I don't have much to say except that this is a really well put together edition of The Spirit of the Laws. The translation is very readable. The introduction is well written. And the notes at the beginning of each book are very helpful.

For almost 300 years this classical political work of Montesquieu has been must study for anyone interested in creating or supporting a government, dictatorial or democratic, it doing yoeman work for all varieties. But now Montesquieu's classic has been hurried into late Twentieth-Century modernity by the curious Castroite and Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez Frias. For Mr. Chavez, and his babbling coterie of marxists, has just force fed the Venzuelans a "new" constitution which claims to improve, inter alia, on the French baron's division of government into three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, by adding two more branches, Moral and Electoral (sic). The reader -- Chavez's sans culottes are functionally illiterate -- can doubtless puncture these pretensions for himself. Even so, it is a shame that Montesquieu is not present to do so. In his absence, however, the reader will find the excellent work of Prof. Carrithers -- Kiplingesque with prefaces, introductory notes and appendices -- invaluable should he be disposed to investigate the "new" Venezuelan Constitution.

Before I can even begin about the book, the story BEHIND the book is amazing. It would not surprise me if Cheney had a copy of the German version somewhere in his desk as Bush probably wouldn't understand a third of the amazing ideas put forth in this formerly banned book.

Watching the news is like watching Machiavelli's Dialogue come to life. Listening to Democrats is like hearing Montesquieu's feeble attempts to say that in the end, the good guys will win because of Justice and Liberty. If the Dialogue were a swordfight, Machiavelli would have not only killed poor Montesquieu, but eviscerated and beheaded him as well. Waggoner's commentaries and insights are a little dry when compared with the excellent text but are a good read and do well to put some of the outdated points in the text into context. I strongly reccomend this for anybody who is questioning the course of events that our world is being swept up in.

This is the first of the superb two-volume treatment of classical social theory written by the famous French Professor and philosopher Raymond Aron. This first volume centers around the theories of a number of early sociological theorist, ranging from the eccentric theorist and philosopher Auguste Comte, to Alexis deToqueville, to Montesquieu, and finally to Karl Marx. Professor Aron traces how the contribution of each helped to create the foundation of modern social theory, and he masterfully threads these collective contributions together into a narrative of theory that later masters of sociological thought like Durkheim, Pareto, and Max Weber then built upon. This is an acclaimed and masterful treatment not only of each theorist's ideas but also how each fits into the overall growth in understanding the structure and function of modern industrial society and what makes it work. Thus, his text strings together the various aspects of each theorist's work into a common thread that links them to their successors.

This approach works brilliantly, largely because of Aron's contribution. His treatment of Karl Marx is particularly masterful, and is perhaps the standard against which other, and much more detailed treatments are judged. The same is true of his treatment Durkheim and Max Weber in the second volume. The two books, which originally were created as part of a yearlong graduate seminar Aron taught at the University of Paris, are an artful combination of scholarship and repartee. Aron's tone is suitable scholarly and thoughtful, and yet is also eminently readable and accessible to the average reader. This two volume set, first printed in hardcover in the mid 1960s, has never been long out of print in the forty years since, and has long been the standard text for use in graduate courses in classical sociological theory.

One caution is appropriate, however. These books are not for Everyman, although they are written in a style and a language that makes them quite accessible and easy to comprehend and understand. Rather, the two volume set is more apt reading material for those readers who are seriously interested in the western tradition of classical social thought, and it acts as a suitable introduction to the heritage of critical thought and intellectual insight extending back hundreds of years in western thought. Enjoy!

Dr. Cahn has deftly assembled a comprehensive history of French thought on the complex subject of suicide. The text is richly footnoted and Dr. Cahn has crafted a sweeping overview of the subject by including the most important thinkers of the time period. This is a welcome contribution to literature on the subject, and is a notable achievement

Montesquieu's "Considerations..." is a refreshing change of pace from the usual, long winded, dry books on Roman history. It is a concise, clear, chronologically presented work, but still manages to be quite thorough in examining a variety of the causes behind the rise and fall of the Romans. The author touches on the social, military, economic and moral factors that made the Romans great, and in the end led to collapse of their empire. I can recommend it as a worthwhile read to those of you interested in the history of the Romans.

A book far too often ignored by modern readers. Montesquieu presents a succinct and readable analysis of the history of the Roman Republic and Empire. For both the layperson and the scholar interested in Roman History this is an essential read. He presents the reasons for the the spread of Rome's empire, the fall of the Republic, and the long duration and eventual collapse of the empire in a clear fashion. He goes through Roman history chronologically and shows how these causes relate to specific events. Edward Gibbon praises Montesquieu in his memoirs, and after reading his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it is easy to see how the theses presented here on religion and the military may have influenced Gibbon's own conclusions.

There are many reasons one might choose to read this work, including reasons associated with one's studies at University, or for its historical interest, or for its views on law and justice. But, the compelling reason for me is that it provides a level of elegant discourse with such wit and charm that I would recommend it for its value as an entertainment alone. On the Spanish " Those Spaniards who do not get burnt seemed to be so attached to the Inquisition that it would be churlish to take it away from them.(p156)" On History " Here are the books on modern history. First you will see the historians of the church and the papacy, books which I read for edification, and which often have exactly the opposite effect on me.(p241)" " I observe that people here argue about religion interminably: but it appears that they are competing at the same time to see who can be the least devout.(P.101)" "There is not a single Protestant ruler who does not raise more taxes from his people than the Pope from his subjects; yet the latter are poor, while the former live in opulence. With them, commerce brings everything to life, while with the others monastacism carries death with it everywhere.(p213)" This book in short is a wonderful antidote to the protestations, statements, and self-righteousness of most living politicians and religious leaders. Relax and enjoy.

Montesquieu's "Persian Letters" consist primarily of the collected correspondence of Usbek and Rica, two Persian travelers abroad in Europe in search of knowledge. For those familiar with Said's theories of Orientalism, this is an exemplary text to see how 18th century France thought of its Ottoman rivals, and how those views reflect the state of French society.

Usbek, Rica, and their various correspondents discuss matters touching on gender, politics, the nature of the self, history, religion, and culture. While these letters make up the majority of the novel, the few letters Montesquieu inserts from Usbek's wives and eunuch servants are by far the novel's most interesting pieces, and unfortunately, the most frequently overlooked.

As Usbek sojourns across Europe over the course of many years, contemplating universal issues, his wives and eunuchs bring a sense of stark reality to the "Persian Letters". In these letters, we see all too clearly the domestic unrest arising out of even enlightened monarchy. The neglected wives, locked away from society in the harem, and the pitiable eunuchs, who must guard them, offer profoundly personal opinions on the causes and effects of a rigid class structure.

"Persian Letters" is a valuable text for the layman interested in gauging the currents of thought in the early 18th century. A best-seller in its own time, Montesquieu's most abstracted philosophies are rendered accessible through story and fable, showing his authorial range. For the casual reader, the letters are for the most part very short and quite entertaining. For the scholarly-minded, this is a work with seemingly limitless critical appeal.

Persian Letters (Lettres Persanes) was first published in 1721 when Montesquieu was 32 years old. The book is about three Persians: Usbek, Rica, and Rhedi, who set out for Europe to study it's manners and institutions. Rhedi stops at Venice, while Usbek and Rica continue on to Paris. Very soon after their departure, there begins a brisk exchange of letters between the Persian visitors, and their wives, servants, and friends at home, as well as between the visitors themselves.One visitor, Usbek, a Persian lord, must keep in close contact with his harem of wives in his seraglio, as well as the eunuchs who guard the wives. When disorders break out in the seraglio, the eunuchs try to restore discipline by administering to two of the wives, "that chastisement which begins by shocking one's modesty, involving the deepest humiliation and takes one back to the time of her childhood." Montesquieu however, uses this framework to comment on a very wide amount of subjects. The book also attacks errors and vices that will last as long as humanity. It is sometimes witty, sometimes profound.

The Spirit of Laws is a passionate and eloquent statement of liberalism. But it is only that: a statement. It is not a defence. Montesquieu rails against despotism and carefully spells out the separation of government powers. But, unlike Locke or Mill, he gives little argument for why liberalism should be accepted. And those few sketchy comments he does give (e.g. despotism is bad even for the despot) are unconvincing.

Montesquieu doesn't really put forward a unified philosophically based political system here, so don't read it expecting something like The Republic, Leviathan or the Two Treatises. Stylistically this is very like Machiavelli; that is, no overiding system, rather just a long series of pithy pieces of advice for people actually in (or intending to make their own) government. If you've read Machiavelli's Discourses, you'll know what to expect.

I recommend you read at least Locke's Two Treatises and Machiavelli's Discourses before this, and then you'll get the theorectical background behind many of Montesquieu's points. Like Locke he thinks of liberty and republics being fine things, but like Machiavelli he cautions that circumstances should always be taken into consideration, and there is no one form of government that is always the right one for every people at all times, even republics. Because of this most of the book is spend enumerating various circumstances that might come up and appropriate reactions. For example, an early section is spend discussing the effect of climate on the people of that area, and given this, what form of government suits them best.

What this means is that while his work may not stand at a level with The Republic or Leviathan in terms of philosophical merit, if you are looking for knowledge that will be useful in the real world, this book is probably superior to those.

I definitely recommend you check this book out. It's imposing length is split into much easier to digest mini-chapters, so it doesn't seem as long as it is, and the use of examples makes it more interesting than many of the other drier works of political philosophy you might come across.

an understanding of Montesquieu is critical for today's emerging democracies, in that he was one of the first to recognize the importance of securing the liberty of the governed with the aid of reason, such as by constitutional design and by the rule of law. The probelm is that there is a caveat to his theory: democracy may not be the best form of government for every country.

La société française critiquée par Montesquieu par l'intermédiaire de deux persans en voyage à Paris, qui s'étonnent de ce qu'ils y voient dans des lettres qu'ils envoient à leurs amis et femmes... Habile manière pour critiquer son siècle sans être ennuyé par la politique du Roi... Montesquieu brosse un tableau amusant et satirique du XVIIIe siècle, entrecoupé de lettres des femmes des persans ou des eunuques chargés de les garder pour le moins désopilentes.

This book is, above all, a collection of conspectuses about various classical authors' views on the factors(most related to the development of a distinctly Western mindframe) that triggered the commercial and technological dominance of the West from the XVIIIth Century on. By doing so, the author misses the opportunity to investigate more closely the actual political and economic factors at work ("Imperialism", for instance, and not only in the Leninist sense). Also, his remarks on the authrors selected are sadly banal and add nothing new. To be used at most as an undergraduate textbook. Too bad that Macfarlane didn't write nothing that could compare to his works on English individualism and and the role of marriage in pre-modern England.

If you wish to have a good summary of certain aspects (i.e., the interactions and relations between liberty, wealth and equality) of three great thinkers (Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Tocqueville; Ernst Gellner is also treated but not to much in depth, really), this book is interesting. But not at all enough to cope with its ambitious aims: i) to explain the obstacles which had halted the growth of all great agrarian civilizations up to the18th century ; and ii) to try and explain what has happened since the 18th century. By the end of the book, the author recognizes that "there is still a large gap in the explanation of how the transition to the modern world has occurred" and that there is still pending an explanation of the technological and scientific growth in western Europe between the 12th-19th centuries and why, during the same period, it slowed down, ceased and even partially regressed in other civilizations which had previously been far more advanced than Europe. As of today, nobody has a definitive answer to this, but I would suggest to read the following books: "The Rise of the West" by William H. McNeill, "World History. A new perspective" by Clive Ponting, "Reorient" by Andre Gunder Frank, "The Great Divergence", by Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Dynamics of Global Dominance. European Overseas Empires 1415-1980", by David Abernethy and "The Cash Nexus" by Niall Ferguson.

Fantastic book! MacFarlane examines the riddle of why mankind has done so well over the last 300 years, and what prevented these advancements from occuring earlier in our history. He uses the work of four "philosophers"; Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Ernest Geller to throw light on the role that liberty, wealth, and democracy have played. The book is broken down into four sections. Each section starts with the life and times of the philosopher in question. Then their ideas and discoveries about the world around them are examined in detail. Each one contributes to the "solution" to the "riddle". I have been reading a lot of Hayek lately, and many of the ideas he refers to in passing in his work are laid out much more throughly here. If you enjoy history, and are particularly interested in the development of liberty and understanding how individual liberty leads to wealth and better conditions for all, you should buy this book. Also, if you are interested in anyone of the four philosophers mentioned above, you'll be treated to a clear overview of their life and work in the context of the book's subject. It's expensive, but worth it. Buy it before it goes out of print again!