Summary: The Spirit of Laws (page 4)

In monarchies, moreover, courtiers thrive despite being devoid of virtue: Ambition in idleness, baseness in pride, the desire to enrich oneself without work, aversion to truth, flattery, treachery, perfidy, [...] fear of the prince's virtue, and, above all, the perpetual ridicule cast on virtue form, I believe, the character of the greatest number of courtiers ¹.

This sooner or later affects the people, who gradually adopt the same cast of mind.

To sum up, virtue is not excluded from this form of government, but it is not its driving force ².

What, then, is the principle of monarchy? For Montesquieu, it is honour, which he defines as the prejudices of each person and each rank ³. While this prejudice may lead one to look down on those of other social classes, it can also inspire noble deeds ⁴. This is bound up with the spirit of ambition, which may be dangerous in a republic or a despotism but is beneficial in a monarchy.

Honour cannot be the principle of despotism, since the despot cannot tolerate seeing some of his subjects attempting to rise above others through ambition. In such a regime, all are equal because all are slaves. Honour is an alien concept in these regimes, and there is often no word to express it.

The principle of despotism is fear. It is through fear that the ruler maintains power. A moderate government, by contrast, can afford to relax its supervision of subjects, as it sustains itself through its laws.

Montesquieu gives the example of a king of Persia who had his officials executed simply because they had not shed blood.

The extreme obedience of subjects to the despot is a hallmark of despotic states:

There is no [...] accommodation, terms, equivalents, talks, remonstrances. Man is a creature who obeys a creature who wills ⁵.

That said, one cannot obey the prince if he decrees something contrary to religion: One shall kill one's father if the prince so orders; but one shall not drink wine if he wills and orders it ⁶.

These, then, are the principles that define the three forms of government. Montesquieu does not claim that all subjects are virtuous in a republic, fearful in a despotism, or governed by honour in a monarchy—but rather that if they are not, the regime will soon collapse.

Book IV

In this book, Montesquieu examines the laws of education that necessarily follow from the nature of the regime.

In monarchies, education does not take place in schools but in the "world"—that is, in the salons where the beau monde gathers. This is where honour is learned.

Honour shapes our value judgements: It does not judge men's actions as good, but as beautiful; as just, but as great; as reasonable, but as extraordinary ⁷.

In monarchies, frankness is expected of a well-educated man—not out of love for truth, but because it makes him appear bold and free. The nobleman must be polite—not out of respect, but because politeness sets him apart: it proves he is not of low birth, and flatters both himself and his interlocutor.

The laws of honour are peculiar: the prince must be obeyed with loyalty—except under certain conditions. One may kill a man if the prince commands it, but only in single combat. Crillon refused to assassinate the Duc de Guise but offered Henry III to fight him instead.

In a despotic regime, by contrast, there is neither education nor indoctrination, for knowledge is dangerous: Extreme obedience presupposes ignorance in the one who obeys; it even presupposes it in the one who commands: he has no need to deliberate, to doubt, or to reason; he has only to will ⁸.

In a republican government, on the other hand, civic education becomes essential. Its goal is to instil in the citizen a love of government and virtue.

¹ ibid.
² ibid.
³ III, chap. 6
⁴ ibid.
⁵ III, chap.10
⁶ ibid.
⁷ IV, chap.2
⁸ IV, chap.3