Despotism And The Rule Of Law In Monarchy

The Spirit of the Laws is not a work easy to understand, even Voltaire considered it as a labyrinth. However, since Montesquieu declared that there was a design in the work, we shall try to find out a proper way which can help to interpret this complicated work. In this thesis, I regard Montesquieu's theory of regimes as an approach to this work and elucidate this theory under dual contexts.Firstly, I retrospect the tradition of the theory of regimes and analyze the theory of Montesquieu's predecessors, that is, Aristotles, Polybius and Machiavelli, with whom Montesquieu have a closest relationship. I don't think that the source of Montesquieu's theory is Aristotles, though he did have a reference to the later, however, he didn't agree with him. As to Polybius, Montesquieu had more sympathy for him. But it was Machiavelli that had most important influence on Montesquieu. By comparing several texts of them, I find that Montesquieu make great efforts to reduce the influence of Machiavelli, which could be seen both in his early works such as Reflections on Universal Monarchy in Europe, Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline and his later work, The Spirit of the Laws. And I hold that Montesquieu's theory of regimes was designed deliberately against Machiavelli's. I compare the different ways they treat of Polybius and their different ideas on despotism, through which their dissension was revealed.Then I try to explain that since Machiavelli's theory of regimes is entangled with the history of Rome, Montesquieu's task of clearing Machiavellism is inevitably accompanied with disenchanting Rome. To achieve this purpose, Montesquieu revived the very old ideas of oriental despotism and equated it with Roman despotism. He also advocated that the rule of eastern barbarian will be dangerous to the survival of western civilization.Next, I investigate the characteristic of the forms of government in The Spirit of the Laws, especially its discourse on monarchy and despotic government. I consider this two parts as inseparable, and behind this two regimes there is a hidden regime, i.e., the French monarchy, which is the focus of Montesquieu's theory of regimes. I examine the two forms of modern monarchies in Montesquieu, i.e., the English form and French form, both derived from the Germany form. The English form is not the ideal form in Montesquieu's eyes. In his opinion, the English form is not universally applicable, for the spirit of the laws varies from one nation to another. Accordingly, Montesquieu designed a unique monarchy in consistent with French national character, i.e., a moderate monarchy with rule of law. In his opinion, this kind of government is not only able to withstand the eroding of oriental despotism, but also able to maintain French way of life. Through reading between lines, I argue that honor is not the principle of this government, since honor is restricted by laws, therefore laws is the prime mover in this form of government. Finally, I analyze Montesquieu's two definitions of law and reveal the essence of his view of law, i.e., regarding laws as reason to tame the passions of men.