the spirit of laws-第1节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！






THE　SPIRIT　OF　LAWS

By　Charles　de　Secondat；　Baron　de　Montesquieu

Translated　by　Thomas　Nugent；　revised　by　J。　V。　Prichard




The　Translator　to　the　Reader

by　Thomas　Nugent

1752

The　following　work　may　with　the　strictest　justice　be　said　to　have　done　honour　to　human　nature　as　well　as　to　the　great　abilities　of　the　author。　The　wisest　and　most　learned　man；　and　those　most　distinguished　by　birth　and　the　elevation　of　their　stations；　have；　in　every　country　in　Europe；　considered　it　as　a　most　excellent　performance。　And　may　we　be　permitted　to　add；　that　a　sovereign　prince　＇1＇　as　justly　celebrated　for　his　probity　and　good　sense；　as　for　his　political　and　military　skill；　has　declared　that　from　M。　de　Montesquieu　he　has　learnt　the　art　of　government。　But　had　the　illustrious　author　received　no　such　distinguished　honour；　the　numerous　editions　of　this　work　in　French；　and　their　sudden　spreading　through　all　Europe；　are　a　sufficient　testimony　of　the　high　esteem　with　which　it　has　been　received　by　the　public。

But　notwithstanding　the　deserved　applause　which　has　been　so　liberally　bestowed　on　the　author；　there　have　been　some　who　have　not　only　endeavoured　to　blast　his　laurels；　but　have　treated　him　with　all　that　scurrility　which　bigotry　and　superstition　are　apt；　on　every　occasion；　to　throw　out　against　truth；　reason　and　good　sense。　These　M。　de　Montesquieu　has　himself　answered；　in　a　separate　treatise　intitled；　A　Defense　of　the　Spirit　of　Laws；　from　whence　we　have　thought　proper　to　extract；　for　the　sake　of　such　as　have　not　seen　that　treatise；　the　principal　of　those　objections；　and　the　substance　of　what　has　been　given　in　reply：　Only　first　observing；　that　this　defense　is　divided　into　three　parts；　in　the　first　of　which　he　answers　the　general　reproaches　that　have　been　thrown　out　against　him；　in　the　second　he　replies　to　particular　reproaches；　and　in　the　third；　he　gives　some　reflections　on　the　manner　in　which　his　work　has　been　criticized。

The　author　first　complains　of　his　being　charged　both　with　espousing　the　doctrines　of　Spinoza；　and　with　being　a　Deist；　two　opinions　directly　contradictory　to　each　other。　To　the　former　of　these　he　answers；　by　placing　in　one　view　the　several　passages　in　the　Spirit　of　Laws　directly　levelled　against　the　doctrines　of　Spinoza；　and　then　he　replies　to　the　objections　that　have　been　made　to　those　passages；　upon　which　this　injurious　charge　is　founded。

The　critic　asserts　that　our　author　stumbles　at　his　first　setting　out；　and　is　offended　at　his　saying；　that　Laws　in　their　most　extensive　signification；　are　the　necessary　relations　derived　from　the　nature　of　things。　To　this　he　replies；　that　the　critic　had　heard　it　said　that　Spinoza　had　maintained　that　the　world　was　governed　by　a　blind　and　necessary　principle；　and　from　hence　on　seeing　the　word　necessary；　he　concludes　that　this　must　be　Spinozism；　tho'　what　is　most　surprising；　this　article　is　directly　levelled　at　the　dangerous　principles　maintained　by　Spinoza：　That　he　had　Hobbes's　system　in　his　eye；　a　system；　which；　as　it　makes　all　the　virtues　and　vices　depend　on　the　establishment　of　human　laws；　and　as　it　would　prove　that　men　were　born　in　a　state　of　war；　and　that　the　first　law　of　nature　is　a　war　of　all　against　all；　overturns；　like　Spinoza；　all　religion；　and　all　morality。　Hence　he　laid　down　this　position；　that　there　were　laws　of　justice　and　equity　before　the　establishment　of　positive　laws：　hence　also　he　has　proved　that　all　beings　had　laws；　that　even　before　their　creation　they　had　possible　laws；　and　that　God　himself　had　laws；　that　is；　the　laws　which　he　himself　had　made。　He　has　shewn　＇2＇　that　nothing　can　be　more　false　than　the　assertion　that　men　were　born　in　a　state　of　war；　and　he　has　made　it　appear　that　wars　did　not　commence　till　after　the　establishment　of　society。　His　principles　are　here　extremely　clear；　from　whence　it　follows；　that　as　he　has　attacked　Hobbes's　errors；　he　has　consequently　those　of　Spinoza；　and　he　has　been　so　little　understood；　that　they　have　taken　for　the　opinions　of　Spinoza；　those　very　objections　which　were　made　against　Spinozism。

Again；　the　author　has　said　that　the　creation　which　appears　to　be　an　arbitrary　act；　supposes　laws　as　invariable　as　the　fatality　of　the　Atheists。　From　these　words　the　critic　concludes　that　the　author　admits　the　fatality　of　the　Atheists。

To　this　he　answers；　that　he　had　just　before　destroyed　this　fatality；　by　representing　it　as　the　greatest　absurdity　to　suppose　that　a　blind　fatality　was　capable　of　producing　intelligent　beings。　Besides；　in　the　passage　here　censured；　he　can　only　be　made　to　say　what　he　really　does　say：　he　does　not　speak　of　causes；　nor　does　he　compare　causes；　but　he　speaks　of　effects　and　compares　effects。　The　whole　article；　what　goes　before　and　what　follows；　make　it　evident；　that　there　is　nothing　here　intended　but　the　laws　of　motion；　which；　according　to　the　author；　had　been　established　by　God：　these　laws　are　invariable；　this　he　as　asserted；　and　all　natural　philosophy　has　asserted　the　same　thing；　they　are　invariable　because　God　has　been　pleased　to　make　them　so；　and　because　he　has　pleased　to　preserve　the　world。　When　the　author　therefore　says　that　the　creation　which　appears　to　be　an　arbitrary　act；　supposes　laws　as　invariable　as　the　fatality　of　the　Atheists；　he　cannot　be　understood　to　say　that　the　creation　was　a　necessary　act　like　the　fatality　of　the　Atheists。

Having　vindicated　himself　from　the　charge　of　Spinozism；　he　proceeds　to　the　other　accusation；　and　from　a　multitude　of　passages　collected　together　proves　that　he　has　not　only　acknowledged　the　truth　of　revealed　religion；　but　that　he　is　in　love　with　Christianity；　and　endeavours　to　make　it　appear　amiable　in　the　eyes　of　others。　He　then　enquires　into　what　his　adversaries　have　said　to　prove　the　contrary；　observing　that　the　proofs　ought　to　bear　some　proportion　to　the　accusation；　that　this　accusation　is　not　of　a　frivolous　nature；　and　that　the　proofs　therefore　ought　not　to　be　frivolous。

The　first　objection　is；　that　he　has　praised　the　Stoics；　who　admitted　a　blind　fatality；　and　that　this　is　the　foundation　of　natural　religion。　To　this　he　replies；　〃I　will　for　a　moment　suppose　that　this　false　manner　of　reasoning　has　some　weight：　has　the　author　praised　the　philosophy　and　metaphysics　of　the　Stoics？　He　has　praised　their　morals；　and　has　said　that　the　people　reaped　great　benefit　from　them：　he　has　said　this；　and　he　has　said　no　more：　I　am　mistaken；　he　has　said　more；　he　has　at　the　beginning　of　his　book　attacked　this　fatality；　he　does　not　then　praise　it；　when　he　praises　the　Stoics。〃

The　second　objection　is；　that　he　has　praised　Bayle；　in　calling　him　a　great　man。　To　this　he　answers；　〃It　is　true　that　the　author　has　called　Bayle　a　great　man；　but　he　has　censured　his　opinions：　if　he　has　censured　them；　he　has　not　espoused　them：　and　since　he　has　censured　his　opinions；　he　does　not　call　him　a　great　man　because　of　his　opinions。　Every　body　knows　that　Bayle　had　a　great　genius　which　he　abused；　but　this　genius　which　he　abused；　he　had：　the　author　has　attacked　his　sophisms；　and　pities　him　on　account　of　his　errors。　I　don't　love　the　men　who　subvert　the　laws　of　their　country；　but　I　should　find　great　difficulty　in　believing　that　Caesar　and　Cromwell　had　little　minds：　I　am　not　in　love　with　conquerors；　but　it　would　be　very　difficult　to　persuade　me　to　believe　that　Alexander　and　Jenghiz…Khan　were　men　of　only　a　common　genius。　Besides；　I　have　remarked；　that　the　declamations　of　angry　men　make　but　little　impression　on　any　except　those　who　are　angry：　the　greatest　part　of　the　readers　are　men　of　moderation；　and　seldom　take　up　a　book　but　when　they　are　in　cool　blood；　for　rational　and　sensible　men　love　reason。　Had　the　author　loaded　Bayle　with　a　thousand　injurious　reproaches；　it　would　not　have　followed　from　thence；　that　Bayle　had　reasoned　well　or　ill；　all　that　his　readers　would　have　been　able　to　conclude　from　it　would　have　been；　that　the　author　knew　how　to　be　abusive。〃

The　third　objection　is；　that　he　has　not　in　his　first　chapter　spoken　of　original　sin。　To　which　he　replies：　〃I　ask　every　sensible　man　if　this　chapter　is　a　treatise　of　divinity？　if　the　author　had　spoken　of　original　sin；　they　might　have　imputed　it　to　him　as　a　crime　that　he　had　not　spoken　of　redemption。〃

The　next　objection　takes　notice；　that　〃The　author　has　said　that　in　England　self…murder　is　the　effect　of　a　distemper；　and　that　it　cannot　be　punished　without　punishing　the　effects　of　madness；　the　consequence　the　critic　draws　from　thence　is；　that　a　follower　of　natural　religion　can　never　forget　that　England　is　the　cradle　of　his　sect；　and　that　he　rubs　a　sponge　over　all　the　crimes　he　found　there。〃　He　replies；　〃The　author　does　not　know　that　England　is　the　cradle　of　natural　religion；　but　he　knows　that　England　was　not　his　cradle。　He　is　not　of　the　same　religious　sentiments　as　an　Englishman；　any　more　than　an　Englishman　who　speaks　of　the　physical　effects　he　found　in　France；　is　not　of　the　same　religion　as　the　French。　He　is　not　a　follower　of　natural　religion；　but　he　wishes　that　his　critic　was　a　follower　of　natural　logic。〃

These　are　the　principle　objections　levelled　against　our　author；　on　this　head；　from　which　our　readers　will　sufficiently　see　on　what　trifling；　what　puerile　arguments　this　charge　of　Deism　is　founded。　He　concludes　however　this　article；　with　a　defense　of　the