and ranks, as likewise a noble descent. Now, since it is the nature of honour to aspire to preferments and titles, it is properly placed in this government.
Ambition is pernicious in a republic; but in a monarchy it has some good effects; it gives life to the government, and is attended with this advantage, that it is no way dangerous, because it may be continually checked.
It is with this kind of government as with the system of the universe, in which there is a power that constantly repels all bodies from the center, and a power of gravitation, that attracts them to it. Honour sets all the parts of the body politic in motion, and, by its http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 56 of 335
very action, connects them; thus each individual advances the public good, while he only thinks of promoting his own interest.
True it is, that, philosophically speaking, it is a false honour which moves all the parts of the government; but even this false honour is as useful to the public as true honour could possibly be to private people.
Is it not a very great point, to oblige men to perform the most difficult actions, such as require an extraordinary exertion of fortitude and resolution, without any other recompence than that of glory and applause?
CHAP. VIII.
That Honour is not the Principle of despotic Government.
HONOUR is far from being the principle of despotic government: mankind being here all upon a level, no one person can prefer himself to another; and as, on the other hand, they are all slaves, they can give themselves no sort of preference.
Besides, as honour has its laws and rules; as it knows not how to submit; as it depends, in a great measure, on a man’s own caprice, and not on that of another person; it can be found only in countries in which the constitution is fixed, and where they are governed by settled laws.
How can despotism bear with honour? This glories in the contempt of life, and that is founded in the power of taking it away. How can honour, on the other hand, bear with despotism? The former has its fixed rules and peculiar caprices, but the latter is directed by no rule, and its own caprices are subversive of all others.
Honour, therefore, a thing unknown in arbitrary governments, some of which have not
*
even a proper word to express it , is the prevailing principle in monarchies; here it gives life to the whole body politic, to the laws, and even to the virtues themselves.
CHAP. IX.
Of the Principle of despotic Government.
AS virtue is necessary in a republic, and, in a monarchy, honour, so fear is necessary in a despotic government: with regard to virtue, there is no occasion for it, and honour would be extremely dangerous.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 57 of 335
Here, the immense power of the prince is devolved intirely upon those whom he is pleased to intrust with the administration. Persons, capable of setting a value upon themselves, would be likely to create disturbances. Fear must, therefore, depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition.
A moderate government may, whenever it pleases, and without the least danger, relax its springs: it supports itself by the laws and by its own internal strength. But, when a despotic prince ceases one single moment to lift up his arm, when he cannot instantly
†
demolish those whom he has intrusted with the first employments , all is over: for, as fear, the spring of this government, no longer subsists, the people are left without a protector.
It is probably in this sense the Cadis maintained that the Grand Seignior was not
‡
obliged to keep his word or oath, when he limited thereby his authority .
It is necessary that the people should be judged by laws, and the great men by the caprice of the prince; that the lives of the lowest subjects should be safe, and the bashaw’s head ever in danger. We cannot mention these monstrous governments
without horror. The Sophi of Persia, dethroned, in our days, by Mahomet, the son of Miriveis, saw the constitution subverted, before this revolution, because he had been
*
too sparing of blood .
History informs us, that the horrid cruelties of Domitian struck such a terror into the
§
governors, that the people recovered themselves a little under 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.
CHAP. X.
Difference of Obedience in moderate and despotic Governments.
IN despotic states, the nature of government requires the most passive obedience; and, when once the prince’s will is made known, it ought infallibly to produce its effect.
Here they have no limitations or restrictions; no mediums, terms, equivalents, or remonstrances; no change to propose: man is a creature that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign.
In a country like this, they are no more allowed to represent their apprehensions of a future danger than to impute their miscarriage to the capriciousness of fortune. Man’s portion here, like that of beasts, is instinct, compliance, and punishment.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 58 of 335
Little does it then avail to plead the sentiments of nature, filial respect, conjugal or parental tenderness, the laws of honour, or want of health; the order is given, and that is sufficient.
In Persia, when the king has condemned a person, it is no longer lawful to mention his name or to intercede in his favour. Even if the prince were intoxicated, or non compos,
*
the decree must be executed ; otherwise he would contradict himself, and the law admits of no contradiction. This has been the way of thinking in that country in all ages: as the order, which Ahasuerus gave, to exterminate the Jews, could not be revoked, they were allowed the liberty of defending themselves.
§
One thing, however, may be sometimes opposed to the prince’s will , namely, religion.
They will abandon, nay, they will slay, a parent, if the prince so commands, but he cannot oblige them to drink wine. The laws of religion are of a superior nature, because they bind the sovereign as well as the subject. But, with respect to the law of nature, it is otherwise; the prince is no longer supposed to be a man.
In monarchical and moderate states, the power is limited by its very spring, I mean, by honour, which, like a monarch, reigns over the prince and his people. They will not alledge to their sovereign, the laws of religion; a courtier would be apprehensive of rendering himself ridiculous. But the laws of honour will be appealed to on all occasions.
Hence arise the restrictions necessary to obedience: honour is naturally subject to whims, by which the subject’s submission will be ever directed.
Though the manner of obeying be different, in these two kinds of government, the power is the same. On which side soever the monarch turns, he inclines the scale, and is obeyed. The whole difference is, that, in a monarchy, the prince receives instruction, at the same time that his ministers have greater abilities, and are more versed in public affairs, than the ministers of a despotic government.
CHAP. XI.
Reflections on the preceding Chapters.
SUCH are the principles of the three sorts of government: 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 honour; or, in a particular despotic government, by fear; but that they ought to be directed by these principles, otherwise the government is imperfect.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 59 of 335
Endnotes
[* ] This is a very important distinction, from whence I shall draw many consequences, for it is the key of an infinite number of laws.
[† ] Cromwell.
[§ ] Plutarch, Life of Pericles. Plato, in Critia.
[* ] She had, at that time, twenty-one thousand citizens, ten thousand strangers, and four hundred thousand slaves. See Athenæus, book 6.
[† ] She had then twenty thousand citizens. See Demosthenes in Aristog.
[∥ ] They had passed a law which rendered it a capital crime for any one to propose applying the money designed for the theatres to military service.
[† ] This lasted three years.
[* ] Public crimes may be punished, because it is here a common concern; but private crimes will go unpunished, because it is the common interest not to punish them.
[* ] I speak here of political virtue, which is, also, moral virtue, as it is directed to the public good: very little of private moral virtue, and not at all of that virtue wich relates to revealed truths. This will appear better, book V. chap. 2.
[† ] This is to be understood in the sense of the preceding note.
[‡ ] We must not, says he, employ people of mean extraction, they are too rigid and morose.
[† ] This word, good man, is understood here in a political sense only.
[* ] See the note, p. 30.
[* ] See Perry, p 447.
[† ] As it often happens in a military aristocracy.
[‡ ] Ricault on the Ottoman empire.
[* ] See the history of this revolution, by father Ducerceau.
[§ ] His was a military constitution, which is one of the species of despotic government.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 60 of 335
[* ] See sir John Chardin.
[§ ] Ibid.
BOOK IV. THAT THE LAWS OF EDUCATION OUGHT TO BE RELATIVE TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT.
CHAP. I.
Of the Laws of Education.
THE laws of education are the first impressions we receive; and, as they prepare us for civil life, every private family ought to be governed by the plan of that great household which comprehends them all.
If the people in general have a principle, their constituent parts, that is, the several families, will have one also. The laws of education will be therefore different in each species of government: in monarchies, they will have honour for their object; in republics, virtue; in despotic governments, fear.
CHAP. II.
Of Education in Monarchies.
IN monarchies the principal branch of education is not taught in colleges or academies: it commences, in some measure, at our setting out in the world; for this is the school of what we call honour, that universal preceptor, which ought every where to be our guide.
Here it is that we constantly hear three rules or maxims; viz. that we should have a certain nobleness in our virtues, a kind of frankness in our morals, and a particular politeness in our behaviour.
The virtues we are here taught are less what we owe to others than to ourselves; they are not so much what draws us towards society, as what distinguishes us from our fellow-citizens.
Here the actions of men are judged, not as virtuous, but as shining; not as just, but as great; not as reasonable, but as extraordinary.
When honour here meets with any thing noble in our actions, it is either a judge that http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 61 of 335
approves them, or a sophister by whom they are excused.
It allows of gallantry, when united with the idea of sensible affection, or with that of conquest: this is the reason why we never meet with so strict a purity of morals in monarchies as in republican governments.
It allows of cunning and craft, when joined with the notion of greatness of soul, or importance of affairs; as, for instance, in politics, with whose finesses it is far from being offended.
It does not forbid adulation, but when separate from the idea of a large fortune, and connected only with the sense of our mean condition.
With regard to morals, I have observed, that the education of monarchies ought to admit of a certain frankness and open carriage: truth, therefore, in conversation, is here a necessary point. But is it for the sake of truth? By no means. Truth is requisite only because a person habituated to veracity has an air of boldness and freedom. And, indeed, a man of this stamp seems to lay a stress only on the things themselves, not on the manner in which they are received.
Hence it is, that, in proportion as this kind of frankness is commended, that of the common people is despised, which has nothing but truth and simplicity for its object.
In fine, the education of monarchies requires a certain politeness of behaviour. Man, a social animal, is formed to please in society; and a person that would break through the rules of decency, so as to shock those he conversed with, would lose the public esteem, and become incapable of doing any good.
But politeness, generally speaking, does not derive its original from so pure a source: it rises from a desire of distinguishing ourselves. It is pride that renders us polite: we are flattered with being taken notice of for a behaviour that shews we are not of a mean condition, and that we have not been bred up with those who in all ages are considered as the scum of the people.
Politeness, in monarchies, is naturalised at court. One man excessively great renders every body else little. Hence that regard which is paid to our fellow-subjects: hence that politeness, equally pleasing to those by whom, as to those towards whom, it is
practised; because it gives people to understand that a person actually belongs, or at least deserves to belong, to the court.
A court air consists in quitting a real for a borrowed greatness. The latter pleases the courtier more than the former. It inspires him with a certain disdainful modesty, which shews itself externally, but whose pride insensibly diminishes in proportion to its distance from the source of this greatness.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 62 of 335
At court we find a delicacy of taste in every thing; a delicacy arising from the constant use of the superfluities of life; from the variety, and especially the satiety, of pleasures; from the multiplicity, and even confusion, of fancies; which, if they are but agreeable, are sure of being well received.
These are the things which properly fall within the province of education, in order to form what we call a man of honour, a man possessed of all the qualities and virtues requisite in this kind of government.
Here it is that honour interferes with every thing, mixing even with people’s manner of thinking, and directing their very principles.
To this whimsical honour it is owing that the virtues are only just what it pleases: it adds rules of its own invention to every thing prescribed to us: it extends or limits our duties according to its own fancy, whether they proceed from religion, politics, or morality.
There is nothing so strongly inculcated, in monarchies, by the laws, by religion, and honour, as submission to the prince’s will: but this very honour tells us, that the prince never ought to command a dishonourable action; because this would render us
incapable of serving him.
Crillon refused to assassinate the duke of Guise, but offered to fight him. After the massacre of St. Bartholomew, Charles IX. having sent orders to the governors in the several provinces for the Hugonots to be murdered, viscount Dorte, who commanded at
*
Bayonne, wrote thus to the king: “Sire, among the inhabitants of this town, and your majesty’s troops, I could not find so much as one executioner: they are honest citizens, and brave soldiers. We jointly, therefore, beseech your majesty to command our arms and lives in things that are practicable.” This great and generous soul looked upon a base action as a thing impossible.
There is nothing that honour more strongly recommends to the nobility, than to serve their prince in a military capacity: and indeed this is their favourite profession, because its dangers, its success, and even its miscarriages, are the road to grandeur. Yet this very law of its own making honour chooses to explain; and, in case of any affront, it requires or permits us to retire.
It insists also that we should be at liberty either to seek or to reject employments; a liberty which it prefers even to an ample fortune.
†
Honour therefore has its supreme laws, to which education is obliged to conform. The chief of these are, that we are permitted to set a value upon our fortune, but are absolutely forbidden to set any upon our lives.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 63 of 335
The second is, that, when we are raised to a post or preferment, we should never do or permit any thing which may seem to imply that we look upon ourselves as inferior to the rank we hold.
The third is, that those things which honour forbids are more rigorously forbidden when the laws do not concur in the prohibition; and those it commands are more strongly insisted upon when they happen not to be commanded by law.
CHAP. III.
Of Education in a despotic Government.
AS education in monarchies tends to raise and ennoble the mind, in despotic
governments its only aim is to debase it. Here it must necessarily be servile: even in power such an education will be an advantage, because every tyrant is at the same time a slave.
Excessive obedience supposes ignorance in the person that obeys. The same it
supposes in him that commands; for he has no occasion to deliberate, to doubt, to reason; he has only to will.
In despotic states each house is a separate government. As education, therefore, consists chiefly in social converse, it must be here very much limited: all it does is to strike the heart with fear, and to imprint on the understanding a very simple notion of a few principles of religion. Learning here proves dangerous, emulation fatal; and, as to
*
virtue, Aristotle cannot think there is any one virtue belonging to slaves: if so, education in despotic countries is confined within a very narrow compass.
Here therefore education is in some measure needless: to give something, one must take away every thing; and begin with making a bad subject, in order to make a good slave.
For why should education take pains in forming a good citizen, only to make him share in the public misery? If he loves his country, he will strive to relax the springs of government: if he miscarries, he will be undone: if he succeeds, he must expose himself, the prince, and his country, to ruin.
CHAP. IV.
Difference between the Effects of ancient and modern Education.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 64 of 335
MOST of the ancients lived under governments that had virtue for their principle; and, when this was in full vigour, they performed actions unusual in our times, and at which our narrow minds are astonished.
Another advantage their education had over ours; it never was effaced by contrary impressions. Epaminondas, the last year of his life, said, heard, beheld, and performed, the very same things as at the age in which he received the first principles of his education.
In our days we receive three different or contrary educations; namely, of our parents, of our masters, and of the world. What we learn in the latter effaces all the ideas of the former. This in some measure arises from the contrast we experience between our religious and worldly engagements; a thing unknown to the ancients.
CHAP. V.
Of Education in a republican Government.
IT is in a republican government that the whole power of education is required. The fear of despotic governments naturally rises of itself amidst threats and punishments: the honour of monarchies is favoured by the passions, and favours them in its turn: but virtue is a self-renunciation, which is ever arduous and painful.
This virtue may be defined the love of the laws and of our country. As such love requires a constant preference of public to private interest, it is the source of all private virtues; for they are nothing more than this very preference itself.
This love is peculiar to democracies. In these alone the government is intrusted to private citizens. Now, government is like every thing else: to preserve it, we must love it.
Has it ever been heard that kings were not fond of monarchy, or that despotic princes hated arbitrary power?
Every thing, therefore, depends on establishing this love in a republic; and to inspire it ought to be the principal business of education: but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example.
People have it generally in their power to communicate their ideas to their children; but they are still better able to transfuse their passions.
If it happens otherwise, it is because the impressions made at home are effaced by http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 65 of 335
those they have received abroad.
It is not the young people that degenerate: they are not spoilt till those of maturer age are already sunk into corruption.
CHAP. VI.
Of some Institutions among the Greeks.
THE ancient Greeks, convinced of the necessity that people who live under a popular government should be trained up to virtue, made very singular institutions in order to inspire it. Upon seeing, in the life of Lycurgus, the laws that legislator gave to the Lacedæmonians, I imagine I am reading the history of the Sevarambes. The laws of Crete were the model of those of Sparta; and those of Plato reformed them.
Let us reflect here a little on the extensive genius with which those legislators must have been endowed, to perceive that, by striking at received customs, and by
confounding all manner of virtues, they should display their wisdom to the universe.
Lycurgus, by blending theft with the spirit of justice, the hardest servitude with excess of liberty, the most rigid sentiments with the greatest moderation, gave stability to his city. He seemed to deprive her of all resources, such as arts, commerce, money, walls: ambition prevailed among the citizens, without hopes or improving their fortune: they had natural sentiments without the tie of a son, husband, or father; and chastity was stript even of modesty and shame. This was the road that led Sparta to grandeur and glory; and so infallible were these institutions, that it signified nothing to gain a victory
*
over that republic, without subverting her polity.
By these laws Crete and Laconia were governed. Sparta was the last that fell a prey to
†
the Macedonians, and Crete to the Romans. The Samnites had the same institutions, which furnished those very Romans with the subject of four and twenty triumphs.∥
A character so extraordinary in the institutions of Greece has shewn itself lately in the
‡
dregs and corruption of modern times. A very honest legislator has formed a people, to whom probity seems as natural as bravery to the Spartans. Mr. Penn is a real Lycurgus; and, though the former made peace his principal aim, as the latter did war, yet they resemble one another in the singular way of living to which they reduced their people, in the ascendant they had over free men, in the prejudices they overcame, and in the passions which they subdued.
Another example we have from Paraguay. This has been the subject of an invidious charge against a society that considers the pleasure of commanding as the only
happiness in life: but it will be ever a glorious undertaking to render government http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Montesquieu0187/CompleteWorks/0171-01_Bk.html
4/22/2004
The Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu (1777) - Vol. 1 The Spirit of Laws: The O... Page 66 of 335
§
subservient to human happiness.
It is glorious indeed for this society to have been the first in pointing out to those countries the idea of religion joined with that of humanity. By repairing the devastations of the Spaniards, she has begun to heal one of the most dangerous wounds that the human species ever received.
An exquisite sensibility to whatever she distinguishes by the name of honour, joined to her zeal for a religion which is far more humbling in respect to those who receive than to those who preach its doctrines, has set her upon vast undertakings, which she has accomplished with success. She has drawn wild people from their woods, secured them a maintenance, and clothed their nakedness; and, had she only, by this step, improved the industry of mankind, it would have been sufficient to eternize her fame.
They, who shall attempt hereafter to introduce the like institutions, must establish the community of goods, as prescribed in Plato’s Republic; that high respect he required for the gods; that separation from strangers, for the preservation of morals; and an extensive commerce, carried on by the community, and not by private citizens. They must give our arts without our luxury, and our wants without our desires.
They must prescribe money, the effect of which is to swell people’s fortunes beyond the bounds prescribed by nature; to learn to preserve for no purpose what has been idly hoarded up; to multiply without end our desires; and to supply the sterility of nature, of whom we have received very scanty means of inflaming our passions and of corrupting each other.
†
“The Epidamnians , perceiving their morals depraved by conversing with barbarians, chose a magistrate for making all contracts and sales, in the name and behalf of the city.” Commerce then does not corrupt the constitution, and the constitution does not deprive the society of the advantages of commerce.