Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law pp 1–21Cite as

Introduction to Natural Law and to the Work of Montesquieu

  • Chapter

  • 122 Accesses

Abstract

The doctrine of natural Jaw is one of the most important elements in Western thought. It flourished in Greek and Roman times, and again in our seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it became more or less divorced from Christian theology. In the nineteenth century it declined as a result of the triple influence of Marxism, positivism and nihilism, but it is still a considerable force in our own time, especially in the doctrines of secular and religious humanism, and in international law.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. F. Pollock, Essays in the Law, Macmillan, 1920, p. 31. The best short and yet general work on natural law, written from a sympathetic and yet not uncritical point of view, is: A. P. D’Entrèves, Natural Law, An Introduction to Legal Philosophy [1951], Hutchinson, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  2. It is not the purpose of this chapter to give a comprehensive survey of Greek philosophy; its purpose is simply to define those of its trends which concern natural law. Much of our information on the early history of natural law is taken from E. Bréhier’s useful Histoire de la philosophie [1926–32], Presses Universitaires de France, 3 vols.: vol. I, 1926–8, vol. II, 1929-30.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. Bréhier, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 44-7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bréhier, op. cit., vol. I, p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., pp. 60-65.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., p. 84. Plato appears to have believed that the Sophists equated might with right, but he may have distorted their teaching, cf. F. Goplestone, A History of Philosophy, Burns Oates and Washborne, vol. I, 1947, pp. 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cf. Plato, Laws, X, 892a–899d; in the Loeb edition, vol. II, pp. 323-51.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ethics, V, vii, 1–4; in the Loeb edition, pp. 294-7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Bréhier, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 284-331, and J. Moreau, L’Ame du monde de Platon aux stoïciens, Les Belles Lettres, 1939, pp. 158–86.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. R. W. Leage, Roman Private Law [1906], ed. C. H. Zeigler, Macmillan, 1954, p. 22; (the latest edition of Leage, by A. M. Pritchard, Macmillan, 1961, is not so useful in this connection, since its account of the ius naturale and ius gentium is much more sparing).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bréhier, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 291-2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See the following works on this complex subject: W. Buckland, A Textbook of Roman Law, Cambridge University Press, 1950, pp. 50–52; W. G. Friedmann, Legal Theory, Stevens, 1960, pp. 21-5; H. F. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, Cambridge University Press, 1952, pp. 100-105; H. J. S. Maine, Ancient Law [1861], Murray, 1930, pp. 52-91; B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law, Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 54-9; F. Schulz, History of Roman Legal Science, Oxford University Press, 1946, pp. 69-73.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See the Digest, I, i, 4, Ulpian, vol. I, p. 1 of the Mommsen edition of the Corpus iuris civilis, Berlin, Weidmann, 1899.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Compare: Digest, I, i, I, Ulpian, p. 1; ibid., I, i, II, Paulus, p. I; Institutes, I, ii, II, also m the Mommsen edition, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cf J. Touchard, et al., Histoire des idées politiques, Presses Universitaires de France, 1959, vol. I, pp. 278–80.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Summa theologica [hereafter S. t.], II, i, Q. 94, Art. 2, in the translation by Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1913-42, vol. VIII, p. 44. For a short but comprehensive introduction to these aspects of St. Thomas’s philosophy, see D. J. O’Connor, Aquinas and Natural Law, Macmillan, 1967, pp. 57-79.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. D’Entrèves, op. cit., p. 39, and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Gross, O.U.P., 1957, p. 1353. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, we have assumed that the Supplement to the Summa theologica, prepared by Fra Rainaldo da Piperno from an early work of St. Thomas, can also be regarded as having represented orthodox Catholic opinion.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See A. Esmein, Éléments de droit constitutionnel français et comparé [1896], Sirey, 1921, vol. I, pp. 276–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cf. Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis [1625], Disc, prél., xi, vol. I, p. 10, and I, i, 11-12, vol. I, pp. 52-4, in the translation by J. Barbeyrac, Le Droit de la guerre et de la paix, Amsterdam, P. de Coup, 1724 [hereafter Dg.]; and Samuel von Pufendorf, De iure natura et gentium [1672], II, iii, 2-15, vol. I, pp. 169-98, in the translation by Barbeyrac, Le Droit de la nature et des gens, Amsterdam, P. de Coup, 1712 [hereafter Dn.].4527 Waddicor.

    Google Scholar 

  20. For details of this work, see previous note.

    Google Scholar 

  21. For details of De iure, see p. 5, n. 19; De officio hominis, in the translation by Barbeyrac, Les Devoirs de l’homme et du citoyen, Amsterdam and Luxemburg, Chevalier, 1708 [hereafter Dv.].

    Google Scholar 

  22. De legibus natura, in the translation by Barbeyrac, Traité philosophique des lois naturelles, Amsterdam, Mortier, 1744.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Les Lois civiles dans leur ordre naturel, le droit public et legum delectus, Gavelier, 1705, 2 vols.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Origines iuris civilis, quibus ortus et progressus iuris civilis, ius naturale, gentium et xii. tabulΠlegesque ac senatusconsulta explicantur, Leipzig, Gleditsch, 1708.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Principes du droit naturel, Geneva, Barrillot, 1747.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. Esmein, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 281-2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. De cive, in Hobbes’s own translation Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society [hereafter P.R.], in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, edited by W. Molesworth, Bohn and Longman, 1839-45, vol. II; Leviathan, in ibid., vol. III; also Tripos, Part II: De corpore politico [1650], in ibid., vol. IV, pp. 77-228; and The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity and Chance [1656], in ibid., vol. V.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Patriarcha and other Political Works, edited by P. Laslett, Oxford, Blackwell, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Two Treatises of Government, edited by P. Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1960 [hereafter T.T.].

    Google Scholar 

  30. One of the latest works on this subject is: R. Blake, C. Ducasse and E. Madden, Theories of Scientific Method, University of Washington Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  31. The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, Johnston, etc., 1772.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Principia [1687], Book III, pp. 398–400, in Motte’s translation revised by F. Cajori, University of California Press, 1947; Opticks [1704], Book III, Innys, 1730, p. 380; cf. Blake, Ducasse and Madden, op. cit., pp. 119-43. For a brilliant account of the a priori elements hidden in Newton’s philosophy, see E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science [1924], Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949, pp. 223-99.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See J. Ehrard, L’Idée de nature en France dans la première moitié du XVIIIe siècle, S.E.V.P.E.N., 1963, vol. I, pp. 21 and 125-78, for a general and up-to-date discussion of this question. For more detailed information, consult P. Brunet, L’Introduction des théories de Newton en France au XVIIIe siècle: avant 1738, Blanchard, 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Principes de la philosophie [1644] [hereafter Principes], II, xxxvii-xl, pp. 84–7 in vol. IX of the Œuvres de Descartes, edited by C. Adam and P. Tannery, Cerf, 1897-1910. Reference will also be made to the Discours de la méthode [1637], in vol. VI, pp. 1-78 of the Œuvres; to the Méditations métaphysiques [1641], in vol. IX; to the Traité de l’homme [1664], in vol. XI, pp.119-215.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tractatus theologico-politicus [1670], in Œuvres complètes, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1954, pp. 653–964; also Ethics [1677], in ibid., pp. 357-652.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See below, Ch. 7, IV, for a fuller discussion of this question.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Op. cit., p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Montesquieu will be referred to as M. in the footnotes.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fontaine de La Roche, Examen critique de l’Esprit des lois [hereafter Examen critique], first printed in the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, 9th and 16th October 1749, reprinted in É. Labou-laye, Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, Gamier, 1875-9, vol. VI, pp. 115–37. M. replied in his Défense de L’Esprit des lois (February 1750), and the Jansenist counter-replied in the Réponse à la défense de l’Esprit des lois [hereafter Réponse], first printed in the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, 24th April and 1st May 1750, reprinted in Laboulaye, op. cit., vol. VI, pp. 209-37. See also the milder attack probably made by the Jesuit, le Père Plesse, Lettre au P.J.B. sur le livre intitulé l’Esprit des lois [hereafter Lettre au P.J.B.], first printed in the Mémoires de Trévoux, April 1749, reprinted in Laboulaye, op. cit., vol. VI, pp. 101-13. M. made no public reply to le Père Plesse.

    Google Scholar 

  40. In spite of M.’s efforts at conciliation, the Esprit des lois was put on the Index in November 1751: see L. Bérard, ‘L’Esprit des lois devant la congrégation de l’Index’, Revue des deux mondes, 1949, pp. 608–33. The Faculty of Theology of the Sorbonne examined the Esprit des lois twice, in 1750 and 1752. The comments made by the Faculty on various propositions drawn from the work have been reprinted in an invaluable article by C.-J. Beyer, ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse del’Esprit des lois’ [hereafter ‘Montesquieu et 1a censure religieuse’, Revue des sciences humaines, 1953, pp. 105-31. The Sorbonne condemned the Esprit des lois in 1752, without taking into account M.’s Réponses et explications (reprinted in N. III, pp. 649-74, PI-II PP-1172-95 [see below, p. 11, n. 47 and p. 12, n. 48]), but its condemnation was not made public. The clearest accounts of the quarrel of the Esprit des lois are to be found in Jean Brethe de 1a Gressaye’s edition of the work, Les Belles Lettres, 1950-61, [hereafter Brethe de 1a Gressaye, Lois], vol. I, pp. lxii-lxxxv, and in R. Shackleton, Montesquieu, A Critical Biography, Oxford University Press, 1961, pp. 356-77 [hereafter M.].

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Shackleton, M., pp. 392–98.

    Google Scholar 

  42. See in particular: Montesquieu, L’Esprit des lois et les archives de La Brède, Bordeaux, Michel et Forgeot, 1904; and Montesquieu, ses idées et ses œuvres d’après les papiers de La Brède, Hachette, 1907.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Garnier, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Imprimerie nationale, 1900.

    Google Scholar 

  45. See above, p. 10, n. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  46. For details concerning this manuscript, see Shackleton’s article in N. III, pp. 567-77. Note that the manuscript does not represent the definitive version of the work. It is nevertheless very important to its understanding.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, publiées sous 1a direction de M. André Masson, Nagel, 1950-55, 3 vols. Vol. I is a facsimile of the 1758 edition of M.’s works, which is generally considered to be based on the author’s final revisions, and which had three volumes. These will be referred to in the footnotes and in the text as N. I, i; N. I, ii; and N. I, iii, followed by a page number. N. I, i, contains Books I-XXI of the Esprit des lois [hereafter Lois], together with D’Alembert’s Éloge […] de Montesquieu and his Analyse de l’Esprit des lois-, N. I, ii, contains Books XXII-XXXI of the Lois, and the Défense de l’Esprit des lois [hereafter Défense]; N. I, iii, contains the Lettres persanes [hereafter L. p.], the Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence [hereafter Considérations] and two minor works. There is, owing to the limitations imposed by the process of photographic reproduction, no critical apparatus in N. I, so the appearance of the critical editions of the L. p., by Paul Vernière and of the Lois, by Jean Brethe de 1a Gressaye, is most timely. Vol. II of the Nagel edition, which will be referred to as N. II, contains the Pensées [hereafter P.] here published in the order of the manuscript for the first time, the Spicilège, the Geographica and the Voyages. Vol. III, which will be referred to as N. III, contains among many other works, M.’s contributions to the Bordeaux Academy, rejected drafts of parts of his major works, and his correspondence.

    Google Scholar 

  48. In the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Gallimard, 1949-51, 2 vols.. These will be referred to in the footnotes and in the text as PL I, and PL II, followed by a page number. When the text of the Nagel edition is at variance with that of the Pléiade edition, the reading of the former will be followed, except in the case of obvious misprints. The Œuvres complètes edited by D. Oster, Seuil, 1964, also suggested itself as a primary source of reference, but the Pléiade edition was preferred as it is more widely available and more scholarly. Apart from the fact that they do not contain the correspondence, another disadvantage of these two editions is that their editors have chosen the arbitrary Barckhausen classification of the Pensées rather than the manuscript order. This makes the dating of the Pensées impossible without reference to the Nagel edition. Pensée numbers in the Barckhausen order will be preceded by the abbreviation: Bkn.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Montesquieu: A Bibliography, New York Public Library, 1947; see also Gabeen, ‘A Supplementary Montesquieu Bibliography’, Revue internationale de philosophie, 1955, pp. 409-34; and for later information, Brethe de 1a Gressaye, Lois, vol. III, pp. xi-xxi and vol. IV, pp. xii-xxiii. More recent summary bibliographies are to be found in J. Dedieu, Montesquieu, ed. J. Ehrard, Hatier, 1966, pp. 219-23 (the title of this work is misleading, since it is in fact a reprint of Dedieu’s famous Montesquieu l’homme et l’Œuvre of 1943); and in J. R. Loy, Montesquieu, New York, Twane, 1968, pp. 183-5.

    Google Scholar 

  50. L. Desgraves, Catalogue de la bibliothèque de Montesquieu, Geneva, Droz, 1954 [hereafter referred to as D., followed by the catalogue number only]. See also Shackleton, ‘Montesquieu: Two Unpublished Documents’, French Studies, 1950, pp. 316-21.

    Google Scholar 

  51. ‘Les Lectures de Montesquieu’, Revue d’Histoire littéraire de la France [hereafter RHLF], 1957, PP-494–514

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Shackleton in N. II, pp. xxxv-xliii; then, for dates of composition of chapters of the Lois, see Shackleton in N. III, pp. 567-77. For the dates of writing (though not necessarily of original composition) of the Pensées, see Desgraves’ article, N. II, pp. xlv-lvii, together with Shackleton in N. II, pp. xxxvii-xxxix. Note that the dates are proposed with certain reservations (N. II, pp. xxxvii, n. a, and pp. li-lii; N. III, p. 575). The dates of writing of the Spicilège can be deduced approximately from the dates of the many press-cuttings which figure in the collection; nevertheless the chronological order is not strictly observed, cf. N. II, p. lxxi.

    Google Scholar 

  53. IIe Centenaire de l’Esprit des lois de Montesquieu, conférences organisées par la ville de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, Delmas, 1949 [hereafter IIe Centenaire]; La Pensée politique et constitutionnelle de Montesquieu, Bicentenaire de l’Esprit des lois, Sirey, 1952 [hereafter Bicentenaire]; Actes du congrès Montesquieu, Bordeaux, Delmas, 1956 [hereafter Congrès].

    Google Scholar 

  54. See above, p. 10, n. 40. Shackleton’s biography supersedes the two previous ones: P. Barrière, Un Grand provincial, … Montesquieu, Bordeaux, Delmas, [1946], which is very readable, but incomplete; and L. Vian, Histoire de Montesquieu: sa vie et ses Œuvres d’après des documents nouveaux et inédits, Didier, 1878, which is still useful, but contains many factual errors.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cf. N. II, pp. xlvi-xlvii and lxvii-lxxiii. Nos. 1-203 of the Spicilège were taken from a recueil by le Père P. N. Desmolets, librarian of the Paris Oratory and friend of M.. In the rest of the Spicilège M. made notes mostly on books and articles he had read; thus it differs from the Pensées, which is more a collection of personal reflections.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Fragments of the Traité des devoirs are to be found in Pp. 220 and 1251-80, Bkn. 597 and 602-629, N. II, pp. 93-4 and 331-55, PI. I, pp. 1126-7 and 1128-1150). A summary of the work was printed in the Bibliothèque française of 1726, and is reprinted in N. III, pp. 157-62, Pl. I, pp. 108-111.

    Google Scholar 

  57. The Essai appears in N. III, pp. 179-99. Reasons for its attribution to M. are given in N. III, pp. 175-8; certain striking parallels between the Essai and various works by M., are made by P. Dimoff in ‘La place dans l’Œuvre de Montesquieu de lŒEssa. touchant les lois naturelles’, RHLF, 1957, pp. 481-93.

    Google Scholar 

  58. ‘L’Essai touchant les lois naturelles estil de Montesquieu?’, in Mélanges offerts à Jean Brethe de la Gressaye, Bordeaux, Bière, [1967], pp. 763–775.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cf. D’Aguesseau, Instructions sur les études propres à former un magistrat (1716), in Œuvres choisies, Didot, 1886, pp. 226–31. According to M.’s friend the abbé de Guasco, “Montesquieu était obligé par son père de passer toute la journée sur le Code” (cited by Vian, op. cit., p. 21). It is unfortunate that M.’s work on la manière d’apprendre ou d’étudier la jurisprudence (see Shackleton, M., p. 408), which might have told us more about his attitude both to Roman law and to natural law, is lost.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cf. H. Barckhausen (ed.), Statuts et règlements de l’ancienne université de Bordeaux (1441-1793), Libourne, Bordeaux, G. Bouchon, 1886, pp. 86–7 and 89-90 (citing documents relating to the 168o’s, but the situation does not appear to have been very different in the early 1700’s, cf. ibid., pp. 117-8). In Paris, too, Roman law dominated the syllabus, cf. C. Jourdain, Histoire de l’Université de Paris au XVIIe et au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1862-66, reprint, Brussels, 1966, p. 290 (citing documents relating to the 1700’s). Apart from the introduction of a small amount of French law, it is doubtful whether the situation had altered much since the days of Corneille’s Dorante, who complains of his having been obliged to study the Corpus and its numerous interpreters (Le Menteur, 11. 322-31, in Œuvres de Corneille, ed. Marty-Laveaux, Hachette, 1862, vol. IV, p. 158).

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Shackleton, M., pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Cf. R. Derathé, Jean-Jacques Rousseau et la science politique de son temps, Presses Universitaires de France, 1950, p. 29. Unlike Germany and Switzerland, France had no chairs of natural law (ibid., p. 28).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Proof of the growing interest in natural law is provided by the number of editions of translations of Grotius, Pufendorf and Locke: see Derathé, op. cit., pp. 424, 426-7, and 437. This trend may be seen as one sign among many of the growing dissatisfaction among intellectuals with the political philosophy of the French monarchy.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Op. cit., p. 224; cf. Derathé, op. cit., p. 66.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Even in the Lettres persanes, with its rather vague allusions to ideas also found in the works of Grotius, Hobbes and Locke, we do not have the impression that M. had studied the philosophy of natural law very recently or very deeply: perhaps he was relying on recollections of earlier reading? It is not until the time of the Traité des devoirs that we have textual proof of M.’ s knowledge of Pufendorf.

    Google Scholar 

  66. The works of Grotius and Pufendorf on natural law were either inherited by M. or acquired before 1732 (cf. Desgraves, op. cit., pp. xv-xvii and p. 241). M. acquired Aristotle’s Politics in 1738 (ibid., p. xix).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hence we do not consider it helpful to note in each case whether or not M. owned a particular work. He had access to many libraries besides his own (cf. Shackleton, M., pp. 55, 214, 230), and can have had little difficulty in obtaining any work he wanted.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Printed in N. III, pp. 1102-5 and 1538-40. In his article on ‘The Authenticity of the Letters on the Esprit des lois attributed to Helvétius’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 1951, pp. 19–43, R. Koebner claims that these letters were forged by Helvétius’ editor, Lefebvre-La Roche. Koebner’s case is fairly convincing, without being conclusive.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Émile, ou de l’éducation, in Œuvres complètes, edited by B. Gagnebin and M. Raymond, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, vol. IV, 1969, p. 836.

    Google Scholar 

  70. J. B. L. Crevier, Observations sur le livre de l’Esprit des lois, Desaint et Saillant, 1764, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  71. In A.-L.-C. Destutt de Tracy, Commentaire sur l’Esprit des lois de Montesquieu, suivi d’observations inédites de Condorcet sur le vingt-neuvième livre du même ouvrage, Desoer, 1819, p. 406.

    Google Scholar 

  72. G. F. F. Boulenger de Rivery, Apologie de l’Esprit des lois, ou réponses aux observations de M. de L. P., Amsterdam, 1751; [F. Risteau], Réponse aux Observations sur l’Esprit des lois, [Avignon?], 1751; d’Alembert, Analyse de l’Esprit des lois [1755], N. I, i, pp. xxxiv-lii.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Suite de la Défense de l’Esprit des lois [1751], in Laboulaye ed. of M.’s works, vol. VI, p. 250. La Beaumelle was a friend of M.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Siècle de Louis XIV, Catalogue de la plupart des écrivains français qui ont paru dans le siècle de Louis XIV, in Œuvres complètes de Voltaire, Garnier, 1877-85 [Moland edition], vol. XIV, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, Miscellaneous Works, Dilly, 1777, vol. I, P. 273.

    Google Scholar 

  76. ‘Publicistes du XVIIIe siècle: Montesquieu — L’Esprit des lois’ Revue contemporaine, 1858, p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  77. ‘La Monarchie de Montesquieu et la république de Jean-Jacques’, Correspondant, 1872, p. 302.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Paul Janet, Histoire de la science politique dans ses rapports avec la morale [1858, 1872], Alcan, 1887, vol. II, p. 379; Albert Sorel, Montesquieu [1887], Hachette, 1924, p. 108.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Op. cit., p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  80. A. Comte, Cours de philosophie positive, Schleicher, 1908, vol. IV, pp. 127–8; F. Alengry, ‘Montesquieu’ in Essai historique et critique sur la sociologie chez Auguste Comte, Alcan, 1900, pp. 389-403.

    Google Scholar 

  81. É. Durkheim, Quid Secundatus “politicŒ scientiŒ” instituendŒ contulerit, Thèse de Bordeaux, 1892, translated as ‘Dans quelle mesure Montesquieu a-t-il contribué à constituer la science des sociétés’, Revue d’histoire politique et constitutionnelle, 1937, p. 447 [hereafter Thèse de Bordeaux].

    Google Scholar 

  82. L. Brunsvicg, Le Progrès de la conscience dans la philosophie occidentale, Alcan, 1927, vol. II, pp. 492–4; P. Hazard, La Pensée européenne au XVIIIe siècle, de Montesquieu à Lessing, Boivin, 1946, vol. II, p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  83. A History of Political Theory, Harrap, 1937, p. 558.

    Google Scholar 

  84. ‘Montesquieu’, from the Proceedings of the British Academy, volume XLI, Oxford University Press, read October 19th, 1955, pp. 290–93.

    Google Scholar 

  85. ‘Montesquieu’, in Études franciscaines, 1909, p. 615.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Montesquieu et la tradition politique anglaise en France, Gabalda, 1909, p. 169; Montesquieu, Alcan, 1913, p. 184; Montesquieu Vhomme et l’Œuvre, Boivin, 1943, pp. 27-28 and 132-48.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Le Spinozisme de Montesquieu, Pichon et Durant Auzias, 1911, p. 63, etc.

    Google Scholar 

  88. F. T. H. Fletcher, Montesquieu and English Politics (1750-1800), Arnold, 1939, p. 271; J. Starobinski, Montesquieu par lui-même, [1953], Seuil, 1961, pp. 86-7; P. Vernière, Spinoza et la pensée française avant la Révolution, Presses Universitaires de France, 1954, vol-II PP-456-7; L. Althusser, Montesquieu, la politique et l’histoire [1959], Presses Universitaires de France, 1964, pp. 8-21; Shackleton, M., pp. 247-53; J. R. Loy, op. cit., esp. p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  89. ‘Le Déterminisme historique et l’idéalisme social dans l’Esprit des lois’ [1916], Études d’histoire littéraire, Champion, 1929, pp. 135–63.

    Google Scholar 

  90. M. Raymond, ‘L’Humanisme de Montesquieu’, in his Génies de France, Neuchâtel, La Baconnière, 1942, pp. 124–49; B. Grœthuysen, Montesquieu, Geneva and Paris, Éditions des trois collines, 1947, pp. 45-72; P. Barrière, ‘L’Humanisme de l’Esprit des lois’ IIe Centenaire, pp. 31-64.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Les Grandes doctrines de sociologie historique: Montesquieu, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Alexis de Tocqueville, les sociologues et la révolution de 1848, Les Cours de la Sorbonne, Centre de documentation universitaire, [1960], pp. 14–55.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Nature and Culture: Ethical Thought in the French Enlightenment, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1963, pp. 25–9.

    Google Scholar 

  93. L’Idée de nature, vol. II, p. 718–36; Politique de Montesquieu, Colin, 1965, pp. 10-11, etc.; cf. also ‘Les Études sur Montesquieu et l’Esprit des lois’, L’Information littéraire, 1959, pp. 55-66, and the notes in Ehrard’s edition of Dedieu’s Montesquieu l’homme et l’œuvre.

    Google Scholar 

  94. ‘Politics and Morals in the Thought of Montesquieu’, in Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, vol. LVI, pp. 845–91, esp. pp. 845, 850, 856-9, and 890-1. The same point may be made in respect of C. P. Courtney’s valuable new study, ‘Montesquieu’, in French Literature and its Background, ed. J. Gruickshank, vol. III, The Eighteenth Century, O.U.P., 1968 pp. 30-44, esp. p. 38. Similarly, G. Benrekassa, in his Montesquieu, Presses Universitaires de France, 1968, pp. 30 and 64, shows convincingly, but in general terms only, that M. believed in natural rights; but he fails to link this belief with the tradition of natural law.

    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). Introduction to Natural Law and to the Work of Montesquieu. 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_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3238-4_1

  • 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