The Spirit of the Law

Rating:
Summary: a must read for the world's democracy advocates
Review: an understanding of Montesquieu is critical for today's emerging democracies, in that he was one of the first to recognize the importance of securing the liberty of the governed with the aid of reason, such as by constitutional design and by the rule of law. The probelm is that there is a caveat to his theory: democracy may not be the best form of government for every country.

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but not really a philosophical treatise...
Review: Montesquieu doesn't really put forward a unified philosophically based political system here, so don't read it expecting something like The Republic, Leviathan or the Two Treatises. Stylistically this is very like Machiavelli; that is, no (overt) overiding system, rather just a long series of pithy pieces of advice for people actually in (or intending to make their own) government. If you've read Machiavelli's Discourses, you'll know what to expect.

I recommend you read at least Locke's Two Treatises and Machiavelli's Discourses before this, and then you'll get the theorectical background behind many of Montesquieu's points. Like Locke he thinks of liberty and republics being fine things, but like Machiavelli he cautions that circumstances should always be taken into consideration, and there is no one form of government that is always the right one for every people at all times, even republics. Because of this most of the book is spend enumerating various circumstances that might come up and appropriate reactions. For example, an early section is spend discussing the effect of climate on the people of that area, and given this, what form of government suits them best.

What this means is that while his work may not stand at a level with The Republic or Leviathan in terms of philosophical merit, if you are looking for knowledge that will be useful in the real world, this book is probably superior to those.

I definitely recommend you check this book out. It's imposing length is split into much easier to digest mini-chapters, so it doesn't seem as long as it is, and the use of examples makes it more interesting than many of the other drier works of political philosophy you might come across.

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but not really a philosophical treatise...
Review: Montesquieu doesn't really put forward a unified philosophically based political system here, so don't read it expecting something like The Republic, Leviathan or the Two Treatises. Stylistically this is very like Machiavelli; that is, no overiding system, rather just a long series of pithy pieces of advice for people actually in (or intending to make their own) government. If you've read Machiavelli's Discourses, you'll know what to expect.

I recommend you read at least Locke's Two Treatises and Machiavelli's Discourses before this, and then you'll get the theorectical background behind many of Montesquieu's points. Like Locke he thinks of liberty and republics being fine things, but like Machiavelli he cautions that circumstances should always be taken into consideration, and there is no one form of government that is always the right one for every people at all times, even republics. Because of this most of the book is spend enumerating various circumstances that might come up and appropriate reactions. For example, an early section is spend discussing the effect of climate on the people of that area, and given this, what form of government suits them best.

What this means is that while his work may not stand at a level with The Republic or Leviathan in terms of philosophical merit, if you are looking for knowledge that will be useful in the real world, this book is probably superior to those.

I definitely recommend you check this book out. It's imposing length is split into much easier to digest mini-chapters, so it doesn't seem as long as it is, and the use of examples makes it more interesting than many of the other drier works of political philosophy you might come across.

Rating:
Summary: For students of U.S. Constitution
Review: Our founding fathers studied Montesquieu's writings of pure democracy and rejected that form of government for our constitution. This book should be read by every student in high school,so they might have a comparison to U.S. Constitution vs other forms of ancient gov- ernments. Our founders were nothing less than brillant to invent a democratic republic;whereby allowing the citizens to rule, but not as a mob.

Ron Steele Moab Utah

Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the other reviewers think
Review: The Spirit of Laws is a passionate and eloquent statement of liberalism. But it is only that: a statement. It is not a defence. Montesquieu rails against despotism and carefully spells out the separation of government powers. But, unlike Locke or Mill, he gives little argument for why liberalism should be accepted. And those few sketchy comments he does give (e.g. despotism is bad even for the despot) are unconvincing.

Rating:
Summary: Important book in the history of ideas
Review: There are mainly two reasons why Montequieu's book is important. One is for his ideas, which still have relevance for current political issues, such as separation of church and state. The second is that it represents an important historical milestone in political thought. The real bonus is that, in the translation, his work reads in a way that is both intellectually engaging, by which I mean he gets you thinking about the issues, and also engaging (if entertaining is not quite the right word) as a series of philosophical perspectives delivered in a direct way generally free of jargon.
The most interesting part of his book for me was at the outset, in his comparison of despotism, republics and democracy.
The really important aspect of his book is that so many of the threshold policitical issues that he discusses are still live issues. How much should the state intervene? What constitutes good laws? What parts of life in a political society are the business of the state?

Rating:
Summary: Not the great book people seem to think it is.
Review: This is a book that could (should?) have faded into history without being a great loss to the world. Yes, there are a few interesting bits of political philosophy, but they're far and few between, and mainly either just thrown out as Montesquieu's personal opinions with little to no evidence or examination, or flimsily based on historical examples. As a reader, I didn't find most of his arguments (where he didn't seem to be contradicting himself, which happens frequently) very convincing. This was obviously written with the 18th century French salon crowd in mind, and reads as such. I'm sure it provided a lot of aristocrats with conversation fodder to make them appear intelligent and educated at the time, but these days it just seems like an antiquated bit of history.

He claims the book has to be read as a whole to see the structure and his overall goal; well, I did read the whole book and at the end couldn't see an overarching structure at all. The work just seemed like a long, rambling, unorganized mess. The only people I might really recommend this to are people interested in Greek, Roman, and French history (especially legal history), but not to people interested in political science or philosophy.

Bump this one to the bottom of your list of classics on historical thought, there are much more interesting reads out there.

Rating:
Summary: For students of U.S. Constitution
Review: This should be required reading for every high school student in America.

How does one understand the brilliance of our founding fathers and why they rejected total dem- ocracy, vs. democratic republic.

Montesque had insight lacking in our political leaders today.

Rating:
Summary: In governments, their is nothing new under the sun.
Review: This should be required reading for every high school student in America.

How does one understand the brilliance of our founding fathers and why they rejected total dem- ocracy, vs. democratic republic.

Montesque had insight lacking in our political leaders today.

Rating:
Summary: Deepest of the Liberals
Review: While lesser liberals such as Hobbes, Locke, and JS Mill are revered, the deepest of the liberals, Montesquieu, wallows in relative obscurity. But THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS offers the most powerful, and most reasonable, version of liberalism. In it the reader will find the fullest articulation of the essential liberal project: utilizing passions for public good rather than vainly inveighing against it as the ancients did (cf. Albert Hirschman's THE PASSIONS AND THE INTERESTS). Continuing on this route will also reveal that, as Thomas Pangle has persuasively argued, it is Montesquieu and not Adam Smith who is the founder of modern capitalism. Yet for all that Montesquieu was above the silly universalism or perfectionism of his other liberal compatriots. One can only mould peoples and institutions so far and so quickly; that is, one cannot ignore culture altogether. I wish the State Department would recognize this wisdom when it deals with China...