The thought of the day for most uneducated humans in the seventeenth century were dominated by two almost unchallenged sources; scripture and the classics. Each in it’s own way perpetuated the idea that civilization had degenerated from a “Golden Era” or the Golden Age. (1) The Renaissance and the Reformation had reinforced this above attitude and enhanced the authority of the sacred texts. The Renaissance and the Humanists of the Educational movement had been largely based on a Greek and Latin learning. The Reformations had taken the forms of a revolt against the Roman Catholic Church, accused of departing from the true Faith as revealed in the Bible. Protestant scholars stressed the importance of the supreme authority of scripture. Catholics fought back by stressing the authority of Christian fathers. The 16th century had strengthened the Reverence which when men approached the texts. (2) The eighteenth century the “Enlightenment Period” was a philosophical movement, marked by the questioning of traditional doctrines and Values, and emphasis on the idea of Universal progress, the Empirical method of Science, and the free use of Reason, and the tendency toward individualism.
Enlightenment was an attempt to substitute Empirical knowledge for traditional practices and beliefs, whatever was “scientific” and helped the individual to understand for himself what was germane to it’s purpose. (3)
Many Scientific Societies had been founded in Central and Western Europe. Helped initially by a common International language – Latin – and later by an almost Universal knowledge of French, that provided a remarkably efficient system for the rapid dissemination of scientific discovery and speculation. There was Newton’s physics like Laws of Gravity for example, which offered to disconcerting challenge to both theological and Scientific orthodoxy, which took sometime to penetrate the continent and still evokes the enthusiasm of the unfamiliar, and Voltaire published his exposition of 1738, and de Brosses discussed the infinitesimal calculus with the Italians. The Swedish Botanist “Linnaeus” quickly established and International reputation. His name has come down to us in his Latinized version, and in the language he published all his major works. By the end of the 17th Century, in the days of Lavoisier and Priestley, the network of Scientific societies was so close and contact so frequent that Science might be described as International. The work of the unorthodox might still pass unnoticed, if it were not for the incessant dialogue, ensuring the checking of experiments, unwarranted conclusions challenged and discoveries quickly shared. (4) The “Encyclopedia” was also an anthology of enlightened opinions on politics, philosophy, and religion. The sheer numbers of contributors ensured that it would not express any narrow sectarian viewpoint. The Encyclopedia was typical of the general current of belief that went by the name of “Enlightenment.”
The most famous French Philosophies were Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, and Condorcet. Montesquieu was one of the most influential writers of the 18th Century or during the period of Enlightenment and was primarily a Political thinker. Born Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755) of a noble family with both the mobility of the sword, and to that of the robe. He was educated in Oratorian College at Juilly. He like the other philosophers, picked up a strong classical education, and acquired his passion for classical Philosophy, notably Stoicism. Some of his earliest literary efforts were a eulogy on Cicero and a remarkable essay on “Religious Politics” of the ancient Romans. Even as young men he was interested in the manner in which the Political Elite exploited the credulity of the lower orders for purpose of domination. “Antiquity Enchants me, ” he noted. This enchantment lasted me a lifetime. Between 1705 and 1713 Montesquieu studied Law, first at Bordeau near his parental estate, then at Paris where he underwent his legal apprenticeship and made his fast connections which social circles holding “advanced” that is to say, irreligious ideas. (6)
In 1716 Montesquieu inherited the judicial office of president a Mortier in the Parliament (the sovereign court) of his region. In the (French Old Regime) most offices including high posts in the army and the judiciary were private property: that could be bought and sold and handed down in wills. Supporters of Royal Centralization condemned the “venality of office” – a survival from the 17th Century. Supporters of the Powers of the French Aristocracy on the other hand, welcomed this so called venality as a safeguard against Royal “Despotism.” Montesquieu a beneficiary himself of this aristocratic system, supported it wholeheartedly, and even gave it theoretical foundations in his “spirit of the Laws.”
Montesquieu had limited interest, beside his legal duties but one interest was in travel, observation and writing. The “Persian Letters” published in 1721 during his incumbency as President a Mortier in Bordeaux, that shows his real bent. It is a cross cultural dialogue. Montesquieu imagines two Persians travelling in France and sending home their observations. The Persian letters were poignant, interesting and wittier than the usual writing of the day. The criticisms of Domestic affairs by inventing the response of aliens were casual criticisms. It describes and denounces abuses, with a certain amusement. Yet it will not do to take the social criticisms of the “Persian Letters.” too lightly, where whit and humour are also weapons and in a system in which serious criticism is barred, because they may be the best weapons at hand. Montesquieu’s open detestation of cruelty, superstition, and slavery were signs of and weapons for the “Enlightenment.”
In his major works “The Spirit of the Laws” (1748) Montesquieu sought to discover the ways in which the differing environments and historical and religious traditions, plus governmental institutions work against the people. Finding that unalterable differences in climates and geographical terrains affect human’s behaviours and hence governmental forms.(9) Montesquieu seems to say all the way through his works, that external conditions force humans or homo sapiens to behave in different ways and there is nothing they can do about this. (10) He was an idealist who preferred one particular Political System, the English Constitution and hoped all Nations would overcome whatever Environmental handicaps they faced to initiate it. The greatest strength of the English System was that it consisted of separate balanced Powers – Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Thus it guaranteed Liberty in as much as no absolute sovereignty was given to any single governing individual or group. This idealization of checks and balances subsequently influenced many Enlightened Political theorists and played a dominant role in the shaping of the United States of America’s Constitution in 1787. Montesquieu’s written Laws derived from the Nature of Government. He wrote about 3 species of governments; Republican, Monarchial and Despotic. A republican government in which the body or only a part of the people are possessed of Supreme Power. Monarchy that in which a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice. When the body of people is possessed of the supreme power lodged in the hands of part of the people, it is then an aristocracy, and in an democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in other’s the subjects. (11) Montesquieu hinted also in his works, that there was serious doubt that slavery was compatible with Law or with humanity in his early works of 1721, the “Persian Letters.” (12) This idea was backed by many of the Philosophers of the day.
The event that did most to put the humanitarian goals of the Enlightenment into the forefront of the Public attention was the Calas case. It is the story of a young Huguenot, named Marc – Antoine Calas who was found hanged in his father’s shop in Toulouse, on October 13th 1761. This case was written about by Peter Gay, in the “Enlightenment’s,” published in 1973. It was found from this case how savage the Laws were in their punishment, brutal in the permissible forms of interrogation, and favourable to the prosecution, and hostile to the defense. It spurred many of the philosophers themselves to unprecedented efforts of Public Propaganda. (13) Penal Laws had grown harsher than ever, and traditional conception of communication needing protection from contagion and religious bodies needing vengeance against insults from heretics or the impious, were stretched to justify codes of unprecedented ferocity. The first to break with conception of Laws was Montesquieu. In his “Persian Letters” in 1721 he showed his distaste for legal cruelties. In the “Spirit of Laws,” his major work, he devoted his Whole “Book X11” to the rights of the accused. His treatment breathes good sense and decency. What is needed , he argued is not piecemeal reform, but wholesale reconsideration: some so called crimes are not crimes at all, some “heinous” crimes are unimportant. What counts is not dignity of how the Kings and Priests but the security of the community and acts that demonstrably do not hurt it, should not be repressed, similarly antisocial acts that damage individuals only slightly should be punished only slightly.(14) The idea of proportionality which Beccaria who as an Italian philosopher wrote a treatise on crime and punishment and the death penalty, saying they are never justified, and harsh treatment including torture are always detestable. This idea was made into a central principle of his jurisprudence, and was central to Montesquieu’s writings on the subject. No wonder they have been called the “Magna Carta of the Citizen.”
The General aim of the Philosopher’s movement was to increase the quality of humanity’s environments around the World. They wanted a World more prosperous, less cruel, less superstitious , and less parochial, – a world of free reason and reasonable men. (16) The wanted a World more tolerant, more Peaceful, and some crusaded for this, but keeping an eye on their reputation, as they were individual humans living within the culture enmeshed in it’s own Values. (17) Very few people have found and studied against the cruelty of punishment and the irregularities of criminal procedures, a part of legislation that is a fundamental as it is widely neglected in almost all of Europe. Very few persons have undertaken to demolish the accumulated errors of centuries, by rising general principles, curbing at least, with the sole force that acknowledges Truths, possesses the unbounded courses of indirect Power which has continually produced a long authorized example of the most cold blooded barbarity. The groans of the weak were sacrificed to cruel ignorance and to opulent indolence; the barbarous torments, multiplied with lavish and useless severity, for crimes whether proven or wholly imaginary. The horror and filth of prisons, intensified by the cruelest tormentor of the miserable uncertainty – all these ought to have roused that breed of magistrate who direct the opinions of men. (18)
A few have chosen to follow the illustrious footsteps of Montesquieu, who obtained the secret thanks of the unknown Peace – loving disciples of reason and who sensibly responded as one who upheld the interests of humanity.(19)
Works Cited:
(1) Hampson Norman, The “Enlightenment” Hazel, Watson, and Vitney Ltd. Great Britain: 1968: 16
(2) Hampson, 1968: 16
(3) Hampson, 1968: 86
(4) Hampson, 1968: 85
(5) Hampson, 1968: 86
(6) Gay Peter, “The Enlightenment.” Simon and Schuster . New York; 1973 122
(7) Gay, 1973: 123
(8) Gay, 1973: 124
(9) Learner Robert E, Meacham Standfish, Burns, Edward, “Western Civilization” 11th Edition
Norton and Company, New York, 1988: 653
(10) Learner, Meacham and Burns 1988: 653
(11) Gay, 1973:491
(12) Gay, 1973: 684
(13) Gay, 1973: 683
(14) Gay, 1973: 699
(15) Gay, 1973: 716
(16) Gay, 1973: 681
(17) Gay, 1973: 717
(18) Gay 1973: 717
(19) Gay, 1973: 717