Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu ed. by David Carrithers (review)

la passionnante histoire du pantalon jusque dans les pays anglo-saxons d’où proviennent des forces et des influences non-négligeables. Notons, entre autres, celles de l’Américaine Amelia Bloomer qui a donné son nom à un modèle de pantalon , ou des groupes religieux ou hygiénistes qui luttent contre l’emprise “satanique ” (117) de la mode, car “the laws of Health come from God, the laws of Fashion from Paris” (110). Tout en révélant aux lecteurs l’étonnante histoire d’un vêtement aujourd’hui si ordinaire, Bard les emporte dans une prodigieuse exp édition dans le temps et l’espace, où les plus curieux découvriront de nouvelles pistes à explorer. Auburn University (AL) Samia I. Spencer CARRITHERS, DAVID, ed. Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. ISBN 978-0-7546-2701-2. Pp. 584. $325. This sizeable volume consists of twenty-eight articles on Montesquieu published in scholarly journals mainly during the second half of the twentieth century . The first section addresses Montesquieu’s major works, Les lettres persanes, Grandeur et décadence des Romains, and L’esprit des lois. The different types of government , namely, republic, monarchy, and despotism, follow. Finally, topics related to England, notably the separation of powers, and then Religion, Commerce and Economics, and Philosophy of History complete the volume. The editor, David Carrithers, a Montesquieu specialist, opens the volume with a detailed introduction. Here he summarizes Montesquieu’s major works and interprets them. He frequently cites the articles contained in the volume to substantiate his claims. In discussing the various topics, he notes how recent scholarship has developed or deviated from previously held ideas. For example, Lowenthal and Keohane show that Montesquieu held high regard for a republic, whereas traditional scholarship considers monarchy as his preferred form of government . Carrithers also notes the value that Montesquieu placed on commerce, considering it an economic necessity in contrast to the agricultural state favored by other philosophes. Finally, he cites the reasons why Montesquieu’s works remain popular today, noting their timeless quality. Whereas Voltaire and others responded to events of their day, Montesquieu sought for the causes underlying laws and governments. This, added to his deep reflective spirit, ensures his permanence. Many articles address the story of the Troglodytes from The Persian Letters. Ranum states that Montesquieu’s life-long aim was to understand this parable and the reasons for the changes in states. Crisafulli sees the parable as a refutation of Hobbes, and an affirmation of Shaftesbury, since Montesquieu sees virtue as resulting essentially from moral-social instincts. In the section “Republics,” Keohane calls attention to the sequel, contained in an informal document entitled “Pensées.” Here Montesquieu enlarges his former concept to admit the possibility of a virtuous nation under wise political authority, at the same time enjoying commerce and the arts. Other authors note the effect of Montesquieu’s philosophy of history. Chinard sees it as fundamentally pessimistic, derived from a determinist perspective. This, he believes, occasioned the cool reception of L’esprit des lois from fellow philosophes, who professed the notion of perfectibility. While admitting a determinist current in Montesquieu, possibly due to his scientific 570 FRENCH REVIEW 85.3 training, Carrithers notes additional points. Charles XII of Sweden and Cromwell in England show that great people can change events and redirect the course of history. The accidents of history may produce surprising results. History is also at the root of Montesquieu’s religious beliefs, according to Oake. Montesquieu admired the civic religion of the early Romans, and he saw religion as a social activity with utilitarian dimensions. Thus, Schaub maintains, Montesquieu favored toleration. However, state tolerance of all religions was less problematic than mutual tolerance by different religions. According to Grimsley, Montesquieu believed that reason could justify the toleration of any socially useful religion, although he also accepted non-rational arguments. Above all, people must avoid gross superstition and fanaticism. All the articles in the volume are written in English, although some may use quotations in French. They are reproduced as they originally appeared in the journals . Thus one sees a variety of printing styles and notes. An impressive, cumulative bibliography is...