Table Of ContentOther Titles of Interest
BUNGE, M.
The Mind-Body Problem
FITZGERALD, R.
Human Needs and Politics
What It Means To Be Human
The Sources of Hope
HARRIES, O.
Liberty and Politics
KHOSHKISH, A.
The Socio-Political Complex
LASZLO, E.
The Inner Limits of Mankind: Heretical Reflections on
Today's Values, Culture and Politics
PECCEI, A.
The Human Quality
RICHARDS, T.
The Language of Reason
SCHAFF, A.
Structuralism and Marxism
TALMOR, E.
Descartes and Hume
Mind and Political Concepts
TEVOEDJRE, A.
Poverty: Wealth of Mankind
WENK, E.
Margins for Survival: Overcoming Political Limits
in Steering Technology
MONTESQUIEU
AND
SOCIAL THEORY
by
JOHN ALAN BAUM
Assistant Dean of Social Science,
Middlesex Polytechnic
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD • NEW YORK • TORONTO • SYDNEY • PARIS • FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada, Suite 104, 150 Consumers Road,
Willowdale, Ontario M2J 1P9, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 544,
Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
OF GERMANY Pferdstrasse 1, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright ©1979 J. Alan Baum
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
First edition 1979
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Baum, John Alan
Montesquieu and social theory.
1. Montesquieu, Charles Louis de Secondat,
baron de 2. Social sciences - France - History
- 18th century
I. Title
300\92'4 H59.M/ 79-40901
ISBN 0-08-024317-7
In order to make this volume available as economically
and as rapidly as possible the author's typescript has
been reproduced in its original form. This method has
its typographical limitations but it is hoped that they in
no way distract the reader.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
William Clowes (Beccles) Limited, Beccles and London
To the Memory of My Father
JOHN KENNETH BAUM
Acknowledgements
This study is based upon a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of London
in 1976. Of the many people who helped me in that endeavour a good number have
continued to help in the writing of this book, especially Professor Donald MacRae
of the London School of Economics and Professor J.D.Y. Peel of Liverpool University.
I am much indebted to the British Academy for giving me a grant to pursue research
in the libraries of Bordeaux and Paris during the summer of 1978 and to the
Academie Montesquieu who helped me discover new material whilst in France.
I would also like to thank friends and colleagues in the British Society for
Eighteenth Century Studies for their guidance and inspiration and similarly to
e
members of the Socie*te franchise d'Etude du 18 Siecle whom I met at a joint
conference of the two societies at Pembroke College, Oxford in September 1978.
Secretarial assistance must never be undervalued and I would like to thank
especially Mary Prime who worked so painstakingly to prepare this book for
publication.
To them all my thanks again. The responsibility for what lies hereafter is of
course entirely mine.
viii
INTRODUCTION
Montesquieu and the Enlightenment
The word "sociology" was unknown to Montesquieu and no such discipline existed in
its own right until half a century after the Age of Reason had passed away. However,
no discipline can be said to spring to life suddenly at the invention of a new term,
and often one finds it necessary to delve back into the history of ideas in order
to discover its intellectual origins.
One could argue, quite justifiably, that man has always been preoccupied with the
social, and has sought to discover why indeed society is possible at all given the
enormous amount of dissension and conflict which seems to have characterised every
age. If one accepts this view, then it becomes even more difficult to be specific
about the origins of a discipline such as sociology. What is less contentious,
however, is that one can trace in the development of all disciplines key figures
whose major contribution has been to focus more clearly otherwise disparate trends
in their development. It is a central argument of this study that Montesquieu was
a key figure in the development of sociology.
Some would argue that Montesquieu 's contribution to the development of sociology has
long been recognised, but in fact no systematic study of Montesquieu as a sociolo-
gist has yet been undertaken.1 Certainly he has not been regarded as a key figure
in the way that Comte or Spencer has. Yet, if by a key figure we mean someone who
has made major contributions to the theoretical and methodological development of
the subject, then we will try to show that such a label can quite justifiably be
applied to Montesquieu.
It might be argued that Montesquieu has already received adequate recognition as a
social scientist through the vast amount of scholarship which has been devoted to
Verhaps the best known account of Montesquieu as a sociologist is to be found in
R. Aron: \ku.vi CuAKCWbb in Sociological Thought Volume One, 1965, pp. 11-56. Most
overt recognition of Montesquieu as a sociologist rests with a number of rather
short journal articles which produce little evidence to substantiate their claims.
See, for example, A. Robinet de Clery: "Montesquieu Sociologue" in Revue
IntQAnatLonalc da Sociology, VoJ. 47, 1939, pp. 221-232.
1
2 Montesquieu and Social Theory
his contribution to the development of political thought and, furthermore, that
subsumed within such scholarship has been the study of Montesquieu's contribution
to Sociology. In other words, they argue, casuistic arguments about whether one
aspect of Montesquieu's writings is specifically sociological rather than political
is an exercise hardly worthy of serious attention, especially when one takes into
account that it is an eighteenth century philosophe about whom we are writing.
There are, however, good arguments against this view which need to be aired early
on before this study gets under way. First, it is quite clear from most of the
writings on Montesquieu as a political theorist that his works have been drawn upon
far too selectively. The EApAit a&6 LoiA is a vast work, and yet much of its con-
tent has remained unknown and relatively ignored by Montesquieuan scholars. What
is well known is the content of the early Books which deals with the nature and
types of government and with important concepts such as the 'separation of powers'.
The unity of the work, which embraces studies of types of economic system, belief
systems, systems of family and kinship, besides political and legal systems, has
been largely neglected despite Montesquieu's plea in the P/tetface to the EApAit
dzA LoiA that the reader should "approuver ou ccndamner le livre entier, et non pas
quelques phrases".
Second, it is not clear that Montesquieu wished to give priority of emphasis to the
political. As Thomas Pangle has argued recently, "Montesquieu was the first to
help us see a AOdiaZ rather than a political science", the result being a
"de-emphasis of the political".2 So, too, one should think of the LzttAOA VlK&m&A
as a study of the whole social structure of Paris in the early years of the eight-
eenth century - a study in sociology rather than politics or even political
sociology.
A third argument against treating Montesquieu as primarily a political scientist
is that to do so detracts from our understanding of Montesquieu's contribution to
the development of a new methodology for social science, especially his contribution
to the transition from historical to specifically sociological methodology. The
use of ideal-types and the growth of histoire raisonne"e are instances of the emer-
gence in the writings of Montesquieu of this new, more sociological method. The
Con^id^AouUoru AUA £<LA CCUUZA da la Gsi&ndejuA d<u Romou.ru> at de I&JJI Vacadanca
is a work of primary importance in the development of such a methodology which has
received little critical attention because of its lack of interest to political
scientists.
This study hopes to substantiate these propositions about the political scientists'
view, whilst at the same time making a fresh attempt to take a more sociological
approach to Montesquieu.
Apart from Aron's work on Montesquieu,-^ which is concerned much more with exposition
than assessment or constructive criticism, Montesquieu has been virtually ignored by
the main schools of contemporary sociological thought.^ This study aims to provide
a reappraisal of Montesquieu's "generating power" as a sociological thinker and,
thereby, it is hoped to fill this gap in our present knowledge. However, we are
not concerned to argue that Montesquieu is as important to sociological thought
Thomas Pangle: MontOAquiau* A Philosophy 0{J LLbeAaLum, Chicago, 1974, pp. 191-192.
*R. Aron: op. cit., Vol. I.
^Except perhaps in the rather specialised field of the sociology of knowledge.
See Werner Stark: MontOAquiau, 1960.
Introduction 3
today as he would have been to that of his own day. Any study of a writer must
begin from the point of view of his relevance to the age in which he lived.
Chapters 1 and 2 attempt, therefore, by means of a biographical sketch of the life
and times of Montesquieu and an analysis of the "audience" to whom he addressed his
works, to place him in the context cf his own age and generation. Only by doing
this can we appreciate the uniqueness of this thought, the extent to which he was
influenced by other writers of the same period and, similarly, the extent to which
his ideas constituted a new ere in the sociology of knowledge.
As a philosophe and man of the Enlightenment, Montesquieu can be said to have been
unusually well placed to take a new look at society. An important ideal of the
Enlightenment philosophers was cosmopolitanism and Diderot, in the Encyclopedic,
regarded Montesquieu as the model cosmopolite.5 of n the predominant philosophers
a
of the mid-eighteenth century, Montesquieu was the widest travelled, the best con-
nected internationally, perhaps the best read, and probably the best known. After
its publication in 1748, the E&pKit des Lois became the largest selling, philoso-
phical work of the Enlightenment period, translated as it was within the space of
a few years into all the major European languages. As Schlereth has argued
recently, the Enlightenment philosophers thought of themselves first and foremost
as "citizens of the world", rather than as Frenchmen, German, Englishmen or what-
ever. 6 Like many of his contemporaries, Montesquieu was a chronic peripatetic,
and as such acquired a vast range of knowledge of social, political and cultural
systems besides those of his native France. When countries were too far afield
to visit, he did his best to acquire as accurate a picture as possible of them from
the accounts of explorers, travellers and missionaries who returned to Europe in
large numbers during the first half of the eighteenth century. The world was at
last being opened up to whomsoever wished to use this knowledge to advantage, and
Montesquieu was at the forefront in this exercise.
Such knowledge, we shall argue, put Montesquieu in a unique position to undertake
the first really comparative sociological study of the major institutions of
society. He began on the micro-level of analysis in his observations on Paris in
1721, looked back in history for evidence from past times in the Considerations
of 1734, and put together his collected wisdom and experience in the macro-sociologicaJ
study of society in the Esprit des Lois of 1748. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 trace this
process of evolution in Montesquieu's thought, at the same time comparing him with
other major Enlightenment philosophers in order to reveal points of similarity and
difference. In so doing, it has proved necessary to counter most strongly all
those writers who would have us believe that Montesquieu (and indeed many other
philosophers as well) does not break away from the predominantly metaphysical
philosophy of the pre-Augustan era, a philosophy which, as they argue, struggled
to introduce Reason into its ranks, but which was continually dogged by the
traditional, theological prescriptions which had infused philosophical speculation
since the Middle Ages. These are the writers who see the ESpAit des Lois as a
,l
book of disconnected reflections - a book of essays really",7 having no methodology
D. Diderot: "Cosmopolitain ou Cosmopolite" in Encyclopedic ou VictionnaiAC
Aaisonnee des sciences, des alts ct des mbtieAS, (Paris, 1751-1765) Vol. 4, p. 297.
^Thomas Schlereth: The Cosmopolitan Ideal in the EAench Enlightenment,
1977, p. 1, Chapter One: "The Sociology of an International Intellectual Class"
is o^ particular relevance here.
7
Carl Becker: The Heavenly City oh the Eighteenth CentuAy Philosopher,
p. 113.
4 Montesquieu and Social Theory
and the LettSies PeAAaneA as merely "a pleasant memory of disarming Persian
fantasies".8
So, too, after his death in 1756, Montesquieu's ideas cannot be shown to have had
an easy passage into modern sociology. In Chapter 7, we trace the slow process of
assimilation of Montesquieu's thought into the mainstream of sociology, a process
which, as we shall see, was fraught with set-backs and difficulties. As Raymond
Aron has pointed out, a proper appreciation of Montesquieu's work has had to await
the development of the discipline which he helped to create.^ This study aims to
give Montesquieu that proper appreciation.
Maxime Leroy: Histoiie des Jdees Sociale* en France, Volume One (de Montesquieu
al Robespierre), p. 94.
*R. Aron: Eighteen Lectures on Industrial Society, Chapter III, "Marx and
Montesquieu", p. 52.
CHAPTER 1
The Life and Times of Montesquieu
Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, was born at the Chateau de la
Brede some twelve miles south-west of Bordeaux on 18th January 1689. His father,
Jacques de Secondat, second son of the Baron de Montesquieu, was an "active
soldier, handsome, bronzed and sensual",* but with little wealth of his own. His
mother, Marie-Francjoise de Pesnel, on the other hand, was an heiress who owned vast
acres of land, and it was she who bought the Chateau de la BrSde for the family. He
had two sisters, Marie and The'rese, who became nuns, and a younger brother Joseph,
born in 1694, who also entered the Church. Another brother and sister both died at
birth, and in giving birth to the younger of these in 1696 Marie-Francoise died.
Charles was now seven years old, the inheritor of his mother's wealth and the title
of Baron de la Brede.
During his early years, Montesquieu was educated at home until the age of 11, when
his father sent him to the College de Juilly in the diocese of Meaux, 370 miles
from La Brede. At this school, renowned throughout the whole of France for its
teaching, Montesquieu acquired that interest in Roman History, which no doubt gave
him the inspiration to write his CovuidfriatioM *UL\ 1<U> CauACA da la GxandauA da*
Rorraivu at da lauA Vacadanca later in life. However, the education he received was
as liberal as France could offer, aimed at producing the all-round man rather than
the more traditional, classical scholar. The range of subjects taught was
considerably wider than that given in most schools at the beginning of the 18th
century. He was taught Latin, French, and some Greek, Geography, History and
Mathematics, Music, Riding, Fencing and Dancing and, with such a wide field of
instruction, it is not difficult to envisage how Montesquieu later was able to draw
upon this broad education in a work such as L'EApJiit da* Lot* , a work which
demanded knowledge of many disciplines.
After leaving Juilly, Montesquieu returned to Bordeaux where he took a degree in
law at the University in 1708, and from thence he went to Paris to gain practical
experience in his new profession. It was during these years in Paris that
Montesquieu began to keep a scrapbook containing notes and comments on diverse
matters which came to his attention. He gave it the title of the Spidlcgc, and
Robert Shackleton: (AontCAquiau - A Qxttijcal BiogAapny, p.2.
5
