CHARLES-LOUIS
DE SECONDAT, BARON DE MONTESQUIEU
THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS (1748)
Charles-Louis de Secondat,
Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), was a French jurist
and author who traveled across much of Europe and read broadly in law,
political theory, and the sciences. In 1748,
he published one of the most influential
works of the Enlightenment, The Spirit of the Laws, in which he abandoned the classical division of governments into
monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies.
Instead, Montesquieu emphasized a more historical approach that
classified governments by their manner of directing policies: republican
governments were based on virtue, monarchical governments on honor, and
despotic governments on fear. Further,
Montesquieu emphasized the effect of climate on a society. Finally, Montesquieu argued that the
separation of political powers among various branches of government most
effectively produces liberty. In the
excerpt below, Montesquieu analyzes the Chinese government that had been
praised by the Jesuit missionaries of the seventeenth century.
A
large empire presupposes a despotic authority in the one who governs. Promptness of resolutions must make up for
the distance of the places to which they are sent; fear must prevent negligence
in the distant governor or magistrate; the law must be in a single person; and
it must change constantly, like accidents, which always increase in proportion
to the size of the state.
If
the natural property of small states is to be governed as republics, that of
medium-sized ones, to be subject to a monarch, and that of large empires to be
dominated by a despot, it follows that, in order to preserve the principles of
the established government, the state must be maintained at the size it already
has and that it will change its spirit to the degree to which its boundaries
are narrowed or extended.
Before
completing this book, I shall answer an objection that may be raised about all
I have said to this point.
Our
missionaries speak of the vast empire of China as of an admirable government,
in whose principle intermingle fear, honor, and virtue. I would therefore have made an empty
distinction in establishing the principles of the three governments.
I
do not know how one can speak of honor among peoples who can be made to do
nothing without beatings.'
Moreover,
our men of commerce, far from giving us an idea of the same kind of virtue of
which our missionaries speak, can rather be consulted about the banditry of the
mandarins. I also call to witness the
great man, Lord Anson.... [1]
Could
it not be that the missionaries were deceived by an appearance of order, that
they were struck by that continuous exercise of the will of one alone by which
they themselves are governed and which they so like to find in the courts of
the kings of India? For, as they go there only to make great changes, it is
easier for them to convince princes that they can do everything than to
persuade the peoples that they can suffer everything.
Finally,
there is often something true even in errors.
Particular and perhaps unique circumstances may make it so that the
Chinese government is not as corrupt as it should be. In this country causes drawn mostly from the physical aspect,
climate, have been able to force the moral causes and, in a way, to perform
prodigies.
The
climate of China is such that it prodigiously favors the reproduction of
mankind. Women there have such great
fertility that nothing like it is seen elsewhere on earth. The cruelest tyranny cannot check the
progress of propagation. The prince
cannot say, with the Pharaoh, Let us
oppress them wisely. He would be
reduced, rather, to formulating Nero's [3] wish that mankind should have only
one head. Despite tyranny, China,
because of its climate, will always populate itself and will triumph over
tyranny.
China,
like all countries where rice is grown, is subject to frequent famines. When the people are starving, they scatter
to seek something to eat. Everywhere
bands of three, four, or five robbers form: most are immediately wiped out;
others grow and are also wiped out.
But, in such a great number of distant provinces, a group may meet with
success. It maintains itself, grows
stronger, forms itself into an army, goes straight to the capital, and its
leader comes to the throne.
The
nature of the thing is such that bad government there is immediately
punished. Disorder is born suddenly
when this prodigious number of people lacks subsistence. What makes it so hard to recover from abuses
in other countries is that the effects are not felt; the prince is not alerted
as promptly and strikingly as in China.
He
will not feel, as our princes do, that if he governs badly, he will be less
happy in the next life, less powerful and less rich in this one; he will know
that, if his government is not good, he will lose his empire and his life.
As
the Chinese people become ever more numerous despite exposing their children,
[4] they must work tirelessly to make the lands produce enough to feed
themselves; this demands great attention on the part of the government. It is in its interest for everyone at every
moment to be able to work without fear of being frustrated for his pains. This should be less a civil government than
a domestic government.
This
is what has produced the rules that are so much discussed. Some have wanted to have laws reign along
with despotism, but whatever is joined to despotism no longer has force. This despotism, beset by its misfortunes,
has wanted in vain to curb itself; it arms itself with its chains and becomes
yet more terrible.
Therefore,
China is a despotic state whose principle is fear. In the first dynasties, when the empire was not so extensive,
perhaps the government deviated a little from that spirit. But that is not so today.
1. Montesquieu cites the French Jesuit Jean
Baptiste du Halde (1674-1743), who had published a scholarly four-volume
history of China in 1735.
2. George Anson (1697-1762), a British admiral
who visited China in 1743 and again in 1748, published a popular account of his
voyages that harshly criticized Chinese culture and society.
3. Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
(37-68), Roman emperor.
4. Montesquieu is alluding to infanticide, one
easy method of which was to leave unwanted newborn children outside to die.
2. Why did
Montesquieu need to clarify the status of China as a despotic state? How does his argument suggest that China
might be “inferior” to western European states?
3. According
to Montesquieu, how does nature affect the political status of China as a
despotic state? For him, what are the
limitations of fear as a foundation of government?
4. How does
Montesquieu see Chinese progress and despotism locked in a desperate struggle?