Summary: The Spirit of Laws (page 5)

Book V

In a democracy, people value equality, whereas in monarchies, everyone aspires to superiority.

Inequalities may exist in a republic, but they must stem from the very principle of equality ¹.

Frugality is inseparable from this love of equality. It springs from what Montesquieu calls the spirit of commerce: The spirit of commerce brings with it that of frugality, economy, moderation, work, wisdom, tranquillity, order, and rule. Evil comes when the excess of wealth destroys this spirit of commerce ².

To maintain the spirit of commerce, laws must be enacted to redistribute wealth in proportion to its expansion ³, ensuring that the poor become rich enough to work and the rich poor enough that they must work.

Montesquieu observes that where men's fortunes are highly unequal, virtue is rarely found ⁴.

Laws in democracies—such as those governing inheritance—promote this equality.

Laws in monarchies, by contrast, establish hereditary nobility, privileges, entails, and lineage restrictions—in other words, inequality.

In despotisms, few laws are needed, and above all they must not be allowed to change: When you train a beast, you take great care to ensure that it keeps its master, its lesson, and its pace; you strike its brain with two or three movements, and no more ⁵.

Montesquieu offers a particularly striking image to define despotism:

When the savages of Louisiana want to have fruit, they cut the tree at its base and pick the fruit. Such is despotic government ⁶.

Book VI

What kind of justice is found in these different political regimes?

In despotism, there is no need for a court. Since the land belongs to the prince, there are no property laws. Since succession passes to the prince, there are no laws of inheritance.

Monarchy, by contrast, is marked by the complexity of procedures and the multiplicity of laws, owing to the diversity of social conditions.

Excessive formalities may seem to hinder justice by slowing it down. Montesquieu, however, defends this slowness and the complexity of legal procedures.

These formalities show that careful attention is paid to nuance and to the complexity of individual cases; they ensure that the accused is properly defended. In despotisms, by contrast, the verdict is swift: life or death.

Furthermore, when a man makes himself more absolute [when a man seeks to become a despot], does he first think of simplifying the laws ⁷.

In monarchies, the judge tends to interpret the law and render his verdict according to its spirit. In democracies, by contrast, the judge applies the law to the letter: the penalty is codified, and it suffices to determine whether or not the case falls under the law to deduce the sentence.

Since monarchy is defined by the presence of intermediate powers, the king must not judge—that would be despotism. He may, however, have the right to grant pardons.

Punishments are extremely severe in despotisms because in these regimes, fear of death outweighs love of life. In moderate governments, punishments are more lenient—and the less severe the punishments, the freer the state.

Montesquieu proposes replacing cruel punishments with humiliating ones: Let us follow nature, which has given men shame as their bane; and let the greater part of the punishment be the infamy of suffering it ⁸.

Punishments that are too cruel are counterproductive: they harden hearts and breed cruelty, thereby worsening crime. When the law itself corrupts, this is worse than corruption caused by the absence of laws—for then the evil lies within the remedy itself.

¹ V, chap. 5
² V, chap. 6
³ ibid.
⁴ V, chap. 8
⁵ V, chap. 14
⁶ V, chap. 13
⁷ VI, chap. 2
⁸ VI, chap. 12