Thus, the author of “The Spirit of Laws” himself did not present a sufficiently clear basis for both freedoms. He does not definitely indicate the connection between the constitution of the country and personal freedom, although apparently he does not deny it, which is clear from the indicated places in the book; on the other hand, personal freedom is made entirely dependent on criminal laws.
But we must not forget that the area of criminal law by Montesquieu also belongs to civil laws.
Montesquieu studied and commented on the English state structure superficially and too one-sidedly. He looked at the basis of its development by the desire to contrast the rights of the individual with the rights of the state, which we distinguished among the independents and revolutionary theorists of the seventeenth century. As soon as the need arose to formulate the rights and significance of the individual in relation to the prevailing statism, the “Asthetene oe reore” appeared, and the petish and the bill of rights were eclipsed. From the general definitions of the concept of freedom "given by Montesquieu, it follows that the freedom of a citizen and, more often than not, sovereignty are not the same thing;
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
If we talk about the historical philosophical foundations of political and civil freedom in definitions
1) This is indicated by the relationship he missed between the two sides, and not just one division. Then, for example, Montesquieu put it there, as you demanded that ministers should not be appointed from among representatives of parliament, etc.
T) Book. X1. Ch. SH “a ropuoy: #ite se de Gop 401 uoshchoit, her & n’ those times sopta E 4e 1te se dpe Gop ne 4016 times uop101t>, i.e. “freedom consists in the ability to do what you want to do. to desire, and not to be forced to do what one should not desire”, Book. HT. Ch. Sh ‹“Freedom is the right to do everything that is permitted by law.” (Ga Pegyob ezyo [e @gof 4e Shate se dtse 1ez 1018 regteyet®).
2) XG book. Ch. Sh.
Montesquieu, then they contain oil of sufficient clarity and definiteness; but that cannot be said. relative to Montesquieu’s understanding of their content and meaning.
We should not forget that Montesquieu is a politician and historian. Historical reality is his material'). Where the genetic connection is political is established! It does not seem obvious that he, like Nyoton, says “Vuro®ezez pop 180”. If the genetic connection between the historical and the individual (civil) is not defined for him, then the real one is captured and presented by him absolutely correctly; The explanation given to her remained so until our time.
From the general definition made by Montesquieu, it is clear that freedom is not at all. equivalent to ‘unlimited arbitrariness of the individual. Freedom is based on the law, otherwise there would be continuous clashes of wills 2). Consequently, the identification of power is also rejected here. the sovereign with the law. This is also the point of view of the modern doc:triva. The basis is the equality of all before the law, equally, indicating the conditions for using their freedom.
As for specific definitions, it is clear from Book II that political freedom is the participation of state power (legislative and judicial, through representatives, for in the minded governments, where executive political freedom is possible, power is in the hands of the monarch).
r) Although in the preface Montesquieu says that ]e per roshe Igyo shev riperez Che shez rt6lao68, 015 Che 1a pabige 4e svozez, tBM not less he did not escape the great rationalism of his time. For example, Montesquieu says: to say that only what positive laws command or prohibit is just or unjust is to assert that one can draw a circle, not all radii of which are equal. “The true law is human reason, but the political and civil laws of each of ours are special cases of its primacy.” d.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
s. EU about oaavi aaa PE ny one av ChSS
E EV
Civil freedom, which is defined above, is the freedom to use one’s abilities within the limits of the law with confidence in the safety of the individual. Consequently, a tyrannical law is unable to provide such certainty.
In these definitions we see a significant step forward, although Montesquieu did not draw all the conclusions from them.