Where was Charles Louis Montesquieu born? Charles Louis Montesquieu - biography, information, personal life

Charles Montesquieu was a philosopher, writer, jurist. He lived in France during the Enlightenment and did a lot for the development of science and culture in this country. His main merit to the Fatherland is the work on the separation of powers: judicial, legislative, executive.

Childhood and youth of Charles

The birthplace of Charles Montesquieu was the castle of La Brede, located near Bordeaux and owned by the boy's father, Jacques de Seconda, who had the title of Baron de Labrede. The baby, who received the double name of Charles Louis, was born in 1689 on January 18. When he reached the appropriate age, then, as a representative of the parliamentary "nobility of the mantle", he was admitted to the College of Oratorians. This educational institution was located in Juy near Paris. Charles de Seconda continued his studies at the University of Bordeaux. Having studied law in it, he received the status of a lawyer in 1708.

When his father died 5 years later, the young de Labred became an adviser (judge) of the Bordeaux Parliament. Soon many more events happened in his life: marriage, election as a member of the Academy of Bordeaux, and after the death of his uncle (1716) - receiving the title of Baron de Montesquieu simultaneously with the hereditary position of deputy chairman of the Bordeaux Parliament.

But very soon, the newly minted Baron de Montesquieu became disillusioned with the career of a professional lawyer. He was occupied with global issues hiding behind existing laws, and their solutions. Therefore, a decade after taking office, Charles sold it to do more interesting things for himself.

Literary and scientific activity of Montesquieu

Even in his youth, Charles became interested in natural science research. The results of the experiments were presented by him to the academy. Observation of the expansion/contraction of tissues under the influence of high/low temperatures later served as the basis for philosophical reflections on the impact of climate on individuals and, in general, on public institutions.

Montesquieu and literature were very interesting, especially satirical works that ridiculed the negative aspects of French society. Written in 1721, "Persian letters" with their sharp satire were appreciated by the reading public. In 1728 his literary and scientific activity allowed Charles de Montesquieu to enter the French Academy.

The inquisitive mind demanded new information about the structure of the world. And immediately after being accepted into the academy, Charles went to travel around different countries. He visited Italy, Austria, Holland, the principalities of Germany, and also spent 1.5 years in England, where he attended sessions of the House of Commons. He was very struck by the legal system, which allowed criticism of government policies, which was impossible in monarchical France.

Montesquieu spent a lot of time thinking and writing his works. He was frequently seen in the Labred Library, either reading or dictating to the secretary the drafts of his works. Although by nature Montesquieu was a little reserved, he still occasionally visited the Parisian salons, which allowed him to observe the behavior of representatives of various classes. Having managed to win fame and finish many years of work, Charles Montesquieu died in 1755. It happened in Paris on February 10th. By this time, the great philosopher and writer was almost blind due to cataracts.

Works of Charles Montesquieu

"Persian letters" - printed in 1721. The writer was attracted by the oriental surroundings, which formed the basis of the work. A Persian traveler recounts his impressions of France and its customs, including religious and political abuses. What seems quite ordinary to the French themselves, causes deep bewilderment to a foreign traveler. "Persian letters" are full of sharp humor, sometimes turning into malicious satire. The author makes fun of religious wars, and absolute monarchy, and the Inquisition, and even the Pope.

"Reflections on the Causes of the Greatness and Fall of the Romans" - written in 1734. In this short book, Montesquieu examines the causes of Rome's rise and fall. Their knowledge will allow in the future to avoid the mistakes of the past.

"On the Spirit of the Laws" - 1748. This is the main work of Charles Montesquieu - the result of 20 years of reflection, research, literary work, which made it possible to clothe social and political science in an artistic form understandable to the masses. He explores the nature of laws and their connection with the type of government, physical features countries (climate, population, terrain, etc.). It also reflects the ideas about the principle of separation of powers, executive, judicial, legislative, brought by the author from England. This book was included in the Index of Forbidden Books three years later because it undermined the foundations of the French monarchy. The early leaders of the French Revolution were interested in Montesquieu's work, and the book was read in the United States, where it was translated into English.

The relevance and reliability of information is important to us. If you find an error or inaccuracy, please let us know. Highlight the error and press keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Enter .

Charles Montesquieu is a French writer, thinker and lawyer, whose name is deeply rooted in the history of the formation of state legal doctrines. He gained fame thanks to which he owes his existence to the French philosopher. However, the story of his life goes far beyond this one concept.

Childhood

Whatever Charles-Louis de Seconda, better known as Charles Montesquieu, did on his way. His biography begins in the family castle of Labred, not far from Bordeaux, in 1689. His father, Jacques, was rather harsh, and little Charles was brought up in patriarchal conditions. Little is known about the mother, besides the fact that her dowry included the aforementioned castle of La Brede, and she herself was distinguished by a special religiosity and a penchant for mysticism. She died when the boy was 7 years old, and 3 years later his father sent him to a college at the Julie monastery, founded by the Oratorians. that it was a religious school, he received a secular education. It was there that he studied ancient literature and became interested in philosophy, with which his whole future life was connected.

The study of law

Montesquieu was lucky to be born in a time when the dominance of thought and reason was established everywhere. In 1705 he returned from college to his home, where everything free time began to devote himself to the development of jurisprudence. It was more of a forced necessity than a true passion, and the law in those days was considered extremely difficult to understand. The need to study the laws was dictated by the fact that Charles Montesquieu in the future was to take a parliamentary post, which would pass to him by inheritance. In 1713, Charles's father dies, and he remains in the care of his uncle.

Legacy of the Baron de Seconda

Even during his lifetime, the uncle made great efforts in order to marry his nephew. Jeanne Lartigue became his venerable chosen one. This choice was by no means based on love and not even on the external data of the girl, but solely on the size of her dowry. The conclusion of the marriage promised several difficulties related to religious issues, but they were overcome thanks to Charles's legal education. The wedding took place in 1715. A year later, his uncle dies, and after his death, the young man inherits the title of baron. From now on, he is Montesquieu Charles Louis de Seconda. In addition, a large fortune and the post of chairman of the Parliament of Bordeaux become his property. For the most part, he served as a judge there, in which he already had experience, having previously worked as a councilor and was a vice president in the city court.

Career

Charles Montesquieu never really took a great interest in the law, but for ten years he responsibly approached the performance of his duties in parliament. In 1726, he sold his position, as was widespread in those days, and moved to Paris. Despite the fact that this work was not Montesquieu's life vocation, he gained invaluable experience that will be useful to him in writing future works. Thus, after the move, his active writing activity begins. He publishes many works and essays on various topics. In addition, he becomes a member of the Antresol political club, where world news, daily events and the work of the participants were actively discussed. Around the same time, he visits the French Academy, and at the same time continues to write.

Major works

During his lifetime in his native Bordeaux, Charles Montesque wrote many essays and compositions on the subject of the natural sciences. Among them are such as "On the causes of the echo", "On the appointment of the renal glands", "On the tides of the sea." Membership in the Bordeaux Academy helped him in this, where he conducted many experiments. Natural science is another area that aroused the writer's interest, but his main works still concerned the state, law and politics. In 1721, his novel entitled "Persian Letters" was published, which immediately caused a storm of discussion. Unfortunately, it was banned, but this only had a beneficial effect on its success, because the author very successfully brought out the images of the society of that time.

But the key work in his bibliography, about which, probably, everyone has heard a lot, was the treatise "On the Spirit of Laws". Work on it took many years, during which Charles traveled almost all of Europe, studying the political structure, customs, customs and law of Germany, England, Italy and Holland. In each of the countries, he collected a lot of useful information that was useful to him in writing the main book of life. In 1731, his travels ended, and Montesquieu returned to his homeland, where he spent all subsequent years in painstaking work and reflections on two volumes of "On the Spirit of the Laws", which were published in 1748.

Philosophy and main ideas

The ideas set forth in the book "On the Spirit of Laws" became extremely significant in the development of statehood not only in France, but throughout the world. He speaks of 3 branches: executive, legislative and judicial. He also notes that their merger can lead to lawlessness, and such a model should exist in all states, regardless of their form of government. The term "theory of separation of powers" was first mentioned and interpreted in his work by Charles Montesquieu. The philosopher and thinker John Locke was also involved in the development of the main provisions of this theory, but it was the French writer who finalized and improved it.

One of the most important themes in his work is the correlation of the laws and the life of each individual society. He talks a lot about the relationship of customs, mores and religion with legislation, which is characteristic of individual forms of government. In this he was greatly helped by the knowledge that he acquired over the years of travel. Subsequently, many of the ideas embodied in the work "On the Spirit of the Laws" became fundamental for the US Constitution and other significant legal acts.

Personal life and death

It is difficult to answer the question of what kind of person Charles Montesquieu was. A short biography, rather, reveals his contribution to the history of political and legal thought, but is silent about character traits. It is known that he was not a faithful spouse, but he treated his wife with respect. She became the mother of two beautiful girls and a boy, whom Charles, of course, loved. He devoted almost his entire life to science, reading and reflection. He worked mostly in the library, where his great works were born.

It is said that he was a reserved person, spent almost all his free time alone, and opened himself exclusively to close friends. He rarely went out into the world, most often in salons, where he did not communicate with anyone, but only watched the society gathered there. In 1754, Montesquieu traveled to Paris to provide legal assistance to his friend, Professor La Baumel. There he contracted pneumonia and died on February 10, 1755. However, his works are still considered cult and have gained eternal life.

The main ideas of the French writer, jurist and philosopher are outlined in this article.

Charles Louis Montesquieu main ideas briefly

Charles Louis Montesquieu on Laws

Before there could be laws founded by men, there must have been the possibility of right relations, which preceded the positive law that determined them. People have laws that establish the relationship between the ruled and the rulers, this is called political law. There are also laws that determine the relationship of people among themselves, this is civil law.

Man is governed by eternal natural laws. But people, guided by their own motives, often violate both these natural laws of nature and the fickle human laws. Montesquieu's philosophy briefly states that the need for general laws for people living in society necessitates the formation of a state. For the formation of the state (political state) and the approval of general laws, a civil state (unity of will) is needed

Charles Louis Montesquieu on Power

Every modern state must have three powers: the first is the legislative power; the second is the executive branch; the third is the judiciary. And the King (President) should head the executive branch.

Charles Louis Montesquieu about the war

When people unite in society, they lose the awareness of their weakness. The equality that existed until then disappears, and war is unleashed. Any society begins to realize its strength, and as a result, there is a war between peoples. Separate personalities begin to feel their strength, and as a result, a war between certain personalities. War pursues its goal - victory, victory in turn - conquest, and conquest - preservation. It is from this principle that the laws that form international law.

Charles Louis Montesquieu on the spirit of the people

The philosophy of Montesquieu briefly speaks about the so-called. "spirit of the people" The thinker wrote that the world is governed not by divine providence or fate, but by unbiased joint causes of physical and moral order that work in every society, which determine the “spirit of the people” and the norms and forms of legal and state life corresponding to it.

People are ruled by many things: examples of the past, laws, customs, religion, mores; from this the collective spirit of the people is created. Everything should be avoided that can lead to a change in this spirit, because it is not hostile to the principles of government. Because whatever we do freely and in tune with our natural genius, we do it best.

Charles Louis Montesquieu on the three forms of government

The main goal of the division of powers according to Montesquieu's philosophy is the desire to avoid the abuse of power. According to Montesquieu theory, the main condition for ensuring political independence in its relations with the state system is the division and mutual restraint of power.

There are three types of government: despotic, monarchical and republican. The government, where the main power is in the hands of the whole people (democracy), and or part of it (aristocracy), is called republican government. If one person rules, but with the help of mandatory laws established jointly with the nobility (it does not allow turning the monarchy into a despotism), this is monarchical rule. If all power is in the hands of one person, and neither rules nor laws are observed, then this is undoubtedly despotic government.

The main positions of the board:

In the republic - virtue and dignity,

Under the monarchy - honor and respect,

Despotism brings fear and tyranny.

The main law of democracy is the law according to which all legislative power belongs to the people. But in addition to permanent laws, resolutions of the Senate are also necessary. The latter relate to the standards of temporary action.

Montesquieu refers to the fundamental laws of the aristocracy those laws that determine the right of a certain part of the people to participate in the issuance of laws, and then observe their observance. The philosopher noted that in his personal opinion, this is exactly how the main direction of aristocratic legislation in general should be determined.

Under monarchical rule, the main laws determine the presence of intermediaries who help control power. The main intermediary is the nobility, without them the monarch can become a despot.

Charles Louis Montesquieu on Freedom

In the philosophy of Montesquieu, the main provisions on "Political liberalism" - the priority of the freedom of the individual - are briefly described.

Montesquieu believed that freedom can only be ensured with the help of the law: "Freedom is the right to do everything that is permitted by law."

Montesquieu wrote that individuals are the basis of society and law. Institutions exist only to give all individuals real power.

Total: the individual must be free (this is necessary for social development), freedom in the economy (competition, private enterprise), freedom in politics (expansion of freedoms and rights of citizens, parliamentary democracy, constitutional state).

We hope that from this article you have learned about the main ideas of Montesquieu.

Maria Fedorova

Charles Louis Montesquieu

http://www.sps.ru/?id=211421

"He who loves to study never spends
idle time"

The work of the French writer and philosopher Charles Louis de Montesquieu allows us to fully appreciate the serious changes that have taken place in political philosophy by the beginning of the 18th century. In the 17th century Hobbes turned the mind into a geometric paradigm of a powerful centralized state, the historical embodiment of which was the absolute monarchy of Louis XIV. But Locke was already well aware that geometric reason, brilliantly exposed by Pascal, is no less destructive for political thought than irrationalism. The concept of reason is filled in him with a purely human content, thereby creating the germs for a new intellectual configuration of the political: rational reason - autonomous, but at the same time closely connected with natural law - begins a reassessment of values. From that moment on, in the realm of the political, the idea of ​​freedom occupies just as important a place as the idea of ​​power. It's about now it is no longer about turning freedom into the antithesis of power, but about making possible, under the protection of civil law, the realization of all the possibilities of human nature. This is the pathos of Montesquieu's political thought.

Charles Louis de Montesquieu belonged to the ancient family of the Seconda, which belonged to the nobility of the mantle and had a long history. The writer's ancestors served at the court of Henry IV, who raised the lands of Montesquieu, which were in the possession of this kind, to the barony. The family of the philosopher's grandfather, Jean-Baptiste Gaston de Seconda, had six sons, the eldest of whom inherited from his father the position of president of the parliament in Guillain, and five of the younger ones were tonsured monks. However, one of them, Jacques, left the dignity, entered the military service under the Prince de Conti, became a captain and, returning to Bordeaux, married Marie Francoise de Penel, who brought him the dowry of the baronial title and the estate of La Brede near Bordeaux. Here, in La Brede, on January 18, 1689, their son was born, named Charles Louis.

At first, the boy, along with his nephews, was brought up in the family estate, then at the age of ten he was sent to the Juy College near Paris, where Charles Louis spends five years carefully studying ancient languages, ancient literature and history. In 1705, he returned to La Brede, his father strongly advising him to study law, since his uncle, Jean-Baptiste de Seconda, Baron de Montesquieu, a childless widower, intended to bequeath to his nephew his office of President of the Parlement of Bordeaux, as well as extensive land holdings and title Baron de Montesquieu. The future philosopher enthusiastically plunges into new studies, in 1708 he receives a law degree and a position as a lawyer in the Parliament of Bordeaux, but continues his studies already in Paris at the Faculty of Law and under the guidance of well-known metropolitan lawyers.

In 1714, his father died, and in 1716, the uncle of the future thinker. By right of precedence, Montesquieu becomes the head of the family, inheriting a glorious name, significant land holdings and a revered position.

Initially, he diligently fulfills his duties in Parliament, diligently delving into all the details of legal proceedings. He is successful, his speeches and speeches at parliamentary sessions are popular (one of them - at the opening of the judicial session of 1725 - on the purpose of justice was reprinted annually until 1789 and distributed to members of parliament as a fundamental document), and Montesquieu soon becomes one of the most revered people in Bordeaux.

But soon other interests capture him: he prefers scientific research to court hearings, he is fascinated by many subjects, he writes a lot of scientific abstracts on a wide variety of topics - about the essence of diseases, about the causes of echoes, about the politics of the Romans in the field of religion, about the ebb and flow, about transparency of bodies ... In 1716, Montesquieu became a member of the Academy of Sciences of Bordeaux and conceived a work on geology under the ambitious title "History of the past and present of the earth." But instead, he writes "Persian Letters" and thinks about leaving the post of chairman of the parliament and moving to the capital.

"However free from the yoke of Religion, we must not be free from the yoke of Justice"

"Persian letters" were published in 1721 in Cologne, anonymously. The idea and form of the book - a depiction of the customs and mores of the country, seen with the biased eyes of shocked foreigners - were not original in Montesquieu's time. The attention of the enlightened public has long been attracted by the descriptions of the travels of de Bernier and de Tavernier, in the salons the “Observer” by Addison, “Serious and comical entertainments” by du Fresny, the adventures of the “Turkish spy” Maran walking around the European courts of the reigning persons were discussed. However, the meaning of Montesquieu's Persian Letters goes far beyond the crafty Orientalism of du Fresny or Maran. Under the guise of a frivolous adventure novel - beginning with the suffering of separated lovers, continuing in the description of all the fury of struggling passions and ending bloody revenge, - hides a pamphlet of political and moral satire.

The portrait of contemporaries painted by Montesquieu is ruthless and severe. The Regency period that succeeded the reign of Louis XIV - this triumph of order and apparent well-being - was marked by a general imbalance in the moral life of the nation. There is an irremovable tendency to oppose, to refute established ideas, to destroy the usual framework. Everywhere Montesquieu notices the boasting of vice. Estates, whose vocation has long been considered the maintenance of virtue and the introduction of an example of Christian life, have forgotten about their purpose in trifling disputes. Politicians have changed the diplomacy of honesty to the most notorious Machiavellianism. “What can you say about a country where they tolerate such people and allow a person to engage in such a craft,” Uzbek, one of the heroes of the book, asks, “where infidelity, violence, treason, treachery and injustice bring honor to people; where is a man respected for stealing a daughter from a father, a wife from a husband, and breaking the most tender and sacred ties?”

A kind of hidden anarchy reigns in society, when everyone tries to rise on the defeat and misfortune of the other. Privileges, which were powerful levers for managing society, have turned into empty verbal formulations. The weakening of all ties - social, friendly, family - the oblivion of traditions that support the social and moral dignity of each class, lead the writer to a very pessimistic conclusion that a people whose thoughts are aimed only at obtaining pleasure are devoid of any political qualities: they cook for themselves the shame of a despotic existence. Despotism is possible not only in Eastern countries. “Most European governments,” he writes, “are monarchical, or rather, they are called so, for I doubt whether there ever were really monarchical governments ... This form of government is violent, and it soon degenerates either into despotism or into republic…”

Montesquieu, through the eyes of the Persian Uzbek, sees in the monarchy only the antagonism of forces. The monarch is able to retain power only because on his side physical strength(“the advantage is usually on the side of the sovereign, for he is at the head of the army”), due to which the subjects cannot resist and rebel, the slightest manifestations of their discontent are brutally suppressed. The horror of the writer before the despotism that Louis XIV established in France (which is criticized in the famous letter XXXVII) forces him to look for means of preserving civil and political freedom. And here, for the first time, Montesquieu turns to history and establishes that the states formed in Europe after the barbarian invasion were free states: “These peoples were free and so limited the power of their kings that they were, in fact, only leaders or commanders.” On the other hand, appealing to the English understanding of freedom, he says that despotism is an attack on the original contract, making despotic power illegitimate.

So already in this early work Montesquieu faces a problem that will be central to all his work: how to ensure civil and political freedom in a monarchy? Is the tendency to despotism inherent in monarchical government from the beginning, or is it the fruit of historical development European states? However, in the "Persian letters" this problem is only outlined and is still far from being solved.

“It is a mistake to think that there is a human power in the world, despotic in every respect; such a power has never been and never will be; the greatest power is always limited in some way."

"Persian Letters" brought Montesquieu fame. He leaves his estate and moves to Paris, where he now lives for a long time, returning to La Brede only when his material interests require it. In Paris, the thinker is a frequenter of aristocratic salons and literary circles. So, he visits the salon of Madame Deffand, where he meets d'Alembert and the librarian of the Cardinal of Roan, Abbe Oliva. A close friendship connects Montesquieu with Helvetius, he invites the encyclopedist to his place in La Brede, where he introduces the sketches and plans of his works; later he would read to him On the Spirit of the Laws. It sets warm relationship with famous scientists of that time - Malpetruis, Reamur, Meran. His dream comes true - in 1728 he was elected a member of the French Academy.

Montesquieu believes in reason and its ability to overcome any social evil, in the triumph of happiness and goodness. Slavery will disappear when people realize that economic laws make it useless; the inquisition will cease to exist when a person comes to the conclusion about the public benefit of a wide variety of beliefs. Misconceptions exist, but they naturally will go into oblivion, just as a spoiled fruit itself falls from a branch, leaving a healthy tree. Nature has an internal capacity for self-improvement. Therefore, human wisdom should consist in not rushing anything, not touching anything unnecessarily and without great caution.

He devotes most of his time to scientific studies. In “Discourses on the motives that should introduce us to science” relating to 1725, he writes: “Trade, navigation, astronomy, geography, medicine, physics have absorbed many of the conclusions of those who lived before us; Isn't it wonderful to work to make the people who come after us happier than ourselves? (Facts captivate and fascinate him. He either analyzes the mechanism of action of any animal organ, or talks about natural history Earth...

After the success of the "Persian letters" Montesquieu does not leave dreams of the glory of a moralist and novelist. He reads a lot of the ancient Stoics, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, draws up a plan for the General Treatise on the Duties of Man, which has remained a plan. During the same period, he writes a dialogue on ancient topics "Sulla and Eucrates", in which he tries to reveal the psychological reasons for the refusal of power by the bloody dictator Sulla; publishes "Temple of Knidos", characterized by himself as "a poetic depiction of pleasure", and "Journey to Paphos" (1727).

The failure of the last two works forced Montesquieu to seriously engage in historical research. But this was facilitated by another important factor - the changes that have occurred in public consciousness in the first quarter of the 18th century. First of all, the general enthusiasm for literature and belles-lettres is replaced by a burning interest in political problems. There are clubs and societies that deal exclusively with the discussion of political issues and problems.

The main theme of political discussions is the purpose and fate of the French monarchy. If things in society are not in the best way, then maybe the whole thing is in political institutions? - the thinking people of that time ask themselves a question. No one questions the very principle of the monarchy, but it is obvious to everyone that the French monarchy is degrading. The connection of the French monarchy with the despotic principle - an idea already expressed in the Persian Letters - becomes the subject of the most lively debate. The rights of the French monarch, the feudal nobility, parliaments, the origin and relationships between social classes are carefully studied and give food for the most daring hypotheses.

When discussing this problem, two points of view collide - the "Germanists", represented by the Comte de Boulainvilliers (1658-1722), and the "novelists" represented by the Abbé Dubos (1670-1742). Boulainvilliers considered the nobles to be descendants of the Franks who conquered Gaul and, by right of conquest, called to dominate the descendants of the defeated Gauls and Romans, and therefore to limit the power of the monarch: the absolutism of the French king is thus opposed by the privileges of the nobility and the independence of parliaments. On the other hand, the Abbé Dubos defended the view that the first Frankish kings were called by the Gauls and Romans themselves and accordingly took the place of the Roman emperors, inheriting their unlimited rights; the privileged classes were formed later and with the permission of the king himself; absolute and unlimited monarchy thus receives historical justification and justification.

Montesquieu was decidedly not satisfied with Dubos's point of view (he will subject it to detailed criticism in the book XXX "On the Spirit of the Laws"). He agrees with the main thesis of Boulainvilliers, but believes that the conquest of Gaul by the Franks brought the Gallo-Roman people not dependence, but freedom. According to Montesquieu, the Frankish state was not based on Roman law, which recognized the absolute power of the rulers, but on the rights and customs of the ancient Germans. This state corresponded to the spirit of the Franks as a free people, in which the rulers were initially elected and did not have absolute power. The first kings of France were ignorant of absolute power, their authority was maintained within sufficient limits by the lords, who formed a kind of mediating power between the sovereign and the people, putting an obstacle in the way of despotism. But this initially moderate royal power would, in the course of time, become the absolute power of Charles VII and Louis XI.

However, for Montesquieu there were still unresolved questions: thanks to what combination of forces of the monarchy for a long time managed to maintain its moderate character? What political combinations are capable of curbing the supreme power and creating free conditions of existence for subjects? And what circumstances contributed to the transformation of elective royal power into a despotic and absolute power? An in-depth study of extensive historical material will lead him to the idea of ​​political freedom, which sounded so clearly and distinctly in the book On the Spirit of Laws.

The most important step along this path was the historical and political study of Montesquieu "Reflections on the causes of the greatness and fall of the Romans" (1734). The extraordinary talent of a historian and political thinker was fully manifested in him. Montesquieu does not just describe Roman history, he is looking for reasons: it is not enough for him to simply create a picturesque epic, he needs to uncover the foundations, explain the events. In contrast to Bossuet, who also tried to build a rationalistic picture of history directed by divine Providence, Montesquieu sees in the laws of human nature the main guiding force of all events.

In this work, he formulates two very important propositions for him. First, he believes, the life of a nation is subject to both moral and physical causes, which together ensure its existence and development. If one set of these causes falls into decay, then this entails a general deterioration of affairs and, perhaps, the collapse of the whole state. “Fortune does not rule the world,” he writes. There are general causes, both moral and physical, which operate in every monarchy, elevate it, support it, or overthrow it; all accidents are subject to these causes. If the battle is accidentally lost, i.e., a particular cause destroyed the state, then this means that there was a general reason that led to the fact that this state had to die as a result of one lost battle. In a word, all particular causes depend on some universal principle. Secondly, the destruction and disintegration of the state is due to its very greatness.

When the state reaches highest point of its development, its principles turn out to be unbalanced, and if it does not cope with this state of affairs, it may perish.

“There is such a people in the world, the direct subject of the state structure of which is freedom”

By 1728 Montesquieu becomes famous. Literary and scientific activities completely absorb it. He finally decides to sell his position as chairman of the Bordeaux parliament and finally settle in Paris. He is going to write a legal treatise, which would be neither a history of law nor a commentary on laws, but at the same time would explain the origin of laws, their legal and political essence. In order to collect materials for a future book in April 1728, he sets off on a trip to Europe.

In Germany and Austria, Montesquieu meets with prominent statesmen of that time - Count Würmbrad, Baron Stein; he even has the idea to go to the diplomatic service, which is favored by his origin and position in society, but his appeals on this occasion to a number of influential persons in France had no consequences. In Hungary, the thinker, struck by the vast size of the landed estates of the Hungarian nobility, studies feudal law, which is still preserved in this country. In Italy, he is fascinated by ancient monuments of art, but he does not forget about the main purpose of his trip - here he also meets with the largest financiers and statesmen. Having visited Switzerland and the Rhine provinces of Germany, Montesquieu specially goes to Holland, which has long been considered the most spiritually free country, sheltering many writers and thinkers persecuted for their beliefs.

As a result of these trips, Montesquieu is further confirmed in the conclusion he came to in the Persian Letters: all political regimes have their own value and significance if the people who embody these regimes have the virtue inherent in this regime. But no state system is able to resist the corruption of its subjects, which entails the corruption of the root principle of this state. Observing in all the countries of Europe a general picture of the corruption of government and the inclination of rulers to use despotic methods, the philosopher asks himself the question: is there a people in the world that has happily escaped the general corruption and corruption of the principles of its government, a people whose principle of inner life would be freedom?

England has long attracted the attention of the thinker with the extraordinary freedom of its principles. And in October 1729, together with Lord Chesterfield, Montesquieu went to London. The exceptional liberties of the English amaze the French aristocrat: the English say things about their rulers that the French dare not even think! Public safety is developed in England like in no other country. Montesquieu is convinced that civil liberties flourish here only because political freedom is firmly rooted in the entire structure of the state. “England is now the freest country in the world, including all the republics,” writes the philosopher in his travel notes. “I call it free because the sovereign does not have the power to do injustice to anyone because his power is controlled and limited.”

So, before Montesquieu there are two types of moderate monarchy:

• - French, generated by feudal customs and mores;
• - English, as the English constitution created it.

Of course, neither during this period, nor later, is it a question of imposing the English model of government on the French, much less forcing the British to accept the feudal institutions of the French monarchy. He understands perfectly well that the peoples have that government which the best way suits their history, customs and other conditions. But the combination of the two most important principles for him - aristocracy and political freedom - is still a problem for him.

“I derived my principles not from prejudices, but from the very nature of things”

In August 1731, Montesquieu returned from England to his estate La Brede. Now he only occasionally visits Paris, spending all his time in the vast library of La Brede for the manuscript of the book that will become the main work of his life - "On the Spirit of the Laws." He has no illusions about how the essay, on which he has devoted almost twenty years, will be received ":" My book will be read more than approved. Nevertheless, the reaction to the book, published in 1848, surprised him: he was praised as an original author (for the novelty of the idea, unusually wide erudition, excellent style), but truly revolutionary principles, designed to carry out a radical revolution in political science, reformist social ideas were silenced. Montesquieu kept repeating: "They don't understand me."

Meanwhile, the book was a great success, edition followed edition; in 1849 it was reprinted twice in France, it was translated and printed in England. The French secular authorities reacted quite calmly to Montesquieu's work, but the church authorities threatened to condemn and include the book in the index of banned books. In order to ward off the blow and protect his offspring, in 1750 the philosopher wrote "Defense" On the Spirit of the Laws ", and asked high-ranking clergy he knew to distribute it in Rome and, if possible, bring it to the pope. However, the plan is broken by two circumstances. On the one hand, the not entirely successful translation of Montesquieu's work into Italian, which places an excessive emphasis on rationalistic, deterministic and scientific explanation law. On the other hand, a speech by Professor La Beaumel, a Protestant who praised the work of the thinker for his extraordinary courage in the religious sphere. As a result, the book was still condemned. catholic church, albeit with reservations.

Meanwhile, the book receives a number of very favorable reviews; it is retranslated into Italian, and although Montesquieu himself can no longer read, he sees almost nothing, he carefully follows the new translation and ultimately approves it. The first works of followers and students of the great thinker are also published; the Parisian parliament in August 1751 draws up a document based on the text of the book; certain conclusions are also used by the liberal-minded Englishman Lord Bath in his speech during parliamentary discussions, which allowed him to emerge victorious in heated debates.

The success of the book pleases Montesquieu, however, his health has deteriorated. He is almost completely blind, his strength gradually leaving him. Having caught a cold on the way to Paris, he dies on February 10, 1755, away from relatives and friends.

But the main work of his life - the book "On the Spirit of Laws" - caused and still causes the most lively disputes, gives rise to the most ambiguous interpretations. What is its significance for people living two and a half centuries after its publication?

First, Montesquieu gives a completely new understanding of political science for his time. With Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, he is united by one goal - the construction of a new political science. But unlike his predecessors, he builds a science not about society in general, but about all specific historical societies. In The Defense, he writes that the subject of his research is "the laws, habits, and various customs of all the peoples of the earth." Montesquieu is not engaged in the theory of the essence of society, incorporating abstract and ideal models of its origin and evolution, but in the analysis of historically concrete societies of all peoples. “I began by studying people,” Montesquieu says in the Preface to the book, “and found that all the endless variety of their laws and customs is not caused solely by the arbitrariness of their imagination. I have installed common beginnings and saw that all particular cases seem to obey them by themselves, that the history of every nation follows from them as a consequence, and that every particular law is connected with another law or depends on another, more general law.

Secondly, the project of creating a science of politics and history assumes that politics and history contain a certain regularity and necessity, which science is called upon to discover. The main thought of the philosopher here is that the necessity that governs human society is not transcendent, external to the historical order. Therefore, the science of human society should be freed from all the claims of theology and morality, which are trying to impose their laws on it. He does not deny the importance of either theology or morality, arguing only that in theology one must be a theologian, and in politics one must be a politician. And if Montesquieu talks about virtue, then he is talking about political virtue, interpreted as “love of the fatherland and equality,” and not about religious or moral virtue. Each of the areas of human activity thus has its own laws and has autonomy.

Thirdly, Montesquieu owns a completely new definition of the concept of law, which is nothing more than "necessary relations arising from the nature of things." Unlike the entire previous tradition (with the exception, perhaps, only of Spinoza, who for the first time spoke in favor of the universal unity of all that exists), the French philosopher declares the fundamental unity of the form of law both for the physical world and for the world of history and politics. The law is a necessary relation, and this formula is true both for the laws of the divine essence, and for the material world, and for human society.

Fourthly, one of the central places in the book is occupied by the problem, the solution of which the thinker has been looking for so long and painfully. This is a problem of political freedom. And the concept of political freedom he proposes makes him one of the most original philosophers of the Western European political tradition. Within the framework of his dynamic conception of society and its political sphere, the very concept of freedom loses its metaphysical, abstract and impersonal features, characteristic of the concept of freedom in the natural law theory of the 17th century. Freedom for him is not just the independence of a person in one area or another: it has a solid foundation, and such a foundation is the right: "freedom is the right to do everything that is permitted by laws." Therefore, law, the domain of positive law, is called upon to create freedom and to protect it.

This political freedom is established in society by a twofold relationship: according to Montesquieu, one can speak of political freedom "in its relation to the state system" and "in its relation to the citizen." He returns again and again to the same problem that confronted him already in the 1920s: how to combine monarchical one-man rule with political freedom? Precisely monarchical, because although the republic, with the help of its main principle - virtue - and carries out a complete fusion of the private and civil existence of each individual, its historical time has already passed. After all, the republic, especially the democratic republic for the French enlightener, is closely connected with the ancient type of government, while modern states with their large territory and large population, states imbued with the spirit of commerce, are more suitable for monarchical rule. It is trade that Montesquieu considers as one of the most important factors requiring political freedom, because “if the people are enslaved, people work more to preserve than to acquire; if the people are free, they work more to acquire than to keep.”

In order for the spirit of freedom to reign in a monarchical state, according to Montesquieu, two conditions must be met. This is, firstly, a strict separation of powers: there will be no freedom in a state where “legislative and executive power are combined in one person or institution,” and also “if the judiciary is not separated from the legislative and executive power.” And secondly, the condition of political freedom is the balance of social forces: the state is free when one force or power restrains another in it. Under a monarchy, the principle of which for the thinker is honor, that is, "the prejudices of every person and every position," the counter-forces opposing the sovereign's omnipotence are, first of all, the nobility and the clergy. By tradition, by right and by their position, they are the main source of resistance to the despotic tendencies inherent in one-man rule. In addition, the most important role is played by parliaments, consisting of independent magistrates, as well as cities and provinces with their privileges and liberties granted by the king. Without these intermediate links» Monarchy turns into despotism and tyranny.

As for the political freedom of a citizen, Montesquieu, in full accordance with the classical liberal tradition, defines it as “peace of mind based on the conviction of one’s own security”, “when one citizen can not be afraid of another citizen” (Ibid.). And here again, the legal guarantees of the independence of the individual in the private sphere come to the fore: “In a state that has the best laws in this regard, a person whom the court sentenced to hang the next day will be freer than a pasha in Turkey.”

Thus, the political philosophy of Charles Louis Montesquieu laid the foundations of aristocratic liberalism, which constituted the main trend in the development of French classical liberal thought until the middle of the 19th century. Montesquieu is a passionate opponent of despotism and omnipotence, in whatever form they appear; starting from his earliest works, he intensely searches for the principles of a free state and the freedom of the individual within this state. But he remains a moral philosopher, intimately connected with the values ​​of the tradition to which he belongs entirely. He is a nobleman, and believes in the honor and dignity of his class; he is a magistrate and is therefore bound to certain privileges of higher officials. That is why he develops the idea of ​​“intermediate links” in the political and social hierarchy of society, experiencing bitter disappointment that both the nobility and parliaments in France of the 18th century lost their original political purpose, opening up scope for the development of absolutist tendencies of monarchical rule. However, remaining devoted to the moral and political virtues of the aristocracy, Montesquieu managed to put the high aristocratic principles of honor and human dignity at the service of a great idea - the idea of ​​freedom of man and citizen.

Charles Louis Seconda Montesquieu(January 18, 1689, La Brede castle near Bordeaux - February 10, 1755, Paris), French Enlightenment thinker, jurist; his theory of "separation of powers" big influence on the development of constitutional thought in the 18th-20th centuries.

A family. Career. Montesquieu came from an aristocratic family that lived in Bordeaux from the beginning of the 15th century. His father Jean de Seconda, being younger son in the family, did not inherit the ancestral lands, but his mother, nee Françoise de Penel, brought the castle of La Brede to her husband as a dowry. Charles-Louis was the second of six children. He received his initial education at the Oratory College in Juy, then, returning to Bordeaux, he studied law. In 1708 he became a lawyer, in 1714 he became an adviser to the Parliament of Bordeaux, and two years later he inherited from his childless uncle the Baron de Montesquieu, along with the title and name, the position of President of the Bordeaux Parliament. After the death of his father, he became the master of La Breda.

Character. Interests. Montesquieu combined independence, pride, curiosity, prudence. He devoted a lot of time to the improvement of his castle, he liked to work in the vineyards, which were the main source of income. Parliamentary duties occupied him more by family duty than by personal inclination: judicial chicanery bored him. He combined service in parliament with studies in science. In 1716, Montesquieu was elected a member of the Academy of Bordeaux and wrote a lot of reports and speeches on various sections of the natural sciences - “On the Causes of Echo”, “On the Purpose of the Kidney Glands”, “On the Ebb and Flow of the Sea”, etc.

Last years. Death. Montesquieu spent his last years improving the text of The Spirit of the Laws and the Persian Letters. By the end of his life, the controversy around them had almost faded away. In 1753 he wrote his last work, An Essay on Taste, published (1757) in the 7th volume of the Encyclopedia. He died of pneumonia and was buried in the church of Saint-Sulpice (the grave was not preserved).

"On the Spirit of Laws". At the end of 1748, the first small edition of the book On the Spirit of the Laws was anonymously published in Geneva. And although she was on the banned list, at the very a short time The book was sold in Parisian salons. Many reprints soon followed - at least 12 in two years, and according to Montesquieu himself - 22. The book was a success even in official circles: the Dauphin himself, the son and heir of Louis XV, showed interest in it. For ten years there was a lively controversy around the "Spirit of the Laws". The book struck contemporaries with its style: Montesquieu did not offer any ready-made schemes. His writing invited the reader to picturesque and "exotic" walks through countries and eras, which made it possible to see the whole variety of human customs and social institutions. Tracing the dependence of the political structure on the characteristics of the state, its size, population, climate, geographical environment, on the religion professed by the people, and its customs, Montesquieu introduced the natural scientific method into the science of law and the humanities in general, acting, in particular, as the founder geographical school in sociology. An important place in the book was occupied by the theory of forms of power. Offering readers a three-part scheme - "republic-monarchy-despotism", the author did not take on the role of an apologist or judge. Explaining the features of each type of government, Montesquieu illustrated them with vivid examples from history. Therefore, each generation of readers interpreted the "Spirit of the Laws" in its own way. The French parliaments found in the book a justification for the absolute power of the king by “intermediary authorities” - privileged estates, many were attracted by the picture of the “English constitution” drawn by Montesquieu, and the Locke theory of “separation of powers” ​​(legislative, executive and judicial) he outlined. Finally, the high appreciation of democracy contributed to the development of republican ideas in France and abroad. The condemnation of despotism, the assertion of the principle of civil and personal freedom, the call for religious tolerance, political moderation, and gradualness in carrying out any transformations determine historical meaning"Spirit of laws" in the formation of modern political culture.

Short review works "On the Spirit of Laws"

About laws

The laws created by people had to be preceded by the possibility of just relations, the relations of justice precede the positive law that established them. People have laws that determine the relationship between rulers and ruled: this is a political right. They also have laws that determine the relations of all citizens among themselves: this is a civil right.

As a physical being, man, like all other natural bodies, is governed by immutable natural laws, but as a rational being and acting on his own impulses, man constantly violates both these eternal laws of nature and the changing human laws. The need of people living in society for general laws necessitates the formation of a state. For the formation of the state (political state) and the establishment of general laws, a civil state (unity of will) is necessary

About war

As soon as people unite in society, they lose consciousness of their weakness. The existing equality disappears and war begins. Each society begins to realize its strength - hence the state of war between peoples. Individuals begin to feel their power - hence the war between individuals. The purpose of war is victory; the goal of victory is conquest; the purpose of conquest is preservation. From this and the foregoing principles must flow all the laws that constitute international law.

About the spirit of the people

The world is governed not by divine providence or fortune, but by the objective general causes of the moral and physical order that operate in any society, which determine the “spirit of the people” and the corresponding forms and norms of its state and legal life.

Many things govern people: climate, religion, laws, principles of government, past examples, mores, customs; as a result of all this, a common spirit of the people is formed. It is important to avoid everything that can change the general spirit of the nation; the legislator must conform to the spirit of the people, since this spirit is not contrary to the principles of government, since we do best what we do freely and in accordance with our natural genius; The main theme of the entire political and legal theory of Montesquieu and the main value defended in it is political freedom. Just laws and the proper organization of statehood are among the necessary conditions for ensuring this freedom.

Of the four different forms of government

The main purpose of the separation of powers is to avoid the abuse of power. The separation and mutual restraint of powers are, according to Montesquieu, the main condition for ensuring political freedom in its relationship to the state system.

There are four types of government: republican, aristocratic, monarchical and despotic. In order to discover their nature, even the least informed people have enough ideas about them. Four definitions or four facts: “Republican government is that in which the supreme power is in the hands of either the whole people or part of it; aristocratic - in which a minority rules, monarchical - in which one person rules, but by means of established immutable laws; while in the despotic everything, outside of any laws and rules, is moved by the will and arbitrariness of one person.

Principles of forms of government:

Republic is a virtue

Aristocracy - moderation,

Monarchy is an honor

Despotism is fear.

One of the basic laws of democracy is the law, by virtue of which the legislative power belongs only to the people. But besides the permanent laws, the resolutions of the Senate are also necessary, which relate to acts of temporary action.

He refers to the basic laws of the aristocracy those that determine the right of a part of the people to issue laws and monitor their implementation. AT general view Montesquieu notes that it is natural, and should, in his opinion, determine the main direction of aristocratic legislation as a whole.

In a monarchy, the basic laws determine "the existence of intermediate channels through which power moves." The main one is the power of the nobility, so that without the nobility the monarch becomes a despot.

On individual freedom and political freedom

The fundamental principles of political liberalism, as the priority of individual freedom, based on the principles of natural law, are the separation of the state from civil society and the separation of powers.

“All people are equal in republican states, they are equal in despotic states. In the first case they are equal because they are everything, in the second case because they are nothing. Freedom is the right to do whatever is permitted by the laws. If a citizen could do what these laws forbid, then he would not have freedom, since others could do the same; The main thing is the safety of the citizen.”

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that public institutions exist to help empower individuals with real power, without fawning over elites.

Liberalism is a social movement: - proclaiming the freedom of the individual in all areas of life as a condition for the development of society; - supporting (in the economy) freedom of private enterprise and competition; - supporting (in politics) the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, the expansion of political and civil rights and freedoms. lat. Liberalis - concerning freedom.