Questions for "Principles of Government," by Montesquieu.

This book discussion will take place on Monday, August 25th at 7 p.m. at the Huntington Public Library, 338 Main Street, Huntington, New York.

Interpretive Questions

Montesquieu writes (p. 254) that laws "should be in relation to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen, or shepherds ..." Does this mean that every nation needs to have different laws.?

What is the distinction M. draws (p.255) between the "nature" and the "principle" of government?

What does M. mean when he writes, in the section entitled "That Virtue is Not the Principle of a Monarchical Government" (p. 260), that "I am not ignorant that virtuous princes are so very rare; but I venture to affirm, that in a monarchy it is extremely difficult for people to be virtuous"?

Why does honor take the place of virtue in a monarchical government (p. 261)?

Why is honor not a principle of a despotic government (p. 262)? Indeed, why does M. state that if would be extremely dangerous (p. 263?)

What does M. mean when he writes (p. 264), "History informs us that the horrid cruelties of Domitian struck such a terror into the governors, that the people recovered themselves a little during his reign. Thus a torrent overflows one side of a country, and on the other leaves fields untouched, where the eye is refreshed by the prospect of fine meadows"?

M. writes (p. 266): Such are the principles of the three sorts of government [democratic, monarchical, despotic] : which does not imply that in a particular republic they actually are, but that they ought to be, virtuous; nor does it prove that in a particular monarchy they are actuated by honor, or in a particular despotic government by fear; but that they ought to be directed by these principles, otherwise the government is imperfect." Does this mean these governments are destined to be guided by these principles?

Is M. correct in stating that extreme equality is as great a threat to the principle of democracy as lack of equality (p. 266)?

M. states (p. 269): "The natural place of virtue is near to liberty, but it is not nearer to excessive liberty than to servitude." Agree or disagree?

Is one of the three forms of government more susceptible to corruption than another (p. 266 ff)?

M.'s final words in this selection (p. 274) are "There are very few laws which are not good, while the state retains its principles." Though the title of his book is The Spirit of the Laws, does he imply here that good government depends not on good laws, but on good people?

Evaluative Questions

M. writes (p. 256), "There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to maintain and direct the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue." Do you agree or disagree that virtue is more important in a democracy than in a monarchy or a tyranny?

Do you agree with Hobbes or Montesquieu that "man is naturally in a state of war (p. 252)"?

Can you summarize M.'s political philosophy by the statement: "No government or country can be great unless those in charge have the will to make it great"?

Could it be said of the United States today that we are closer to Greece at its height or Greece at its steepest decline? (p. 257-58; 269) If we are headed for a decline, to what could it be attributed? Too much material success, too much freedom, lack of personal discipline (cf. p. 269).

Engaging with Great Books Redounds to Your Benefit

I think of The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu’s magnum opus from which this month’s selection, “Principles of Government,” is taken, as a work of political philosophy. Montesquieu’s arguments, however, are often based on examples from history. In his chapter “Of the Principle of Democracy,” he cites examples from classical antiquity and seventeenth-century England.

Montesquieu writes of ancient Rome: “When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Caesar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.” (Nugent, trans.)

This paragraph had me running to Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans to fill in gaps in my knowledge about Rome. Reading one great book often leads you to other great books.

Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago and a leading light of the post-World War II movement for continuing adult liberal education that led to the establishment of the Great Books Foundation, wrote in his book The Great Conversation that great books “enlarge our fund of ideas.” In my reading of Montesquieu as a philosophical book supported by historical examples, I’ve also picked up some useful history on the way.

"Principles of Government," by Montesquieu

Our next discussion takes place Monday, August 28th, at 7 p.m. in the Village Library Meeting Room. The reading is an excerpt from the Spirit of the Laws by the great Charles-Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu (1689-1755). Here Montesquieu compares and contrasts republican, aristocratic, monarchical, and despotic governments. With the presidential campaign heating up, why not take pause to ponder and discuss what this French philosopher had to say about good and bad governments?