, see Spector, Céline, “Was Montesquieu Liberal? The Spirit of the Laws in the History of Liberalism,” in French Liberalism from Montesquieu to the Present Day, ed. Geenens, Raf and Rosenblatt, Helena (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Douglass, Robin, “Montesquieu and Modern Republicanism,” Political Studies 60, no. 3 (2012): 703–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 This argument was first developed in 1985 by Bernard Manin in explicit refutation of Pangle's thesis (see Manin, “Montesquieu et la politique moderne,” in Lectures de l'Esprit des lois, ed. Spector, C. and Hoquet, T. [Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux, 2004], 171–31Google Scholar). More recently, Spector, Céline has further developed Manin's view in her Montesquieu: Pouvoirs, richesses et sociétés (Paris: PUF, 2004)Google Scholar and Montesquieu, liberté, droit et histoire (Paris: Michalon, 2010)Google Scholar. The Manin-Spector interpretation of The Spirit of the Laws reflects to a certain extent an older tradition in French Montesquieu scholarship. Thus, French scholars such as Aron, Raymond (Les étapes de la pensée sociologique: Montesquieu, Comte, Marx, Tocqueville, Durkheim, Pareto, Weber [Paris: Gallimard, 1967])Google Scholar and Althusser, Louis (Montesquieu: la politique et l'histoire [Paris: PUF, 1959])Google Scholar acknowledged Montesquieu's positive portrayal of monarchy. However, both Aron and Althusser saw Montesquieu first and foremost as the proponent of a new and more scientific way of thinking about history and society rather than as a political theorist and in that sense their work differs quite fundamentally from Manin's and Spector's.

More recently, Montesquieu's positive portrayal of the French monarchy has also been highlighted by Anglophone scholars such as Mosher, Michael, “Monarchy's Paradox: Honor in the Face of Sovereign Power,” in Montesquieu's Science of Politics: Essays on “The Spirit of Laws,” ed. Carrithers, David, Mosher, Michael, and Rahe, Paul (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), 159–230Google Scholar, and “What Montesquieu Taught: ‘Perfection Does Not Concern Men or Things Universally,’” in Montesquieu and His Legacy, ed. Kingston, Rebecca (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 7–30Google Scholar; Krause, Sharon, Liberalism with Honor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 32–66Google Scholar; and de Dijn, Annelien, Liberty in a Levelled Society? French Political Thought from Montesquieu to Tocqueville (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 It should be noted that in an important recent article Michael Mosher has likewise described Montesquieu as a defender of monarchy “from a liberal prospect” but his reasons for doing so are different from the ones put forward in this paper. More specifically, Mosher argues that Montesquieu's preference for the monarchical model was intrinsic rather than situational, as is argued in this paper. See “Free Trade, Free Speech, and Free Love: Monarchy from the Liberal Prospect in Mid-Eighteenth-Century France,” in Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment: Liberty, Patriotism, and the Common Good, ed. Blom, Hans, Laursen, John Christian, and Simonutti, Luisa (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 101–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Strauss, Leo, What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies (New York: Free Press, 1959)Google Scholar, 50: The Spirit of the Laws “reads as if it were nothing but the document of an incessant fight, an unresolved conflict, between two social or political ideals: the Roman republic, whose principle is virtue, and England, whose principle is political liberty. But in fact Montesquieu decides eventually in favor of England.” It should be noted that not all Straussians subscribe to this particular reading of The Spirit of the Laws. For a divergent interpretation, see Krause, Liberalism with Honor, 32–66.

9 Pangle, Montesquieu's Philosophy, 48–106, 200–212.

10 Ibid., 107–60.

11 Shackleton, Robert, Montesquieu: A Critical Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 274–77Google Scholar. As Shackleton put it elsewhere: “The two most important contributions made by Montesquieu to the history of ideas were the theory of the influence of climate on men and societies and the doctrine of the separation of powers” (Shackleton, “Montesquieu, Bolingbroke and the Separation of Powers,” French Studies 3, no.1 [1949]: 25Google Scholar).

12 For an example of the decline of Montesquieu's stature as a political thinker among twentieth-century Anglophone liberals, see Sabine's, George classic textbook A History of Political Theory (London: Harrap, 1937), 551–60Google Scholar. Even though Sabine recognized The Spirit of the Laws as a classic text, he downplayed its value for twentieth-century readers. It should be noted that among French political theorists Montesquieu's reputation fared better, but even in France Montesquieu was celebrated for his contribution to the development of a new and more scientific way of thinking about history and society rather than for his political theory. See note 6.

13 Pangle, Montesquieu's Philosophy, 2.

14 Lowenthal, David praised Pangle's book in a review for Political Theory as “always informative and intelligent, frequently brilliant and profound” (Political Theory 2, no. 4 [1974]: 453)Google Scholar. Anne M. Cohler, reviewing Montesquieu's Philosophy of Liberalism for the American Political Science Review, was slightly more critical, but she nevertheless concluded that “I would advise anyone interested in our liberal republican regime or in Montesquieu to read this book” (APSR 70, no. 3 [1976]: 963)Google Scholar. And in the Review of Politics, Bernard, L. L. described Pangle's book as a “very valuable and authoritative companion piece to The Spirit of the Laws” (Review of Politics 37, no. 3 [1975]: 409)Google Scholar.

15 Shklar, Judith, “Montesquieu and the New Republicanism,” in Machiavelli and Republicanism, ed. Bock, Gisela, Skinner, Quentin, and Viroli, Maurizio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 266–78Google Scholar. Jacob Levy in an important article likewise assigns Montequieu a crucial role in the transformation from classical to modern republicanism, although it should be noted that his arguments for doing so are very different from Pangle's. See Levy, “Beyond Publius: Montesquieu, Liberal Republicanism and the Small-Republic Thesis,” History of Political Thought 27 (2006): 50–90Google Scholar. It should be noted that by describing Pangle's interpretation as the “new orthodoxy,” I do not wish to suggest that his views were accepted by all Montesquieu scholars. As I explained in note 6 and as further discussed below, Pangle's reading of The Spirit of the Laws has been challenged by quite a number of scholars, but that of course also helps to show that his book became an important touchstone in the debate about Montesquieu's place in the history of political thought.

16 Rahe's Soft Despotism was chosen as an Outstanding Academic Title by Choice magazine for 2009 and his books received admiring reviews in prestigious journals such as Perspectives on Politics (Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 4 [2011]: 947–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar). It should be noted that Rahe's books, and Soft Despotism in particular, have also attracted their fair share of highly critical reviews; however, this seems to be largely because of Rahe's outspoken views on contemporary politics, instead of his interpretation of The Spirit of the Laws. See for instance O'Neill's, Daniel review essay “Whither Democracy,” Political Theory 38 (2010): 564–75Google Scholar.

17 For a nuanced defense of this view, see Keohane, N. O., “Montesquieu: Constitutionalism and Civic Virtue,” in Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 392–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Russo, Elena, “The Youth of Moral Life: The Virtue of the Ancients from Montesquieu to Nietsche” in Montesquieu and the Spirit of Modernity, ed. Carrithers, David and Coleman, Patrick (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002), 101–23Google Scholar. For an excellent more general discussion of the literature on this issue see also David Carrithers, “Introduction: Montesquieu and the Spirit of Modernity,” in Montesquieu and the Spirit of Modernity.

18 Nelson, Eric, The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 166. For an excellent analysis of this debate and Nelson's contribution to it, see Wright, Johnson, “Montesquieuean Moments: The Spirit of the Laws and Republicanism,” Proceedings of the Western Society for French History 35 (2007): 149–69Google Scholar.

19 Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, ed. and trans. Cohler, A., Miller, B., and Stone, H. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar, 2:43. Pangle refers to this same passage in Montesquieu's Philosophy, 82–83.

20 Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, III.3; IV.4;V.3–5; VIII.16. For a similar point, see Carrithers, David, “Democratic and Aristocratic Republics: Ancient and Modern,” in Montesquieu's Science of Politics, ed. Carrithers, David, Mosher, Michael, and Rahe, Paul (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), 109–58Google Scholar.

21 Montesquieu kept extensive travel notebooks during his trip; see Voyages, in Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, ed. Caillois, Roger (Paris: Pléiade, 1949–51)Google Scholar, 1:535–874. For his disparaging remarks about Holland, see Œuvres complètes, 2:862ff.

22 However, for an interesting critique of this view, see Douglass, “Montesquieu and Modern Republicanism,” 3–6.

23 Parenthetical references in text are to book and chapter of Spirit of the Laws, followed by page number in the translation of Cohler et al.

24 Montesquieu likewise compared the English model favorably with the classical republics in chapter 6 of book XI (pp. 164, 166).

25 See footnote 6, above.

26 Constant, Benjamin, Political Writings, ed. and trans. Fontana, Biancamaria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar, 310.

27 Montesquieu outlined the main characteristics of this monarchical political model in The Spirit of the Laws II.4 and III.5–7. For an excellent analysis of Montesquieu's views on moderate monarchy, see Mosher, “Free Trade, Free Speech, and Free Love,” 101–18; and, similarly, but with greater emphasis on the role of honor, Spector, Montesquieu: Pouvoirs, richesses et sociétés. It should be noted that some scholars argue that Montesquieu's depiction of moderate monarchy was actually a portrayal of the feudal monarchy rather than of its eighteenth-century descendant; see for instance Ford, Franklin, Robe and Sword: The Regrouping of the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Cox, Iris, Montesquieu and the History of French Laws (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1983)Google Scholar. However, there is actually no reason to do so, as I argue in “Montesquieu's Controversial Context: The Spirit of the Laws as a Monarchist Tract,” History of Political Thought 34 (2013): 66–88Google Scholar.

28 Pangle, Montesquieu's Philosophy, 14–15; Rahe, Montesquieu, xx, 87, 195–96. It should be noted that Rahe, unlike Pangle, acknowledges that Montesquieu had many positive things to say about monarchies in The Spirit of the Laws. But in Rahe's view, Montesquieu ultimately believed that monarchies were doomed to disappear because of the rise of commerce. See Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty, 193–210.

29 Rahe, Montesquieu, 196. For Rahe's account of Voltaire's misadventure and its effect on Montesquieu, see ibid., 10–16.

30 Shackleton, Montesquieu, 241–42. Shackleton also points out that Montesquieu engaged in self-censorship for the publication of earlier works such as the Considerations on the Romans: see ibid., 154.

31 Pangle draws attention to this passage in Montesquieu's Philosophy, 19.

32 Shackleton, Montesquieu, 362, 356–77.

33 Montesquieu, Œuvres complètes, 2:1040.

34 The idea that Montesquieu should be seen as a defender of “political pluralism” rather than of one particular political model (the English) was first defended in 1985 by Bernard Manin in reply to Thomas Pangle. See Manin, “Montesquieu et la politique moderne.” Manin's interpretation has gained wide currency among Montesquieu scholars. In a contribution to the collection of essays on Montesquieu and his legacy, published in 2009, for instance, the prominent Montesquieu scholar Catherine Larrère has argued that Montesquieu's main contribution to the liberal tradition is his “pluralist vision of the political good” (Larrère, “Montesquieu and Liberalism: The Question of Pluralism,” in Montesquieu and His Legacy, ed. Kingston, Rebecca [Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009], 283–84Google Scholar). For a similar argument see also Spector, Montesquieu: Pouvoirs, Richesses et Sociétés.

35 Pangle, Montesquieu's Philosophy, 116, 199, 216, 279–305; Rahe, Montesquieu, 188–92.

36 For a similar analysis, see Carrithers, David, “Montesquieu et l'étude comparée des constitutions: analyses des régimes anglais et français,” in Actes du Colloque international de Bordeaux 1998 (Bordeaux: Académie de Bordeaux, 1999), 235–42Google Scholar; and Krause, Sharon, “The Spirit of Separate Powers in Montesquieu,” Review of Politics 62, no. 2 (2000): 231–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Montesquieu actually had good reasons to be optimistic about France's future as a trading power, since we know that during the 1730s and 1740s, when Montesquieu was writing The Spirit of the Laws, France succeeded in having a rate of growth in overseas commerce that was 2.4 and 3 times that of Britain. See Cheney, Paul, Revolutionary Commerce: Globalization and the French Monarchy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, 22.

38 A first reference to England occurs in book III, where Montesquieu invokes the failed republican experiment of the English of 1649 in order to illustrate the difficulty of maintaining public virtue in modern times (III.3 [22]). The second reference (at II.4 [19]) is discussed above in the text.

39 As is argued, for instance, by Rahe, Paul, “The Book That Never Was: Montesquieu's Considerations on the Romans in Historical Context,” History of Political Thought 26 (Spring 2005): 80.Google Scholar

40 As is argued in Elie Carcasonne, Montesquieu et le problème de la constitution française au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: PUF, n.d.), which remains the classic study of the reception of Montesquieu's masterpiece in prerevolutionary France. It should be noted that during the French Revolution, Montesquieu's chapter on England and its defense of a separation of powers became much more central to French political debate.

41 Vierhaus, Rudolf, “Montesquieu in Deutschland: Zur geschichte seiner Wirkung als politischen Schriftsteller im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert: Politische Verfassung, soziales Gefüge, geistige Bewegungen (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987), 9–32Google Scholar; Henrik Horstboll, “Defending Monarchism in Denmark-Norway in the Eighteenth Century,” in Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment, 175–93.

42 Courtney, Cecil Patrick, “Morals and Manners in Montesquieu's Analysis of the British System of Liberty,” in Montesquieu and His Legacy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009)Google Scholar, 31.

43 Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society (London and Edinburgh, 1773). Ferguson promised his readers to provide a faithful “copy” of what the great man had said about political systems (108).

44 Ibid., 110.

45 Ibid., 117.

46 Krause, Sharon, Liberalism with Honor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

47 The literature on classical republicanism is enormous. For a classic statement, see Skinner, Quentin, Liberty before Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar. For the diffusion of classical republicanism in the eighteenth century, see Skinner, Quentin and van Gelderen, Martin, Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar. For “new” or “modern” republicanism, see, among others, Zuckert, Michael, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Fontana, Biancamaria, ed., The Invention of the Modern Republic (Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sullivan, Vickie, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the Formation of a Liberal Republicanism in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 For a similar argument, see Blom, Laursen, and Simonutti, eds., Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment. Compared with the literature on both classical and liberal republicanism, studies of monarchism, liberal or otherwise, are negligible.