Charles et Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de MontesquieuCharles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu was born in1689 to a French noble family. “His family tree could be traced 350years, which in his view made its name neither good nor bad. ” (TheEncyclopedia of Social Sciences, p. 68) Montesquieu’s views started tobe shaped at a very early age.
A beggar was chosen to be his godfatherto remind him of his obligations to the poor. Montesquieu’s education started at the age of 11 when he was sent toJuilly, a school maintained by the Congregation of the Oratory. From1705 to 1709 he studied law in Bordeaux. “From 1705 to 1709 he was alegal apprentice in Paris.
There he came to know some of the mostadvanced thinkers of his time: Fredet, the Abbe Lama, andBoulainvilliers. (Ibid. ). In 1716 Montesquieu got a seat of president amortier in the parlement of Guyenne from his deceased uncle. Eventhough he did not like his job he believed parliaments were necessary tocontrol the monarchs. In 1721 Montesquieu published the Persian Letters, which he beganworking on while studying in Bordeaux.
The book was a success. In thePersian Letters Montesquieu showed how relative all of the French valueswere. Even though the technique used in this witty book was previouslyused by other writers, Montesquieu did a great job making fun of theEuropean values. At that time he already believed in the immorality ofEuropean practices such as religious prosecution. The book gave rootsfor Montesquieu’s later arguments and ideas. When in 1728 Montesquieu, with the help of his Parisian connections hegot elected to the French Academy, he was happy to sell his office ofpresident a mortier.
In the course of the next three years he traveledall over Europe, visiting Germany, Hungary, England, Holland, Austria,and Italy. It is not surprising that out of his European tour thecountry which had the greatest impact on his later work (just like itdid on Voltaire’s) was England. During his stay there he was elected afellow of the Royal Society. After he returned to France the second portion of his carrier hadbegan. He became a full time writer, traveling between his La Bredeestate and Paris.
It is during this period that the Considerations onthe Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline and theSpirit of Laws were written. In the Considerations Montesquieu used Roman history to prove some ofhis ideas about reasons for the rise and the fall of civilizations. Hismost important point was that history is made by causes and effects, byevents influenced by man, and not by luck. His ideas are summarized inthis passage:I is not fortune that rules the world . . .
The Romans had a series ofconsecutive successes when their government followed one policy, and anunbroken set of reverses when it adopted another. There are generalcauses, whether moral or physical, which act upon every monarchy, whichcreate, maintain, or ruin it. All accidents are subject to thesecauses, and if the chance loss of a battle, that is to say, a particularcause, ruins a state, there is a general cause that created thesituation whereby this state could perish by the loss of a singlebattle. (1734, chapter 18)Montesquieu disliked democracy. In the Considerations he argued thatin a democratic society conflicts were essential because various groupswould argue for their own interest. He believed that the division ofthe Roman empire was caused by two many freedoms.
On the other hand healso opposed a system where social classes oppress other classes withoutresistance. After 20 years of work Montesquieu published his most complete book,The Spirit of Laws. In this comparison of different government types,Montesquieu used his views on human nature to explain human actions andpassions and predict the most effective government. According to hisideas human passions such as hunger for power, jealousy, and hate mademen seek absolute rule, and passions like want of freedom, and hate ofoppression lead the suppressed classes to over though the government. In the Spirit of Laws Montesquieu tries to develop an effectivegovernment that will keep the country united.
It is impossible todescribe this book in this report by I will state a few main points. Montesquieu believed that the most effective and modern type ofgovernment is a monarchy. By monarchy he meant a ruler governing thenation, with the nobility, the clergy and parliament controlling hisactions. He believed the weak should be protected from the powerful bylaws and a separation of powers.
He felt that the nobility and anmonarch had to both be present and could not succeed one without theother. Montesquieu stated that it was important to understand that evenmembers of one class are not exactly alike, but are somewhat alike. Inthe Spirit of Laws he reefers to the importance of teaching citizens whylaws are a certain way and why they are necessary. Montesquieu believedreligion was aslo helpfull to control a country. He made it a tool usedby the rulers to keep the citizens loyal. In general, in the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu’s model governments didnot exactly duplicate any existing ones.
On the other hand they werethe guidelines for the governments of his day, as well as ones of ourtime. His ideas help us to understand the Enlightenment, as well as theMiddle Ages. It is safe to say that his ideas will never die and hisgift to the world will always be remembered. Montesquieu can easily be considered a model Enlightment figure. Hisideas produce a mild paradox. He wanted change for the better withoutcrushing the current government.
He wanted to educate the people of acountry, but was not a radical, and therefore didn’t include thepeasants. He respected reason, and used it to help the mankind bycreating an idle society. He critisised religion, and yet had faith inGod. As a whole he tried to improve things without turning the worldupside down.
He was the model figure for the steady advancement of thehuman civilization. BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Hollier, Denis , A New History of French Literature, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1989. 2.
The Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, p. 467-476. 3. Loy, John Robert, Montesquieu, New York, Twayne Publishers, 1968. 4.
A History of World Societies volume II, Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston, p. 669-679. 5. Robert Shedlock, Lessons on World History, 1980, p.
38a-38c.
