Home Dental treatment Wherever there is trade, there are gentle morals essay. Preparation for the Unified State Exam in social studies and history

Dental treatment

Wherever there is trade, there are gentle morals essay. Preparation for the Unified State Exam in social studies and history

About trading

What I am going to talk about would require more extensive discussion, but the nature of the present work does not allow it *. I would like to float along a calm river, but I am carried away by a stormy stream.

Trade cures us of harmful prejudices. It can be considered almost a general rule that wherever morals are gentle, there is trade, and wherever there is trade, morals are gentle.

Therefore, one should not be surprised that our morals are less cruel than before. Thanks to trade, all peoples learned the customs of other peoples and were able to compare them. This led to beneficial consequences.

It can be said that the laws of trade improve morals for the same reason that they destroy them. Trade corrupts pure morals: Plato complained about this; it polishes and softens barbaric morals: we see this every day.

About the spirit of trade

The natural effect of trade is to persuade people to peace. Mutual dependence is established between two peoples trading with each other: if it is profitable for one to buy, then it is profitable for the other to sell, all their connections are based on mutual needs.

But the spirit of trade, while uniting nations, does not unite individuals. We see that in countries where people are animated only by the spirit of trade, all their affairs and even moral virtues become the subject of bargaining. The smallest things, even those required by philanthropy, are made or delivered there for money.

The spirit of trade gives rise to a sense of strict justice in people; this feeling is opposite, on the one hand, to the desire for robbery, and on the other, to those moral virtues that encourage us not only to relentlessly pursue our own benefits, but also to sacrifice them for the sake of other people.

The complete absence of trade leads, on the contrary, to robbery, which Aristotle classifies as one of the various methods of acquisition. The spirit of robbery does not exclude some moral virtues. For example, hospitality, which is very rare among trading peoples, flourishes among robber peoples.

The Germans, says Tacitus, consider it a great sacrilege to shut the doors of their houses to any person, familiar or unfamiliar. The person who has shown hospitality to a foreigner shows him another house, where he is again shown hospitality and received with the same cordiality. But when the Germans founded states, hospitality became a burden to them. This can be seen from the two laws of the Burgundian code, of which one imposes punishment on any barbarian who shows a wanderer the house of a Roman, and the other decrees that the one who receives the wanderer must be rewarded by the inhabitants, as much as is due from whom.

About the poverty of nations

There are two kinds of poor peoples: some are reduced to poverty by the cruelty of government, and such are incapable of almost any virtue, because their poverty is part of their slavery; others are poor only because they neglect or do not know the comforts of life, and such are capable of doing great things because their poverty is part of their freedom.

On trade under different reigns

Trade is connected with the state system. Under the rule of one, it is usually based on luxury, and although it also satisfies real needs, its main goal is to provide the trading people with everything that can serve their vanity, pleasures and whims. When ruled by many, it is most often based on economy. Merchants, surveying all the nations of the globe, deliver to some what they take from others. This is how the republics of Tire, Carthage, Athens, Marseille, Florence, Venice and Holland conducted trade.

This type of trade is associated by its nature with the rule of many, and in monarchical reigns it is a random phenomenon. Since it is based on the fact that, while receiving profits that are small and even smaller than all other peoples, they reward themselves with the continuity of receiving these small profits, it cannot be characteristic of a people who have established luxury, who spend a lot and strive only for great goals.

That is why Cicero said: “I do not allow one and the same people to be both the ruler and the merchant of the universe.” Indeed, otherwise it would be necessary to admit that every person in this state, and even the entire state as a whole, would always be simultaneously absorbed in great plans and petty affairs; but one contradicts the other.

From this, however, it does not follow that in states that conduct economical trade, the greatest enterprises cannot take place, in which courage is manifested, unprecedented in monarchies. The point here is this:

One type of trade leads to another: small to medium, the latter to large; therefore, he who so strongly desired a small profit finds himself in a position in which he no less strongly desires a large gain.

Moreover, large commercial enterprises are always, of necessity, connected with public affairs. But usually public affairs seem to the merchants as doubtful in monarchies as they are reliable in republics, therefore large enterprises are characteristic not of a monarchy, but of the rule of many.

In a word, since in these latter states the property of people is more protected, people venture into all sorts of enterprises, and since they are confident in the inviolability of what they have acquired, they are not afraid to put their acquisitions into circulation in order to acquire even more. They risk only the means of acquisition, but people in general rely too much on their happiness.

I do not want to say that there are monarchies where economical trade does not take place at all, but it is less characteristic of the nature of the monarchy. I am not saying that in the republics known to us there is no trade in luxury goods, but I am arguing that this trade is less consistent with the foundations of their political system.

As for the despotic state, there is nothing to say about it. Here is a general rule: if a people are enslaved, people work more in order to preserve than in order to acquire; if a people are free, they work more to gain than to preserve.

About the peoples who carried out economical trade

Marseille is a necessary refuge amidst rough seas. Marseille - a place where winds, shoals and the location of the coast necessarily force ships to land - was often visited by sailors. The barrenness of the soil forced the citizens of this city to engage in economical trade.

To compensate for the stinginess of nature, they had to become industrious; in order to get along with the barbarian peoples who were to create their prosperity, they had to become just; in order to always enjoy a calm government, they had to become moderate; finally, in order to be able to always exist by trade, which can be kept in their hands the more surely the less profitable it is, they had to become temperate people.

Economic trade everywhere owes its origin to the violence and oppression that forced people to seek refuge in swamps, islands, sea shoals and even cliffs. This is how Tire, Venice and the cities of Holland were founded. The fugitives found safety there, but they needed a means of subsistence - and began to extract them from all countries of the world.

On some consequences of large-scale navigation

It sometimes happens that a people engaged in economical trade needs the goods of one country only in order by means of them to acquire the goods of another, and is content with a very small profit and even makes no profit at all from some goods in the hope or confidence of getting a large profit from others. . Thus, when Holland almost alone carried on trade between Southern and Northern Europe, the French wines that it transported to the northern countries served as only a means for it to conduct northern trade.

It is known that in Holland some goods brought from afar are often sold for no more than what they cost locally. They explain this as follows: the captain, needing ballast for his ship, loads it with marble, needing wood for laying the cargo, buys wood, and if he does not incur a loss on these items, then he considers himself a big gain. Thus, Holland has its own quarries and its own forests.

Not only non-profitable, but even unprofitable trading can be useful. I heard in Holland that whaling almost never pays its cost. But since the main participants in it are the same people who build the ship, supply it with gear, etc. food supplies, then, while they lose in fishing, they gain in equipping ships. This trading is like a lottery where everyone hopes to win. Everyone in the world loves the game; and the most prudent people willingly surrender to it until they see all the violence, tricks, delusions, loss of money and time associated with it, until they understand that they can spend their whole lives on it.

The Merchant Spirit of England

England has no fixed tariff for trade with other nations. Its tariff changes, so to speak, with each new parliament, for each parliament either introduces new regulations or repeals the old ones. She wants to maintain her independence in this regard too. It is extremely jealous of the trade carried out within its borders and therefore binds itself little to treaties and depends only on its own laws.

Other nations sacrifice commercial interests for political interests. England has always sacrificed political interests for the sake of the interests of its trade.

This people, better than any other people in the world, has been able to take advantage of three elements of great importance; religion, trade and freedom.

What restrictions was economical trade sometimes subjected to?

Some monarchies have passed laws very likely to injure states that carry on economical trade. Here the import of all goods was prohibited, except those made from raw materials extracted in these monarchies, and they were allowed to come for trade only on ships built in the country where they arrived.

It is necessary that the state making such laws should itself be able to carry on trade easily, otherwise it will inflict upon itself at least an equal loss. It is better to deal with a people who are content with little and are somewhat dependent on the demands of their trade, with a people who, by the vastness of their plans and affairs, know where to send all their surplus goods, who are rich, can take large quantities of goods and quickly pay for them, which necessity itself forces to be serviceable, which is peace-loving by principle and tries to acquire, and not enslave; It is better, I say, to deal with such a people than with those who constantly compete with each other and will not bring all these benefits.

On restriction of trade relations

The true benefit of the people requires that without important reasons they should not exclude any people from trade with their country. The Japanese trade with only two nations: Chinese and Dutch, and the Chinese earn from them a thousand percent per hundred on sugar and sometimes the same amount on the goods received in exchange for it. The Dutch receive almost the same profits. Any people who wish to follow the rules of the Japanese will inevitably be deceived. The fair price of goods and the true relationship between them are established only by competition.

Still less should the state undertake to sell its goods to just one people under the pretext that they will take them all at a certain price. The Poles concluded such an agreement for the sale of grain with the city of Danzig, and many Indian sovereigns concluded such an agreement with the Dutch for the sale of spices. Such agreements are characteristic only of poor peoples who are ready to give up hope of enrichment if only they are provided with the necessary means of subsistence, or of enslaved peoples who are forced to refuse to use the benefits given to them by nature or to engage in unprofitable trade in these benefits.

About an institution peculiar to economical trade

In states engaged in economical commerce, banks play a very useful role, and by means of their credit they have created new signs of value; but it would be unwise to transfer these institutions to states that trade in luxury goods. To introduce them in countries where there is rule by one means to presuppose money on one side and power on the other, that is, on one side the possibility of having everything without any power, and on the other - power with the complete impossibility of having anything. In such a reign, only the sovereign himself possesses or can possess treasures; however, the treasures of other persons, as soon as they reach more or less large sizes, immediately become the treasures of the sovereign.

For the same reason, companies of merchants uniting to conduct any kind of trade are rarely appropriate under the rule of one. These companies, by their very nature, give private wealth the power of public wealth. But in such states this power is always in the hands of the sovereign. I will say more: such companies are not always suitable for states engaged in economical trade, and if trade operations there are not so extensive as to be beyond the power of individuals, then it is better not to restrict freedom of trade by establishing exclusive privileges.

Continuation of the same topic

In countries that carry out economical trade, a free port can be established. Economy on the part of the state, always the result of the temperate lifestyle of private individuals, gives, so to speak, the soul of economical trade. And all the losses in duties that it will incur from the establishment of a free port will be compensated by the income that it will receive in connection with the increase in the industrial wealth of the republic. But in a monarchical state it would be absurd to establish such institutions, since here their entire effect would be only to reduce taxes on luxury and thus destroy both the only benefit from this luxury and the only limitation in this rule.

About freedom of trade

Free trade does not consist in giving free rein to merchants to do as they please; it would be rather the slavery of trade. Not everything that is embarrassing for a trader, thereby becomes embarrassing for trade. Nowhere does a merchant encounter such countless restrictions as in countries of freedom, and nowhere is he so little constrained by laws as in countries of slavery.

England prohibits the export of its wool; she wants coal delivered to her capital by sea; she allows the export of her horses - only if they are emasculated; the ships of her colonies trading with Europe must anchor in English ports. She embarrasses the merchant, but does it for the good of trade.

How is this freedom destroyed?

Where there is trade, there are customs. The subject of trade is the import and export of goods for the benefit of the state; the subject of customs is the imposition of duties on this import and export, also for the benefit of the state. Therefore, the state must take a neutral position between its customs and its trade and act so that they do not harm each other. In this case, there is freedom of trade in this state.

The tax system destroys trade by its injustices, by its exactingness, by the excessiveness of its taxes, and, in addition to all this, by the difficulties which it creates and the formalities which it prescribes. In England, where the customs are under the government, trade is carried on with amazing ease; one signature decides the most important matters; the merchant does not have to waste time on endless delays and maintain special intermediaries to satisfy or reject the demands of farmers.

On Trade Laws Prohibiting Confiscation of Goods

The Magna Carta of the English prohibits in time of war the seizure and confiscation of goods belonging to foreign merchants, except in cases of reprisal. It is truly wonderful that the English people have made this rule one of the articles of their freedom.

Spain, during its war with England in 1740, passed a law prohibiting, under penalty of death, the import of English goods into Spain and Spanish goods into England. Something similar can, it seems to me, only be found in the laws of Japan. This order is contrary to our morals, the spirit of trade and the harmony that should exist in the proportionality of punishments; it confuses all concepts, turning a simple violation of police rules into a state crime.

About imprisonment for debts

Solon passed a law in Athens that abolished imprisonment for debt. He borrowed this law from Egypt, where it was issued by Bochyris and renewed by Sesostris.

This is a very good law for ordinary civil matters. But we have reason not to apply it to commercial matters. In view of the fact that merchants must entrust large sums, often for very short periods, and then issue them, then receive them back, it is necessary that their debtors always fulfill their obligations within a certain time frame, and this implies the need for imprisonment for debts.

In cases arising from ordinary civil contracts, the law should not allow deprivation of liberty, because the freedom of a citizen is more valuable to him than the wealth of another citizen. But in agreements arising from commercial relations, the law must value the public property more than the freedom of the individual citizen, allowing, however, such exceptions and limitations as humanity and order require.

Beautiful law

The Geneva law is very good, which does not allow the children of persons who died unpaid debtors to hold public office and even to join the Grand Council if they do not pay the debts of their fathers. He inspires confidence in merchants, in rulers, and even in the republic itself. Confidence in an individual is enhanced there by a belief in public integrity.

Rhodes law

The Rhodians went even further. Sextus Empiricus says that their son could not refuse to pay his father’s debts under the pretext of refusing an inheritance. The Rhodes Law was issued for a republic founded on trade. But I think that the very spirit of trade required that it be limited by the condition that the debts incurred by the father since his son began to engage in trade himself would not concern the property acquired by the son. A merchant must always know his obligations and in all cases act in accordance with the state of his capital.

CHAPTER XVIII

About commercial judges

Xenophon, in his book On Income, expresses the desire that those officials in charge of trade who are most likely to complete business receive rewards for this. He already felt the need for our consular jurisdiction.

Trade affairs are subject to very little formality. These are everyday actions, repeated day after day, so they must be resolved daily. Everyday affairs are of a different nature, which have a great influence on the future, but happen rarely. People marry only once; they do not make deeds of gift or spiritual wills every day; they only become adults on one specific day in their lives. Plato says that in a city where there is no maritime trade, half as many civil laws are required as in cities where there is such trade - and this is quite fair. Trade attracts a variety of peoples to the country; it entails a great variety of contracts, various types of property and methods of acquisition.

Therefore, in a commercial city there are fewer judges and more laws.

That the sovereign should not engage in trade

Theophilus, seeing a ship loaded with goods for his wife Theodora, ordered it to be burned. “I am the emperor,” he told her, “and you are turning me into a shipbuilder. How will the poor survive if we engage in their crafts?” He could add to this: who will oppose us if we start establishing monopolies? Who will force us to fulfill our obligations? Our courtiers, following us, will also want to engage in trade, and they will be both greedier and more unfair than us. The people rely on our justice, not on our wealth; the many taxes that plunge him into poverty serve as sure proof of our poverty.

Continuation of the same topic

When the Portuguese and Castilians dominated the East Indies, there were such profitable branches of trade that their sovereigns did not fail to take possession of them. This caused the decline of their settlements in those parts.

The Viceroy in Goa gave exclusive privileges to individuals. But no one trusts such persons; trade is subject to constant interruptions due to the constant change of those to whom it is entrusted. No one cares about the prosperity of such trade, no one is embarrassed to hand it over to his successor in a ruined state. Profits remain in the hands of a few and are not widely distributed.

On trade of the nobility in the monarchy

The nobility in a monarchy should not engage in trade. - This is contrary to the spirit of trade. “This would harm the cities,” say the emperors Goporius and Theodosius, “and would make buying and selling difficult for merchants and the common people.”

The occupation of the nobility in trade is contrary to the spirit of the monarchy. The custom that allowed the nobility to trade in England was one of the reasons that most contributed to the weakening of monarchical rule in it.

Reflection on one particular issue

People seduced by it. what is being done in some states, they believe that in France laws should be passed to encourage the nobles to trade. But in this way it would only be possible to destroy the nobility of this country, without any benefit for its trade. There is a very prudent custom in this country: the merchants there are not nobles, but they can become nobles. They can hope to obtain nobility without experiencing the present inconveniences associated with it. The surest way for them to rise above their profession is to do it well, that is, with honor, and this usually depends on ability.

Laws commanding everyone to remain in his occupation and pass it on to his children are useful and can only be useful in despotic states, where there cannot and should not be competition.

And let it not be said to me that everyone will better perform the duties associated with his rank if he does not have the opportunity to change it. I maintain that men will perform their duties better if the most distinguished can hope to rise above their rank.

The opportunity to acquire nobility for money is very attractive to merchants and encourages them to strive for it. I do not dwell here on the question of whether it is good to reward wealth with what is essentially a reward for virtue. There are states where this can be very useful.

In France there is a judicial nobility that occupies a middle position between the people and the highest nobility and, without having the splendor of the latter, has all its privileges. This is a class in which individuals lead the most inconspicuous lifestyle, while the class as a whole, as guardians of the laws, is surrounded by honor and glory; this is a class in which one can distinguish oneself only through ability and virtue. Above this venerable nobility rises another, more glorious, warlike nobility - that nobility which, no matter how great its wealth, considers it necessary to strive to increase it, but at the same time finds it shameful to take care of increasing its wealth without first spending it. This is a part of a nation in which the people devote all their property to military service and, being ruined, give way to others who do the same. These people go to war so that no one dares to say that they were not at war. Having no hope of acquiring wealth, they strive to acquire honors, and having not achieved honors, they console themselves with the fact that they have acquired honor. Both of these nobility undoubtedly contributed to the greatness of their state. And if the power of France has steadily increased over the course of two or three centuries, then this should be attributed to the dignity of its laws, and not at all to happiness, which is not characterized by such constancy.

CHAPTER XXIII

Which nations are not profitable to engage in trade?

Wealth consists of lands and movables. The lands in each state are usually owned by its inhabitants. Most states have laws that discourage foreigners from acquiring land there, and yet many of these lands can generate income with the mere presence of the owner. Wealth of this kind therefore belongs to each state separately. But movable property - such as money, bank notes, bills of exchange, company shares, ships and all kinds of goods - belong to the whole world; the whole world in relation to them constitutes one state, of which all societies are members; and the richest nation is the one who has the most of these movables of global significance. Some states have them in huge quantities. They acquire them through the sale of their goods, the labors of their artisans, their industry, their discoveries, and even through chance. The greed of peoples involves them in the struggle for the possession of world property, i.e. movables. In this case, some unfortunate state may lose not only foreign, but also almost all of its own products. Its landowners will work for foreigners; it will lack everything and be unable to acquire anything. It would be better if it did not trade with any people in the world, since it was precisely this trade, under the circumstances in which it found itself, that brought it to poverty.

In a country that always exports less goods than it imports, the balance between imports and exports is established as it becomes impoverished, since, receiving goods in smaller and smaller quantities, it will finally reach such extreme poverty that it is no longer possible at all. will receive them.

In trading countries, money suddenly disappears and returns just as suddenly, because the countries that received it are in debt to these countries. But in the states in question, the money is never returned, because those who took it owe them nothing.

An example of such a state is Poland. She has almost none of what we called global movables, except for the grain of her fields. Several magnates own entire regions there and oppress the landowners, trying to squeeze out as much grain as possible from them, so that, by selling it to foreigners, they can purchase the luxuries that their way of life requires. The people of Poland would be happier. if she did not conduct foreign trade at all. Its nobles, having nothing but bread, would give it to their peasants for food. Too vast possessions would become a burden to them, and they would share them with their peasants. Since everyone would have enough skins and wool from animals, there would be no need for huge expenses on clothing, and nobles, who always love luxury, not being able to find it anywhere except their fatherland, would encourage poor people to work . I affirm that such a people would have come to a more prosperous state, if only they had not turned to barbarism; but the latter circumstance could be prevented by laws

Let's look now at Japan. The excessive abundance of imported goods causes their excessive export, and since there is a balance between its import and export, their very excess does not cause harm; it can even bring many benefits to the state: it will have more consumer goods, more raw materials for processing, more people employed, more means to acquire power. In cases where emergency assistance is needed, such a state that is abundant in everything will be able to provide it before others. It rarely happens that a country does not have a surplus; but it is in the nature of trade to make superfluous things useful, and useful things necessary. Therefore, a trading state can deliver the necessary things to more of its subjects.

So, we can say that the losers from trade are not those peoples who need nothing, but those who need everything; and the absence of foreign trade is beneficial not to those peoples who have enough of everything, but to those who have nothing at home.

Charles Secondat Montesquieu. About the spirit of laws

In the preface, the author says that he derives his principles from the very nature of things. The endless variety of laws and morals is by no means due to the arbitrariness of imagination: particular cases are subject to general principles, and the history of every nation follows from them as a consequence. It is useless to condemn the institutions of this or that country, and only those persons who have received from birth the gift of genius to penetrate with one glance the entire organization of the state have the right to propose changes. The main task is education, for the prejudices inherent in the governing bodies were originally the prejudices of the people. If the author could cure people of their inherent prejudices, he would consider himself the happiest of mortals.

Everything has its own laws: the deity, the material world, creatures of superhuman intelligence, animals, and humans have them. It is the greatest absurdity to assert that the phenomena of the visible world are controlled by blind fate. God relates to the world as a creator and preserver: he creates according to the same laws by which he protects. Consequently, the work of creation only seems to be an act of arbitrariness, for it presupposes a number of rules - as inevitable as the fate of atheists. All laws are preceded by the laws of nature, which flow from the very structure of the human being. A person in a natural state feels his weakness, because everything makes him tremble and puts him to flight - therefore the world is the first natural law. The feeling of weakness is combined with a sense of one’s needs - the desire to get food for oneself is the second natural law. The mutual attraction inherent in all animals of the same breed gave rise to the third law - a request addressed by man to man. But people are connected by threads that animals do not have, which is why the desire to live in society constitutes the fourth natural law.

As soon as people unite in society, they lose consciousness of their weakness - equality disappears, and war begins. Each individual society begins to realize its strength - hence the state of war between nations. The laws defining the relations between them form international law. Individuals in every society begin to feel their power - hence the war between citizens. The laws defining the relationship between them form civil law. In addition to international law, which applies to all societies, each of them is individually regulated by its own laws - together they form the political state of the state. The forces of individual people cannot unite without the unity of their will, which forms the civil state of society.

Law, generally speaking, is human reason, since it governs all the peoples of the earth, and the political and civil laws of each people should be nothing more than special cases of the application of this reason. These laws are in such close accordance with the properties of the people for whom they are established that only in extremely rare cases can the laws of one people be suitable for another people. Laws must be consistent with the nature and principles of established government; the physical properties of the country and its climate - cold, hot or temperate; soil qualities; the way of life of its peoples - farmers, hunters or shepherds; the degree of freedom allowed by the structure of the state; the religion of the population, its inclinations, wealth, numbers, trade, manners and customs. The totality of all these relations can be called the “spirit of laws.”

There are three types of government: republican, monarchical and despotic. In a republic, the supreme power is in the hands of either the whole people or part of it; under a monarchy, one person rules, but through established, unchangeable laws; despotism is characterized by the fact that everything moves by the will and arbitrariness of one person, outside of any laws and rules.

If in a republic the supreme power belongs to all the people, then it is a democracy. When the supreme power is in the hands of a part of the people, such government is called aristocracy. In a democracy, the people are in some respects the sovereign and in some respects the subjects. He is a sovereign only by virtue of voting, by which he expresses his will. The will of the sovereign is the sovereign himself, therefore the laws determining the right to vote are fundamental for this type of government. In an aristocracy, supreme power is in the hands of a group of individuals: these individuals make laws and force them to be carried out, and the rest of the people are in relation to them what in a monarchy subjects are in relation to the sovereign. The worst of aristocracies is the one where the part of the people that obeys is in civil slavery to the one that commands: an example is the aristocracy of Poland, where the peasants are slaves of the nobility. Excessive power given to one citizen in a republic constitutes a monarchy and even more than a monarchy. In a monarchy, laws protect the state structure or adapt to it, therefore the principle of government restrains the sovereign - in a republic, a citizen who has seized extraordinary power has much more opportunities to abuse it, since he does not encounter opposition from laws that did not provide for this circumstance.

In a monarchy, the source of all political and civil power is the sovereign himself, but there are also intermediary channels through which power moves. Destroy the prerogatives of the lords, clergy, nobility and cities in the monarchy, and very soon you will end up with a state either popular or despotic. In despotic states, where there are no fundamental laws, there are also no institutions protecting them. This explains the special power that religion usually acquires in these countries: it replaces a continuously operating protective institution; sometimes the place of religion is taken by customs, which are revered instead of laws.

Each type of government has its own principles: a republic requires virtue, a monarchy requires honor, and a despotic government requires fear. It does not need virtue, but honor would be dangerous for it. When an entire people lives according to certain principles, all its constituent parts, that is, families, live according to the same principles. The laws of education are the first ones that a person encounters in his life. They differ according to the type of government: in monarchies their subject is honor, in republics - virtue, in despotism - fear. No government needs the help of education to such an extent as a republican one. Fear in despotic states arises spontaneously under the influence of threats and punishments. Honor in monarchies finds support for itself in the passions of man and itself serves as their support. But political virtue is selflessness - a thing that is always very difficult. This virtue can be defined as love of laws and country - love, which requires constant preference for the public good over the personal, lies at the basis of all private virtues. This love receives special strength in democracies, because only there the government of the state is entrusted to every citizen.

In a republic, virtue is a very simple thing: it is love for the republic, it is a feeling, and not a series of information. It is as accessible to the last person in the state as to the one who occupies the first place in it. The love of a republic in a democracy is the love of democracy, and the love of democracy is the love of equality. The laws of such a state must in every possible way support the general desire for equality. In monarchies and despotic states, no one strives for equality: even the thought of this does not occur to anyone, for everyone there strives for exaltation. People in the lowest position want to get out of it only in order to dominate other people. Since the principle of monarchical government is honor, the laws must support the nobility, who are, so to speak, both the creator and the creation of this honor. Under despotic rule, there is no need to have many laws: everything rests on two or three ideas, and new ones are not required. When Charles XII, while in Bendery, encountered some opposition to his will from the Swedish Senate, he wrote to the senators that he would send his boot to command them. This boot would command no worse than a despotic sovereign.

The corruption of every government almost always begins with the corruption of principles. The principle of democracy decays not only when the spirit of equality is lost, but also when the spirit of equality is taken to the extreme and everyone wants to be equal to those whom he has elected as rulers. In this case, the people refuse to recognize the authorities they themselves have appointed and want to do everything themselves: to deliberate instead of the Senate, to govern instead of officials and to judge instead of judges. Then there is no longer room for virtue in the republic. The people want to fulfill the duties of rulers, which means that rulers are no longer respected. Aristocracy suffers damage when the power of the nobility becomes arbitrary: in this case, there can no longer be virtue either in those who govern or in those who are governed. Monarchies perish when, little by little, the prerogatives of the estates and the privileges of cities are abolished. In the first case, they go to despotism for everyone; in the second - to the despotism of one. The principle of monarchy also disintegrates when the highest positions in the state become the last steps of slavery, when dignitaries are deprived of the respect of the people and turned into a pitiful instrument of arbitrariness. The principle of a despotic state is constantly decomposing, because it is vicious by its very nature. If the principles of government are corrupted, the best laws become bad and turn against the state; when the principles are sound, even bad laws produce the same consequences as good ones, the power of principle conquers everything.

A republic by its nature requires a small territory, otherwise it will not survive. In a large republic there will be more wealth, and therefore more immoderate desires. A monarchical state must be of medium size: if it were small, it would be formed as a republic; and if it were too extensive, then the first persons of the state, strong by their very position, being far from the sovereign and having their own court, could stop obeying him - they would not be deterred by the threat of too distant and delayed punishment. The vast size of the empire is a prerequisite for despotic rule. It is necessary that the remoteness of the places where the ruler’s orders are sent is balanced by the speed of their execution; so that fear serves as a barrier to restrain negligence on the part of the leaders of remote regions; so that one person would be the personification of the law.

Small republics perish from an external enemy, and large ones from an internal ulcer. Republics protect themselves by uniting with each other, and despotic states, for the same purpose, separate and, one might say, isolate themselves from each other. Sacrificing part of their country, they devastate the outskirts and turn them into desert, as a result of which the core of the state becomes inaccessible. A monarchy never destroys itself, but a medium-sized state can be invaded - so a monarchy has fortresses to defend its borders and an army to defend those fortresses. The smallest piece of land is defended there with great skill, tenacity and courage. Despotic states carry out invasions against each other - wars are fought only between monarchies.

In every state there are three types of power: legislative power, executive power in charge of issues of international law, and executive power in charge of issues of civil law. The latter power can be called the judicial power, and the second simply the executive power of the state. If the legislative and executive powers are united in one person or institution, then there will be no freedom, since it can be feared that this monarch or this Senate will create tyrannical laws in order to apply them just as tyrannically. There will be no freedom if the judicial power is not separated from the legislative and executive. If it is combined with legislative power, then the life and freedom of the citizen will be at the mercy of arbitrariness, for the judge will be a legislator. If the judicial power is united with the executive, then the judge has the opportunity to become an oppressor. Sovereigns who strove for despotism always began by uniting in themselves all the separate powers. Among the Turks, where these three powers are united in the person of the Sultan, terrifying despotism reigns. But the British managed to establish an excellent system of balance of power through laws.

Political slavery depends on the nature of the climate. Excessive heat undermines the strength and vigor of people, and a cold climate gives the mind and body a certain strength that makes people capable of long, difficult, great and courageous actions. This difference can be observed not only when comparing one people with another, but also when comparing different regions of the same country: the peoples of Northern China are more courageous than the peoples of Southern China; the peoples of South Korea are inferior in this regard to the peoples of North Korea. It should not be surprising that the cowardice of the peoples of hot climates almost always led them to slavery, while the courage of the peoples of cold climates preserved their freedom. It should be added that the islanders are more inclined to freedom than the inhabitants of the continent. Islands are usually small in size, and there it is more difficult to use one part of the population to oppress another. They are separated from large empires by the sea, which blocks the path of conquerors and prevents them from supporting tyrannical rule, so it is easier for the islanders to maintain their laws. Trade has a great influence on laws, because it heals people from painful prejudices. It can be considered almost a general rule that wherever morals are gentle, there is trade, and wherever there is trade, morals are gentle. Thanks to trade, all peoples learned the customs of other peoples and were able to compare them. This led to beneficial consequences. But the spirit of trade, while uniting nations, does not unite individuals. In countries where people are animated only by the spirit of trade, all their affairs and even moral virtues become the subject of bargaining. At the same time, the spirit of trade gives rise to a feeling of strict justice in people: this feeling is opposite, on the one hand, to the desire for robbery, and on the other, to those moral virtues that encourage us not only to relentlessly pursue our own benefits, but also to sacrifice them for the sake of other people. It may be said that the laws of commerce improve morals for the same reason that they destroy them. Trade corrupts pure morals - Plato spoke about this. At the same time, it polishes and softens barbaric morals, for the complete absence of trade leads to robberies. Some nations sacrifice commercial interests for political ones. England has always sacrificed political interests for the sake of the interests of its trade. This people, better than any other people in the world, has been able to take advantage of three elements of great importance: religion, trade and freedom. Muscovy would like to abandon its despotism - and cannot. Trade, in order to become strong, requires bill transactions, but bill transactions are in conflict with all the laws of this country. Subjects of the empire, like slaves, do not have the right to travel abroad or send their property there without special permission - therefore, the exchange rate, which makes it possible to transfer money from one country to another, contradicts the laws of Muscovy, and trade by its nature contradicts such restrictions .

Religion has a strong influence on the laws of a country. Even among false religions one can find those that are most consistent with the goals of the public good - although they do not lead a person to afterlife bliss, they can, however, greatly contribute to his earthly happiness. If we compare the character of the Christian and Mohammedan religions alone, we should unconditionally accept the first and reject the second, because it is much more obvious that religion should soften the morals of people than which of them is true. The Mohammedan rulers constantly sow death around themselves and themselves die a violent death. Woe to humanity when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mohammedan religion continues to instill in people the same spirit of extermination that created it. On the contrary, pure despotism is alien to the Christian religion: thanks to the meekness so persistently prescribed by the gospel, it resists the indomitable anger that prompts the sovereign to arbitrariness and cruelty. Only the Christian religion prevented despotism from establishing itself in Ethiopia, despite the vastness of this empire and its bad climate - thus the morals and laws of Europe were established within Africa. When the Christian religion suffered an ill-fated division two centuries ago, the northern peoples adopted Protestantism, while the southern ones remained Catholics. The reason for this is that among the northern peoples there is and will always exist a spirit of independence and freedom, therefore a religion without a visible head is more consistent with the spirit of independence of this climate than one that has such a head.

Freedom of a person consists mainly in not being forced to perform actions that the law does not prescribe to him. The principles of state law require that every person submit to the criminal and civil law of the country in which he is located. These principles were brutally violated by the Spaniards in Peru: Inca Atahualpa could only be judged on the basis of international law, but they judged him on the basis of state and civil law. But the height of their folly was that they condemned him on the basis of the state and civil laws of their country.

The spirit of moderation must be the spirit of the legislator, for political good, like moral good, always lies between two limits. For example, judicial formalities are necessary for freedom, but their number can be so great that they will interfere with the purposes of the very laws that established them: in this case, citizens will lose freedom and security, the accuser will not have the opportunity to prove the charge, and the accused will not be able to acquit himself. When drawing up laws, one must follow known rules. Their syllable should be compressed. The laws of the twelve tables served as a model of accuracy - children memorized them by heart. Justinian's short stories were so verbose that they had to be shortened. The language of laws should be simple and not allow for different interpretations. The law of Honorius punished with death anyone who bought a freedman as a slave or caused him trouble. Such a vague expression should not have been used. The concept of anxiety caused to a person depends entirely on the degree of his impressionability. Laws should not go into subtleties: they are intended for mediocre people and contain not the art of logic, but the common sense concepts of a simple father of a family. When the law does not need exceptions, limitations and modifications, it is best to do without them, since such details entail new details. In no case should laws be given a form that is contrary to the nature of things: for example, in the proscription of the Prince of Orange, Philip II promised five thousand crowns and nobility to the one who committed murder - this king simultaneously trampled on the concepts of honor, morality and religion. Finally, laws must have a certain purity. Intended to punish human malice, they themselves must possess perfect integrity.

Bibliography

To prepare this work, materials from the site http://briefly.ru/ were used

Yarykina Irina Gennadievna, history and social studies teacher

MBOU gymnasium No. 7, Chekhov, Moscow region

The Unified State Exam in Social Studies is a difficult and serious exam. Preparation for it occupies an important place in demonstrating the general level of education and mastery of the graduate’s educational competencies before the state commission.

The Unified State Exam consists of three sections, of which Part C is the most important and difficult.

In it, tasks C1-C4 are united by the fact that they relate to the same text. Each task tests a specific skill:

C1 – search and extract necessary information from the text (2 points);
C2 – transform and systematize extracted information (2 points);
C3 - characterize or interpret realities from the text using the knowledge acquired while studying the course (3 points);
C4 - explain a specific situation using information from the text and knowledge of the course (3 points).
Buildings of type C5 require either the name of three characteristic features of a certain concept or imply a characteristic of the concept and two sentences containing information about it (2 points).
Tasks C6 test the ability to relate theoretical knowledge to the surrounding reality and give examples from real life.
C7 tests the ability to use acquired knowledge to explain a specific life situation or interpret graphic information.
C8 shows the ability of schoolchildren to competently draw up complex plans for topics.

And one of the most difficult, but highly rated at five primary points, is task type C9 - writing an essay on one of the selected statements.

The essay evaluation criteria are given in Table No. 1

Table 1

Criteria	Points
K1 – revealing the meaning of the statement
K2 – nature and level of theoretical argumentation · Own position presented and explained · 2 theoretical arguments are given and illustrated
K3 – Nature and level of judgments made · Judgments are based on theory and facts · 3 aspects of the topic are revealed, 3 examples are given
Total

When teaching schoolchildren the algorithm for writing essays, you can use the following tips:

Part 1. One point - for revealing the meaning of the statement.

Therefore, the first sentence should begin like this:

3. The great philosopher of antiquity ... (great economist, great writer, etc.), speaking about .... wanted to tell us that.....

4. You should figure it out by carefully thinking about what meaning….. put into the concept of….

5. I cannot join this statement, as the author wanted to express it...., but I think differently...

Part 2: Two points for theoretical argumentation.

You need to remember everything that you know from theory on this topic and substantiate your position theoretically with at least two arguments. This part should contain terms, concepts, generalizations, facts, examples related to a specific topic in theory.

1. Within the framework of political science (sociology, psychology, etc.), one of the social sciences, we know that the concept…. Is one of the key ones. It is difficult to disagree with the author on this issue, since his statement reflects the essence and purpose......

3. In my opinion….

Part 3. You can get two points for factual argumentation if you provide evidence of your attitude to the topic, highlighting it with examples from various sources: the media, other educational subjects, personal social experience, your own observations. Samples:

1. Examples of this phenomenon (process, event...) can be....

2.Using examples from articles in local newspapers, it can be argued that...

3. Based on my observations over several years, I know that...

4. From economics (history, literature...) it is known that...

5.On the one hand……, on the other……

At the conclusion of the essay, one can draw a conclusion, once again identifying in other words the issues raised in the statement, connecting the meaning of the topic with modernity, global problems, with what this topic can teach us.

1. Thus, we can conclude...

2.Many aspects…..topics are indicated in this statement, their study is especially important for studying….

3. It’s always worth thinking about what….

Essay writing sample on topics related to trade

Trade has never ruined a single nation. B. Franklin
Wherever there is trade, there are gentle morals. C. Montesquieu
Bargaining is a great thing! Every kingdom will be enriched by merchants, and without merchants no small state can exist. I. Pososhkov
Three things make a nation great and prosperous: fertile soil, active industry, and ease of movement of people and goods. F. Bacon

K2 – (theoretical argument) Select:

From the “Economics” block of the social studies course, we know that trade is a type of economic activity aimed at the exchange of goods, the purchase and sale of goods, as well as related processes.
Trade arose based on historical, natural, social and economic reasons. It ensures the international division of labor and international economic relations.
There are internal and external (world) trade.
Trade makes it possible to better take into account the characteristics of the territory and satisfy the diverse needs of the population.

K3 - (factual arguments) select:

Studying the socio-economic geography of the world in grades 10 and 11, we know that world trade depends on the availability of its own resources for the production of goods in the country, the skills of the population, the principles of absolute or relative advantage (lower prices in the country compared to other countries).
One can give a specific historical example of supporting domestic trade through a policy called mercantilism. Peter I was the first to introduce such a policy in Russia, who raised prices and increased duties on imported goods, but those that could be produced in his own country (for example, furniture).
Although I have little life experience, I can still draw a certain conclusion about trading. Now in our country there are few of our own production facilities, but there are many retail chains, it’s a pity that they sell more imported goods, in the economy this contributes not to our development, but to other countries. Or another fact: we export a lot of minerals (for example, oil), but it would be much better to sell gasoline, plastics, lubricants, synthetics. Fabrics.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the problem raised by the author..... is...

(further choose) relevant, socially significant, deep, philosophical, moral, topical, burning, urgent, acute, serious, painful, requiring immediate solution….

Thus, the thought ..... (author) about the importance of trade once again convinced me that the organization of rational, reasonable trade helps the successful development of the economy at the present stage.

Another example of a completed essay.

“Supply and demand are a process of mutual adjustment and coordination.”

P.T. Heine.

The author of the statement, the outstanding American economist of the twentieth century, Paul Heine, argues that such economic categories as supply and demand are interconnected and interdependent. They are the main forces of market relations and adapt to each other and coordinate their influence on production.

I agree with the author’s point of view, in support of which I can give two arguments. 1) Knowing from an economics course that demand is the buyer’s willingness to purchase goods and services at certain prices in certain quantities over a certain period of time; and supply is the seller’s willingness to sell goods and services at certain prices in certain quantities for a certain time - it can be argued that if one of them changes, a corresponding reaction will follow from the other. 2) The Law of Demand has repeatedly proven that as the price increases, demand decreases, and the Law of Supply, that it is supply, on the contrary, increases.

In addition to price factors, of course, supply and demand are influenced by consumer preferences, the number of buyers, expectations of price changes, and prices of substitutes.

Let's look at the interdependence and adaptability of supply and demand using specific examples.

First: the economic concept of equilibrium price and equilibrium volume. Any market strives for equilibrium when expenses and income coincide, when situations of shortage or excess do not arise. This applies not only to the market for products, products, services, but also, for example, to the labor market. According to the annual reports of the Federal Statistics Service and the Employment Services, we know that there are many vacancies for engineering, blue-collar, and trading professions (but labor prices here are not high, so the labor supply is not so great), but the demand for the labor of economists and lawyers is not so high (places with good salaries are already taken) - the supply is great, universities annually graduate “armies” of such specialists. As a result, supply and demand are coordinated and employers offer lower wages (price of labor); specialists, in order not to become unemployed, have to agree to this. In Moscow, working as an economist with 30-40 thousand rubles is now considered normal.

The second example is on the elasticity of demand (reaction to a price change of 1%): from many news television programs in December 2013, we learned that the demand for air tickets for the New Year holidays is very high and tour operators and airports (supply) raise prices 2-3 times higher than usual , and they still diverge. But in order not to scare off all potential buyers, they allocate a certain number of tickets not just in economy class, but also in tourist and discount class (where prices and service are very budget-friendly).

The third example is from personal observations in recent years: when new models of modern gadgets (supply) are released, for example, based on iOS and Android processors (or ipad, Iphone, Imac, ipod III - IV), previous versions of I, II devices are used to support demand , greatly reduced in price.

Thus, we can conclude that the study of supply and demand and their mutual influence and adaptation is a relevant and important issue for the development of a modern economy, making a profit and developing society.

Examples of assignment options for students to complete essays.

Laws are an expression and “evidence” of the achievements of culture and civilization, which allow solving major problems of society. S.S. Aleskeyev
Inflation is the only form of punishment without legal basis. M. Friedman.
Revolution is a barbaric way of progress. J. Jaurès
Youth is the time to acquire wisdom. J.J. Rousseau
A person can do without many things, but not without a person. L. Berne.
Monopoly prices in all cases are the highest that can be squeezed out of the buyer. A. Smith.
Good politics is no different from sound morality. G.B. de Mably
If you don't have a goal, you don't do anything, and you don't do anything great if the goal is insignificant. D. Diderot

Literature:

1. Baranov P.A. Social studies: 500 educational and training tasks to prepare for the Unified State Exam. –M.: Astrel, 2013. -142 p.

2. Kiselev V.P. Social science. C. Solving USE tasks. – M.: Vasily Kiselev Publishing House. 2013. – 60 p.

3. Kotova O.A., Liskova T.E. Social science. The most complete publication of standard versions of Unified State Examination tasks. – M.: AST, 2012. -256 p.

4. Labeznikova Yu.A. Unified State Exam 2014. Social studies: practice exams. –M.: Eksmo, 2013. – 224s.

CHAPTER I About trade

What I will talk about would require a more extensive discussion, but the nature of the present work does not allow this * I would like to swim along a calm river, but I am carried away by a stormy stream.

Trade cures us of harmful prejudices. It can be considered almost a general rule that wherever morals are gentle, there is trade, and wherever there is trade, morals are gentle.

CHAPTER II On the Spirit of Trade

The Germans, says Tacitus, consider it a great sacrilege to shut the doors of their houses to any person they know. or strangers. The person who provided the guest hospitality to a foreigner, shows him another house, where he is again shown hospitality and receives him with the same cordiality. But when the Germans founded states, hospitality became a burden to them. This can be seen from the two laws of the Burgundian code, of which one imposes punishment on any barbarian who shows a wanderer the house of a Roman, and the other decrees that the one who receives the wanderer must be rewarded by the inhabitants, as much as is due from whom.

CHAPTER III About the poverty of nations

CHAPTER IV On trade under different governments

As for the despotic state, there is nothing to say about it. Here is a general rule: if a people are enslaved, people work more in order to preserve than in order to acquire; if the people are free, they work more to acquire than to preserve.

CHAPTER V About the peoples who carried out economical trade

Marseille is a necessary refuge amidst rough seas. Marseille is a place where winds, sea shoals and the location of the coast necessarily force ships to land, and was often visited by sailors. The barrenness of the soil forced the citizens of this city to engage in economical trade.

Economic trade everywhere owes its origin to the violence and oppression that forced people to seek refuge in swamps, islands, sea shoals and even cliffs. This is how Tire, Venice and the cities of Holland were founded. The fugitives found safety there, but they needed a means of subsistence, and began to extract them from all countries of the world.

CHAPTER VI About some consequences of large-scale navigation

Not only non-profitable, but even unprofitable trading can be useful. I heard in Holland that whaling almost never pays its cost. But since the main participants in it are the same people who build the ship, supply it with gear, etc. food supplies, then, while they lose in fishing, they gain in equipping ships. This trade is like a lottery where everyone hopes to win. Everyone in the world loves the game; and the most prudent people willingly surrender to it until they see all the violence, tricks, delusions, loss of money and time associated with it, until they understand that they can spend everything on it.

CHAPTER VII The Merchant Spirit of England

Other nations sacrifice commercial interests for political interests. England has always sacrificed political interests for the sake of the interests of its trade.

This people, better than any other people in the world, has been able to take advantage of three elements of great importance; religion, trade and freedom.

CHAPTER VIII What restrictions economic trade was sometimes subjected to

In some monarchies, laws have been passed that are very likely to harm states that carry out economical trade. Here the import of all goods was prohibited, except those made from raw materials extracted in these monarchies, and they were allowed to come for trade only on ships built in the country where they arrived.

CHAPTER IX On restrictions on trade relations

The true benefit of the people requires that they should not exclude any people from trade without important reasons. with my country. The Japanese trade with only two nations: Chinese and Dutch, and the Chinese earn from them a thousand percent per hundred on sugar and sometimes the same amount on the received behind him in exchange for goods. The Dutch receive almost the same profits. Any people who wish to follow the rules of the Japanese will inevitably be deceived. The fair price of goods and the true relationship between them are established only by competition.

Still less should the state undertake to sell its goods to just one people under the pretext that they will take them all at a certain price. The Poles concluded such an agreement for the sale of grain with the city of Danzig, and many Indian sovereigns concluded such an agreement with the Dutch for the sale of spices. Such agreements are characteristic only of poor peoples who are ready to refuse from hopes for enrichment, as long as they are provided with the necessary means of subsistence, or enslaved peoples who are forced to refuse to use the benefits given to them by nature or to engage in unprofitable trade in these benefits.

CHAPTER X About one institution inherent in economical trade

In states engaged in economical commerce, banks play a very useful role, which, with the help of their credit, have created new signs of value; but it would be unwise to transfer these institutions to states that trade in luxury goods. To introduce them in countries where there is rule by one means to presuppose money on one side and power on the other, that is, on one side the possibility of having everything without any power, and on the other - power with the complete impossibility of having anything. In such a reign, only the sovereign himself possesses or can possess treasures; however, the treasures of other persons, as soon as they reach more or less large sizes, immediately become the treasures of the sovereign.

By For the same reason, under the rule of one, companies of merchants uniting to conduct any kind of trade are rarely appropriate. These companies, by their very nature, give private wealth the power of public wealth. But in such states this power is always in the hands of the sovereign. I will say more: such companies are not always suitable for states engaged in economical trade, and if trade operations there are not so extensive as to be beyond the power of individuals, then it is better not to restrict freedom of trade by establishing exclusive privileges.

CHAPTER XI Continuation of the same topic

CHAPTER XII About freedom of trade

Free trade does not consist in giving free rein to merchants to do as they please; it would be rather the slavery of trade. Not everything that is shy for a trader is the most becomes shy for trading. Nowhere does a merchant encounter such countless restrictions as in countries of freedom, and nowhere is he so little constrained by laws as in countries of slavery.

England prohibits the export of its wool; she wants to coal delivered to her capital by sea; she allows export their horses - only if they are emasculated;

the ships of her colonies trading with Europe must anchor in English ports. She embarrasses the merchant, but does it for the good of trade.

CHAPTER XIII How this freedom is destroyed

CHAPTER XIV Of Trade Laws Prohibiting Confiscation of Goods

The Magna Carta of the English 113 prohibits in time of war the seizure and confiscation of goods belonging to foreign merchants, except in cases of reprisal. It is truly wonderful that the English people have made this rule one of the articles of their freedom.

CHAPTER XV About imprisonment fordebts

Solon passed a law in Athens that abolished imprisonment for debt. He borrowed this law from Egypt, where it was issued by Bochyris and renewed by Sesostris.

CHAPTER XVIThe Beautiful Law

The Geneva law is very good, which does not allow the children of persons who died unpaid debtors to hold public office and even to join the Grand Council if they do not pay the debts of their fathers. He inspires confidence in traders, in rulers, and even in the republic itself. Confidence in an individual is enhanced there by a belief in public integrity.

CHAPTER XVII Rhodes Law

The Rhodians went even further. Sextus Empiricus 11E says that their son could not refuse to pay his father’s debts under the pretext of refusing an inheritance. The Rhodes Law was issued for a republic founded on trade. But I think that the very spirit of trade required that it be limited by the condition that the debts incurred by the father since his son began to engage in trade himself would not concern the property acquired by the son. A merchant must always know his obligations and in all cases act in accordance with the state of his capital.

CHAPTER XVIII About commercial judges

Xenophon in the book About income expresses the desire that those officials in charge of trade who are most likely to complete their work receive rewards for this. He already felt the need for our consular jurisdiction.

Trade affairs are subject to very little formality. This actions are everyday, repeated day after day, so they must be resolved daily. Everyday affairs are of a different nature, which have a great influence on the future, but happen rarely. People marry only once;

they do not make deeds of gift or spiritual wills every day; they only become adults on one specific day in their lives. Plato says that in a city where there is no maritime trade, half as many civil laws are required as in cities where there is such trade, and this is quite fair. Trade attracts a variety of peoples to the country; it entails a great variety of contracts, various types of property and methods of acquisition.

Therefore, there are fewer judges in the trading city, and laws more.

CHAPTER XIX That the sovereign should not engage in trade

CHAPTER XX Continuation of the same topic

CHAPTER XXI On the trade of the nobility in the monarchy

CHAPTER XXII Reflections on a particular issue

Laws commanding everyone to remain in his occupation and pass it on to his children are useful and can only be useful in despotic states, where there cannot and should not be competition.

And let it not be said to me that everyone will perform better the duties associated with his rank if he does not have the opportunity to change it. I maintain that men will perform their duties better if the most distinguished can hope to rise above their rank.

CHAPTER XXIII Which peoples are not profitable to engage in trade

Wealth consists of lands and movables. The lands in each state are usually owned by its inhabitants. Most states have laws that discourage foreigners from acquiring land there, and yet many of these lands can generate income with the mere presence of the owner. Wealth of this kind belongs to to each state separately. But movable property, such as money, bank notes, bills of exchange, company shares, ships and all kinds of goods, belong to the whole world; the whole world in relation to them constitutes one state, of which all societies are members; and the richest nation is the one who has the most of these movables of global significance. Some states have them in huge quantities. They acquire them through the sale of their goods, the labors of their artisans, their industry, their discoveries, and even through chance. The greed of peoples involves them in the struggle for the possession of world property, i.e. movable property. In this case, some unfortunate state may lose not only foreign, but also almost all of its own products. Its landowners will work for foreigners; it will lack everything and be unable to acquire anything. It would be better if it did not trade with any people in the world, since it was precisely this trade, under the circumstances in which it found itself, that brought it to poverty.

An example of such a state is Poland. She has almost none of what we called global movables, except for the grain of her fields. Several magnates own entire regions there and oppress the landowners, trying to squeeze out as much grain as possible from them, so that, by selling it to foreigners, they can purchase the luxury goods that their way of life requires. The people of Poland would be happier. if she did not conduct foreign trade at all. Its nobles, having nothing but bread, would give it to their peasants for food. Too vast possessions would become a burden to them, and they would share them with their peasants. Since everyone would have enough skins and wool from animals, there would be no need for huge expenses on clothing, and nobles, who always love luxury, not being able to find it anywhere except their fatherland, would encourage poor people to work . I affirm that such a people would have come to a more prosperous state, if only they had not turned to barbarism; but the latter circumstance could be prevented by laws

Let's look now at Japan. The excessive abundance of imported goods causes their excessive export, and since there is a balance between its import and export, then the very excess their does not cause harm; it can even bring many benefits to the state: it will have more consumer goods, more raw materials for processing, more people employed, more means to acquire power. In cases where emergency assistance is needed, such a state that is abundant in everything will be able to provide it before others. It rarely happens that a country does not have a surplus; but it is in the nature of trade to make superfluous things useful, and useful things necessary. Therefore, a trading state can deliver the necessary things to more of its subjects.

BOOK TWENTY-ONE Of the laws in their relation to commerce, considered in the light of the revolutions it has undergone

CHAPTERI. Some general considerations

Although trade is subject to great upheavals, it happens that its nature is determined once and for all by certain physical factors, such as, for example, the quality of the soil or climate.

Nowadays we trade with India only with the money we send there. The Romans annually sent there about 50 million sesterces, and this money, like ours now, was converted there into goods, which they exported to the West. All peoples who traded with India always sent metals there and exported goods from there.

The reason for this lies in nature itself. Indians have their own crafts adapted to their way of life. Their luxury is not our luxury, and their needs are not our needs. The climate does not require them and does not allow them almost anything that comes from us. They walk mostly naked; under their own country supplies them with the clothes they need. Their religion, which has such a strong power over them, instills in them an aversion to that which serves as food for us. Therefore, they need only our metals, which serve as signs of value, and give for them goods that, thanks to the nature of the country and the temperance of this people, they have in abundance. In the descriptions of ancient authors, India is the same as we see it today. Morals, customs, orders - all this remained unchanged. India was and. will be what it is now, and the peoples trading with it will always bring money there, and not take it out.

CHAPTER II About nations Africa

Most of the peoples living along the coast of Africa are savages or... barbarians, I think that this largely stems from the fact that there are small, habitable countries separated from each other by countries that are almost completely uninhabitable. These peoples have no industry, no crafts, but have an abundance of precious metals, which they receive directly from the hands of nature; therefore all civilized nations can trade profitably with them. They can sell them things that have no value at very high prices.

CHAPTER III That the needs of the southern peoples differ fromneeds of the northern peoples

In Europe there is some balance between the peoples of the south and the north. The former have all kinds of amenities for life and few needs; the latter have many needs and few amenities for life. Nature has given a lot to some, but they require little from her; Nature has given little to others, but they demand much from her. The balance between these peoples is maintained by the indolence with which nature endowed the southern peoples, and the ingenuity and energy with which she endowed the peoples of the north. The latter must work hard, otherwise they will need everything and turn into barbarians. Slavery became established among the southern peoples for the reason that, while they can easily do without wealth, they can even more easily do without freedom. And the peoples of the north demand freedom, which will provide them with the means to satisfy the needs with which nature has endowed them. Therefore the northern peoples are oppressed by nature unless they are free or barbarians; and almost all the southern peoples, if they are not slaves, are at least under the yoke of violence.

CHAPTER IV The main difference between trade in ancient times and at present

From time to time, the world undergoes changes that affect trade. Today European trade is conducted primarily between north and south; Thus, the reason why peoples need foreign goods is the difference in climates. Thus, for example, the drinks of the south, exported to the north, constitute an article of trade completely unknown to the ancients, and the very capacity of ships, which was formerly measured in grain measures, is now measured in measures of liquid bodies.

The trade of the ancients known to us, carried on between the ports of the Mediterranean Sea, was carried on almost exclusively in the south. But peoples of the same climate, having approximately the same goods, do not have such a need to trade with each other as do peoples of different climates. Therefore, trade in Europe was formerly less extensive than it is now.

And this does not at all contradict what I said about our trade with India, because with an excessive difference in climate, the need for the exchange of products is completely destroyed.

CHAPTER V Other differences

Trade, sometimes destroyed by conquerors, sometimes constrained by monarchs, wanders around the world, escaping from where it is oppressed and resting there. where she is not disturbed. Now we see her reigning where before there were only seas, deserts and rocks, and we see only deserts where she reigned before.

Who would say now that Colchis, which is now one huge forest with a population that, decreasing every day, defends its freedom only in order to sell itself at retail to the Turks or Persians, that Colchis in Roman times abounded in cities whose trade attracted all the peoples of the world there. Not a single monument from these times has survived in the country; we find mention of them only in Pliny and Strabo.

The history of trade is the history of communication between peoples. The destruction they caused and this or that ebb and flow of peoples with the devastation that accompanied them constitute the greatest events in its annals.

CHAPTER VI On the trade of ancient peoples

The countless treasures of Semiramis, the acquisition of which could not have been the work of one day, lead us to the conclusion that the Assyrians robbed many rich nations before they themselves were robbed.

Trade leads to wealth, wealth leads to luxury, and luxury leads to the improvement of crafts. The high level of development of crafts during Semiramis testifies to the extensive trade that already existed then.

There was a large trade in luxury goods in Asian countries. The history of luxury would constitute one of the most beautiful pages in the history of trade. The luxury of the Persians was the luxury of the Medes, and the luxury of the Medes was the luxury of the Assyrians. The northeastern part of Persia, Hyrcania, Margiana, Bactria, etc. were once dotted with flourishing cities, which no longer exist. The north of this country, that is, the isthmus separating the Caspian Sea from the Black Sea, was also covered with cities and peoples that also no longer exist.

Eratostheus p4 and Aristobulus report on the basis of Patroclus that Indian goods were transported along the Amu Darya to the Black Sea. Mark Varron says that under Pompey, during the war with Mithridates, the Romans learned that from India they could reach Bactria and the Icarus River, which flows into the Amu Darya, in seven days, along which Indian goods could cross the Caspian Sea and enter the mouth of the Cyrus, and from this river, after five days of dry travel, reach the Faza River, which leads to the Black Sea. With the help of the peoples inhabiting these various countries, the great empires of the Assyrians, Medes and Persians, no doubt, established connections with the most remote regions of the East and West.

These lines of communication no longer exist. All these countries were devastated by the Tartars, and this destructive people still lives there to their destruction. The Amu Darya no longer flows into the Caspian Sea. The Tatars, in their own interests, diverted the flow of this river from him, and it disappears into the sandy deserts.

The Syr Darya River, which formerly formed the border between civilized and barbarian peoples, is also diverted by the Tatars and no longer reaches the sea.

Seleucus Nikator intended to connect the Black Sea with the Caspian. But this intention, which would have greatly facilitated the trade of that time, was not carried out after his death. It is not known whether he could have carried it out on the isthmus separating both seas. This country is now very little known. It is poor in population and covered with forests. There is no shortage of water there thanks to the countless rivers flowing from the Caucasus Mountains. But the Caucasus itself, which forms the northern part of the isthmus and extends its spurs to the south, would have turned out to be a great obstacle, especially in those days when the art of building locks was not at all known.

It can be assumed that Seleucus wanted to connect both seas in the very place where this was later done by Tsar Peter I, that is, on the strip of land where the Don approaches the Volga. But the northern coast of the sea had not yet been explored.

While the Asian empires traded in luxury goods, the merchants of Tire in all countries of the world carried on economical trade. Bochard dedicated the first book of his Canaan to listing their colonies in all the maritime countries; they penetrated the Pillars of Hercules and founded settlements on the shores of the ocean.

In those days, sailors had to stick to the shores, which served them as a kind of compass. The journeys were long and difficult. The navigation of Odysseus served as a noble theme for the most beautiful poem in the world, created after the first of all poems in 1111.

The lack of awareness of most peoples regarding distant countries favored peoples who carried on economical trade. They could keep their trading operations secret and enjoyed all the advantages of educated peoples over ignorant ones.

Egypt, cut off by its religion and morals from any communication with foreigners, did not conduct foreign trade at all:

the fertile soil and the extreme abundance of all earthly goods brought him prosperity. This was Japan at that time; he was content with what he had.

The Egyptians cared so little about foreign trade that they left all trade along the Red Sea to small nations who took part in it to one degree or another. They admitted that the Edomites, Jews and Syrians kept their fleets on this sea. Solomon used the Tyrians, who knew it, to navigate this sea.

Joseph says that his people, who were engaged only in agriculture, had little knowledge of navigation; and indeed, the Jews began to trade on the Red Sea only due to chance. They conquered Elath and Aziongaber in a war with the Edomites, who brought them this trade. Having lost these two cities, the Jews also lost their trade. The situation was different with the Phoenicians: they traded in luxury goods and did not conduct trade associated with conquests, but thanks to their temperance, dexterity, ingenuity, fearlessness and tirelessness, they managed to become necessary for all peoples of the world.

The peoples living near the Red Sea traded only along this sea and along the lakes of Africa. This is clearly evidenced by the general amazement caused by the opening of the Indian Sea under Alexander. We have already said that precious metals are always imported into India, but never exported. The Jewish ships carrying gold and silver through the Red Sea were returning from Africa, not India. Moreover, this navigation took place along the eastern coast of Africa, and the state of navigation at that time serves as sufficient proof that merchant ships did not enter too distant countries,

I know that the fleets of Solomon and Jehoshaphat did not return until the third year after their departure; but I do not consider that the length of the journey can serve as proof of the distance traveled.

Ilinius and Strabo say that a Greek or Roman ship covered in seven days the distance that the ships of India or the Red Sea, built of reeds, covered in twenty days. According to this proportion, one year's journey for the Greek and Roman ships was equal to almost three years' journey for Solomon's ships.

The duration of travel of two ships having different speeds is not always proportional to their speed. One delay often leads to another, even greater delay. When in a voyage it is necessary to keep to the shores, and constantly change course, to wait for one favorable wind to leave the bay and another in order to move forward, a good sailing ship will be able to use every favorable moment, while the worst will remain in an inconvenient place and wait several days of wind changes.

The slowness of the Indian ships, which covered only a third of the route that the ships of the Greeks and Romans covered during the same time, can find an explanation in the experience of modern navigation. The fact is that Indian ships, built of reeds, sat less deeply in the water than Greek and Roman ships, built of wood and fastened with iron.

These Indian ships can be compared with the ships of some modern nations, whose harbors are shallow, like... for example, in Venice and in general in most Italian cities, as well as in the Baltic and Dutch ports.

The ships that must leave and return to these harbors are round in shape and have a flat bottom, while the ships of other races that have deep harbors are built so that they can sit deep in the water. Due to this device, these ships can also use side ones! winds, while the first ones have only one favorable wind. A ship sitting deep in the water moves without changing course in almost any wind, which depends on the resistance of the water, which in the opposite wind gives it a fulcrum, and on the elongated shape of the ship, thanks to which, turning to the side, it can go and with a side wind, that is, turning sideways to the side from which the wind is blowing. But if the ship has a round and flat-bottomed shape and, therefore, does not sink much into the water, then it no longer has a fulcrum; in this case, the wind drives the ship, which, unable to resist it, sails only with the wind. It follows that flat-bottomed ships make their journey slower than others, since... 1) they waste a lot of time waiting for a favorable wind, especially when they have to change direction frequently, and 2) because, not having a fulcrum, they cannot have as many sails as other ships. And if in our time, when navigation is so improved, when the interaction between different crafts has reached such a high level, when art corrects the shortcomings not only of nature, but of art itself, if at such a time these differences still make themselves felt, then what was their role in ancient navigation?

I cannot help but add a few more words on this issue. The Indian ships were small, and the ships of the Greeks and Romans, with the exception of individual giants built out of vanity, were smaller than ours. But the smaller the ship, the more dangerous the storms are for it. A storm that would cause only rocking on a large ship can sink a smaller ship. The larger the volume of a body, the relatively smaller its surface compared to another body of smaller volume, from which it follows that a smaller ship has a smaller capacity, or, what is the same, a greater difference between the size of its surface and the weight of the cargo that it can carry take out. It is known that according to generally accepted custom, ships are loaded so that the weight of the cargo is equal to half the weight of water that the ship could contain. Thus, if a ship can contain 800 tons of water, then the weight of its cargo will be equal to 400 tons, while for a ship that can only hold 400 tons of water, it will be equal to 200 tons. Hence, the volume of the first ship was related to the weight of its cargo as 8 to 4; and the volume of the second as 4 to 2. If we suppose that the surface of the larger ship is related to the surface of the smaller as 8 to 6, then the surface of the latter will be related to the weight of its cargo as 6 to 2, while the surface of the first is to its cargo , only like 8 to 4; and since the wind and heat act only on the surface, a larger ship with its weight will provide more significant resistance to their pressure than a smaller one.

CHAPTER VII About trade Greeks

The ancient Greeks were all pirates. Minos, who ruled the seas, was perhaps only more successful in robbing than others. His dominion was limited to the borders of his island. But when the Greeks became a strong people, the Athenians acquired actual dominion over the sea, since this trading and victorious people prescribed laws to the most powerful monarch of the time and destroyed the naval powers of Syria, Cyprus and Phenicia.

I must dwell on this dominion of the Athenians over the sea. “Athens,” says Xenophon, “dominates the sea, but since Attica is located on the mainland, the enemy devastates it while its troops are making distant campaigns. Noble people take their property to some island for safekeeping and allow the enemy to ravage their lands, while the common people, who have no land at all, live without worrying about anything. But if the Athenians lived on an island and at the same time dominated the sea, then they, being the rulers of the sea, could harm everyone, while no one could harm them.” One might think that when Xenophon said this, he meant England.

Athens, constantly striving for glory, causing envy of itself, instead of strengthening its influence, more concerned about expanding its maritime dominion than about using it - these Athens with its political system, which allowed the mob to divide public incomes between while the rich people were oppressed, did not carry on such extensive trade as they could have carried on thanks to their mines, many slaves, numerous sailors, their power over the Greek cities and, most importantly, thanks to the excellent laws of Solon. Their trade was almost limited to Greece and the shores of the Black Sea, from where they received everything they needed for themselves.

Corinth enjoyed an excellent position: it lay on an isthmus between two seas, it opened and closed the entrance to the Peloponnese and to Greece itself. This city was of great importance at a time when Greece was a whole world, and its cities were peoples. Its trade was more extensive than that of Athens. It had a separate port for Asian goods and another for Italian goods. Since the sailors encountered great difficulties when rounding the Malean Cape, where shipwrecks occur from the collision of opposite winds, they preferred to enter the harbor of Corinth, from where they could drag the ship to another sea. In no other city have works of art reached such perfection. Religion completed the corruption of what remained undamaged by luxury in the morals of Corinth. She erected a temple to Venus there, to which more than a thousand courtesans were dedicated. From this school came most of those famous beauties whose history Athenaeus dared to write.

In Homer's time, the richest cities in Greece were apparently Rhodes, Corinth and Orchomepus. “Jupiter,” he says, “loved the Rhodians and gave them great wealth,” Homer gives Corinth the epithet of the rich.

When he starts talking about cities that have a lot of gold, he mentions Orchomenus, which he puts next to the Egyptian Thebes. Rhodes and Corinth retained their power. and Orkhomenes lost it. The position of Orchomenus near the Hellespont, the Propontis and the Black Sea naturally suggests that he enriched himself from the trade carried on along the shores of these seas, which gave rise to the legend of the Golden Fleece. Indeed, both the inhabitants of Orkhomenes and the Argonauts were called by one common name, the Minii. When later these seas became better known, when the Greeks founded many colonies along their shores, which established trade relations with the barbarian peoples and entered into communication with their metropolis, Orkhomenes began to decline and mixed with other cities of Greece.

The Greeks before Homer traded only among themselves and with some barbarian peoples; but as they formed new nations, their dominion expanded. Greece was a large peninsula with capes it seemed. They moved the sea away from it, and bays on all sides opened up before it, as if to draw it back to the land. Taking a look at Greece, we will see a rather narrow strip of land with a long coastline. Its countless colonies formed a huge circle around it, which embraced, so to speak, the entire civilized world. Penetrating into Sicily and Italy, to the Black Sea, to the shores of Lesser Lazia and Africa, it created new peoples there. The prosperity of its cities increased in proportion to their proximity to these peoples. And what was especially beautiful was that it was surrounded by countless islands, which seemed to form the first line of its fence.

Not to mention what an important source of wealth for Greece were its games, which it organized, so to speak, for the entire universe; these temples where all the kings sent deposits; these festivals, to which crowds flocked from all over; these oracles that attracted general curiosity; finally, this taste and these arts, brought to such a high degree of perfection that an attempt to surpass them will always mean only an inability to understand them!

CHAPTER VIII About Alexander and his conquests

A great revolution in trade was made by the following four events that happened under Alexander: the capture of Tire, the conquest of Egypt, the conquest of India and the discovery of the sea, which is located south of this country.

The Persian Empire extended to the Indus. Long before Alexander, Darius sent ships that descended this river and reached the Red Sea. Why were the Greeks the first to establish trade relations with India from the south? Why didn't the Persians warn them? What did the proximity of the seas that washed their state serve the Persians? True, Alexander conquered India, but is it really necessary to conquer the country in order to trade with it! Let's explore all these questions.

Ariana, extending from the Persian Gulf to the Indus and from the Arabian Sea to the Paropamise Mountains, was somewhat dependent on the Persian Empire; but in its southern part it was a barren country, scorched by the sun, uncultivated and barbaric. Tradition says that the troops of Semiramis and Cyrus died in its deserts; and Alexander himself, followed by his fleet, did not escape the loss of most of his army there. The Persians left the entire coast of this country in the power of ichthyophages, orithites and other barbarians. Moreover, the Persians were not seafarers, and their very religion did not allow them to even think about sea trade. The experience of sailing along the Indus and the Indian Sea made by Darius was more the whim of a sovereign who wanted to show his power than the deliberate intention of a monarch who knew how to use this power. This experience did not enrich either trade or navigation, and even if it led to the acquisition of some new knowledge, this knowledge was soon lost.

Moreover, before Alexander's campaign, the southern part of India was considered uninhabited; This conclusion was led by the legend, which reported that Semiramis brought out only twenty people from there, and Cyrus - seven.

Alexander entered India from the north. He intended to go further east, but when it became clear that the southern part of the country abounded in numerous peoples, cities and rivers, he tried to conquer it - and conquered it.

He then set out to connect India with the West through maritime trade, just as he had already established a connection between these countries through the colonies he founded on land.

He built a fleet on the Hydaspes, sailed down this river, and then along the Indus and went down to the mouth of the Indus. Leaving the army and fleet in Patala, he went with several ships to inspect the sea and appointed places for the construction of ports, piers and arsenals. Returning to Patala, he separated from the fleet and went by land so that his land and sea forces could assist each other. The fleet followed the army from the mouth of the Ipdus along the possessions of the Orits. ichthyophages, Karamania and Persia. Alexander ordered to dig wells, build cities and forbade ichthyophages to feed on fish alone; he wanted the shores of this sea to be inhabited by civilized peoples. Nearchus and Onesicritus kept a diary of this voyage, which lasted ten months. Arriving at Susa, they found Alexander there giving festivities to his army.

This conqueror founded Alexandria in order to secure Egypt; she was for him the key that unlocked the doors of this country in the very place where the kings who preceded him had the key to lock them, and he then did not yet think about that trade, the thought of which could arise in him only after the discovery of the Indian Sea.

Perhaps, even after this discovery, he did not have any new plans for Alexandria; and although he generally intended to establish trade between India and the western parts of his empire, he still had too little information for him to think of conducting it through Egypt. He saw the Indus, he saw the Nile, but he knew nothing about the seas of Arabia located between them. However, upon returning from India, he immediately ordered the construction of new fleets, made voyages across the sea, as well as along the Eulus, Tigris and Euphrates, destroyed the rapids made on these rivers by the Persians, and discovered that the Persian Gulf was part of the ocean. And since he explored this sea, like the Indian one before, he built arsenals and a port in Babylon for a thousand ships, sent to Phenicia and. Syria 500 talents for export from there were sailors whom he wanted to place in the colonies he founded on the seashores; since, finally, he carried out large works on the Euphrates and other Assyrian rivers, there can be no doubt that he intended to carry on trade with India through Babylon and the Persian Gulf.

Some writers, based on the fact that Alexander wanted to conquer Arabia, argued that he intended to transfer the capital of his empire there; but how could he choose a place for this purpose that he himself did not know? Moreover, Arabia was less suitable for this than any other country in the world: it would have alienated him from his empire. The caliphs, having conquered distant countries, were not slow in leaving Arabia to settle in other places,

CHAPTER IX On the trade of the Greek kings after Alexander

When Alexander conquered Egypt, the Red Sea was still very little known and the part of the ocean that connects with this sea and washes the shores of Africa on one side and the shores of Arabia on the other is completely unknown. Even in later times, it was considered impossible to go around the Arabian Peninsula by sea, and those who tried from different sides to carry out this detour abandoned their plan. “Is it possible,” they said then, “to sail off the southern coast of Arabia, when the army of Cambyses, which passed through the northern part of this country, almost all died, and the army sent by Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, to Babylon to help Seleucus Nicator, suffered incredible disasters and from “Could it only be at night because of the heat?”

The Persians did not engage in navigation at all. Conquering Egypt. they brought into it the same spirit that prevailed in their own country. They themselves were distinguished by such amazing negligence in this regard that, according to the testimony of the Greek kings, they knew nothing not only about the ocean travel of the Tyrians, Edomites and Jews, but even about navigation in the Red Sea. I think that as a result of the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar of the first Tire and various tribes and cities near the Red Sea, all the information accumulated at an earlier time was lost.

During the Persian era, Egypt did not touch the Red Sea;

its entire territory was a long and narrow strip of land irrigated by the floods of the Nile and compressed on both sides by mountain ranges. Therefore, it was necessary to open both the Red Sea and the ocean a second time. The credit for this discovery belongs to the curiosity of the Greek kings.

With them, voyages were made to the sources of the Pila; they began to hunt elephants in the countries between the Nile and the sea;

discovered the shores of this sea, reaching them by land; and since these discoveries were made during the era of Greek rule, the names of the newly discovered places were given Greek names, and the temples were dedicated to Greek deities.

The Egyptian Greeks were able to conduct extensive trade. They owned the ports of the Red Sea, Tire - the rival of every trading nation - no longer existed, the ancient prejudices of the country did not constrain them - so Egypt became the center of the universe.

The Syrian kings left the southern trade with India to the kings of Egypt and took up only the northern trade that was conducted through the Amu Darya and the Caspian Sea. At that time it was thought that this sea formed part of the Northern Ocean, and Alexander, shortly before his death, built a fleet to explore whether it communicated with the ocean through the Black Sea or through some other eastern sea lying on the way to India. After Seleucus and Antiochus paid special attention to the exploration of this sea and kept fleets on it. The part discovered by Seleucus is called the Seleucus Sea, and the part discovered by Antiochus is called the Antioch Sea. Closely watching everything that could be undertaken on this side, these kings neglected the southern seas, perhaps because the Ptolemaic fleet already dominated there, or because they noticed in the Persians an invincible aversion to navigation. The southern coast of Persia did not supply sailors;

they appeared there only in the last years of Alexander’s life. Meanwhile, the Egyptian kings, who owned Cyprus, Phenicia and many places on the shores of Asia Minor, had all the means for maritime enterprises. To do this, they did not have to go against the spirit of their subjects; it was only necessary that they follow him.

It is difficult to understand why the ancients so stubbornly held the opinion that the Caspian Sea forms part of the ocean. The expeditions of Alexander, the Syrian kings, the Parthians and the Romans could not dissuade them of this. People generally tend to maintain their delusions as long as possible. At first, only the southern part of the Caspian Sea was known, and it was mistaken for the ocean, and when they began to explore the shores of its northern part, they thought that here the ocean protrudes into the land. This coastal navigation from the east reached only the Amu Darya, and from the west - the borders of Albania. The northern side of the sea was muddy and therefore unsuitable for navigation. For all these reasons, he continued to be mistaken for the ocean.

Alexander's army from the eastern side only reached the Hypanis River, the last of the rivers flowing into the Indus, so initially Greek trade with India was carried out only in a very small part of the country. Seleucus Nicator penetrated as far as the Ganges, which led to the discovery of the sea into which this river flows, i.e., the Bay of Bengal. Nowadays lands are being discovered through sea voyages; Previously, they opened the seas through the conquest of lands.

Strabo, despite the testimony of Apollodorus, apparently doubts that the Greek kings of Bactria went further than Seleucus and Alexander. But if they really did not penetrate further than Seleucus to the east, then they penetrated further to the south: they opened Siger and the Malabar ports, which gave rise to navigation, which I will now talk about.

Pliny tells us that the voyage to India was carried out successively in three ways. First, they set off from Cape Siagra to the island of Patalena, located at the mouth of the Indus: this is the route of Alexander’s fleet. Then a shorter and surer road was chosen; it started from the same cape, going to Siger. This Siger cannot be anything other than the kingdom of Siger, which Strabo speaks of and which was discovered by the Greek kings of Bactria. Pliny could call this route shorter only because less time was spent on it, since Siger had to lie further than the Indus, for it was discovered by the kings of Bactria; but this path was probably chosen in order to avoid going around different banks and to take advantage of certain winds. Finally, the merchants* discovered a third way: they went to Kan or Okel - two ports located at the mouth of the Red Sea - from where, with the west wind, they reached the first Indian pier Muziris and went further to other ports.

From this it can be seen that instead of going from the mouth of the Red Sea to Siagra, rising along the north-eastern shores of Happy Arabia, they went straight from west to east, using the monsoons, which were open during voyages through these places. The ancients moved away from the coast only when they could use the monsoons and trade winds, which were a kind of compass for them.

Pliny says that they went to India in the middle of summer, and returned from there by the end of December or the beginning of January. This is completely consistent with the diaries of seafarers of our time. In that part of the Indian Sea which lies between the peninsula formed by Africa and the peninsula west of the Ganges, there are two monsoons: one, blowing from west to east, begins in August-September, the other, blowing from east to west, begins in January . We are now setting out from Africa for Malabar at the same time when Ptolemy’s fleets set out there, and we are returning from there at the same time as them.

Alexander's fleet took seven months to travel from Patala to Susa. He sailed in July,* that is, at a time when in our days not a single ship would dare to set off on the return voyage from India. Between both monsoons, variable winds blow. At this time, the north wind, mixed with ordinary winds, produces terrible storms, especially near the coast. This lasts three months - June, July and August. Alexander's fleet, which set out from Patala in July, suffered many storms, and its journey lasted a long time because it sailed in a nasty monsoon.

Pliny says that they went to India at the end of summer, therefore, they took advantage of the changing monsoon to make the journey from Alexandria to the Red Sea.

Notice how navigation has gradually improved. The expedition undertaken by order of Darius, which descended the Indus and reached the Red Sea, lasted two and a half years. Alexander's fleet, sailing down the Indus, arrived at Susa ten months later, with the voyage taking three months on the Indus and seven on the Indian Sea. Subsequently, the journey from the Malabar coast to the Red Sea took forty days,

Strabo, explaining the reasons for the obscurity of the countries between Hypanis and the Ganges, says that only a few of the sailors sailing from Egypt to India reach the Ganges. And indeed, the fleets did not go there; they walked in the direction of the monsoons from west to east, from the mouth of the Red Sea to the Malabar coast. They stopped at the ports there and did not undertake a detour around the peninsula west of the Ganges through Cape Comorin and along the Coromandel coast. Both the Egyptian kings and the Romans had the same sailing plan - to return in the same year.

Therefore, the trade of the Greeks and Romans could not in any way compare in volume with the trade that we conduct; we know huge countries whose existence they did not even suspect; we trade with all the peoples of India; Moreover, we even conduct their trade and sail for them.

But it was easier for them to conduct this trade than for us; and if we were now limited to trade along the shores of Guzarat and Malabar and, without going to the southern islands, were content with the goods that the islanders would bring to us, then we should prefer the route through Egypt to the route around the Cape of Good Hope. Strabo says that this was how trade was conducted with the peoples of Takrobap.

Chapter x About travel around Africa

It is known from history that before the invention of the compass there were four attempts to travel around Africa. The Phoenicians, sent by Necho, and Eudoxus, who had fled from the wrath of Ptolemy-Latour, sailed from the Red Sea; their journey was a success. Sataspes under Xerxes and Hanno, sent by the Carthaginians, set out from the Pillars of Hercules and failed.

The most important thing in voyages around Africa was to discover and round the Cape of Good Hope. But when departing from the Red Sea, this cape was halfway closer than when departing from the Mediterranean Sea. The coasts between the Red Sea and the Cape of Good Hope have a healthier climate than the coasts between this cape and the Pillars of Hercules. In order for the sailors setting off from the Pillars of Hercules to discover the Cape of Good Hope, it was necessary to invent a compass, thanks to which it was possible to move away from the shores of Africa and sail across the vast ocean, heading to the island of St. Helena or to the shores of Brazil. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ships departing from the Red Sea. reached the Mediterranean, but from the Mediterranean did not reach the Red Sea.

Therefore, in order not to make such a detour that did not allow return, it was more convenient to trade with eastern Africa through the Red Sea, and with western Africa through the Pillars of Hercules.

The Greek kings of Egypt first discovered, during voyages along the Red Sea, that part of the African coast that extends from the city of Gerum to Dira, that is, to the present Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. From here to Cape Aromatov, which lies at the entrance to the Red Sea, the coast was not explored by sailors. This is clear from the message of Artemidorus, who says that the ports of this coast are known, but the distance between them is unknown - a circumstance explained by the fact that they were opened separately from the land side and did not make transitions from one port to another.

Such was the information about the shores of Africa in the era of Strabo, that is, in the era of Augustus. But after Augustus the Romans discovered capes Raptum and Prassum, about which Strabo says nothing because they were not yet known at that time. As we can see, these capes have Roman names.

The geographer Ptolemy lived under Hadrian and Antoninus, and the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, whoever he was, lived a little later. However, the first considers the limit of Africa known in its time to be Cape Prassum, lying near the 14th degree of southern latitude, and the author of “Perinla” limits it to Cape Raitum, lying almost at the 10th degree of the same latitude. It is very likely that the latter named as a limit a place where people traveled at that time, and Ptolemy named a place where people did not go.

It seems to me that this idea is confirmed by the fact that the peoples who lived near Cape Prassum were cannibals. Ptolemy, reporting many places between the port of Aromatov and Cape Raptum. does not say a word about the areas located between Capes Raptum and Prassum.

The great benefits brought by Indian navigation forced the African one to be neglected. Finally, the Romans never had regular navigation along the coast of Africa. They opened these ports either from land or thanks to storms that brought ships to these shores. And if now we know the coast of Africa quite well and its interior regions very poorly, then the Romans, on the contrary, were quite familiar with the central part of this country and very poorly with the entire coast,

I said that the Phoenicians and Eudox sent by Ptolemy-Latour traveled around Africa. It is very likely that both of these journeys were considered fabulous in the time of the geographer Ptolomas, since the latter speaks of the existence of an unknown country that extends from Great Bay- probably the present Gulf of Thailand - and, connecting Asia with Africa, adjoins Cape Prossum, as a result of which the Indian Sea should have turned out to be a lake. The ancients, having penetrated India from the north and advanced to the east, placed this unknown country in the south.

CHAPTER XI Carthage and Marseille

In the international law of the Carthaginians there was one very peculiar provision: they drowned all foreigners who traded in Sardinia and at the Pillars of Hercules. Their state law was no less extraordinary: it forbade Sardinians, under pain of death, to cultivate the land. Carthage strengthened its power through wealth, and then began to increase wealth through power. Having mastered the Mediterranean coast of Africa, he expanded his possessions along the ocean shores. Hanno, by order of the Carthaginian Senate, settled 30 thousand Carthaginians in the area from the Pillars of Hercules to Cerpsi. He says that this place is the same distance from the Pillars of Hercules as the Pillars of Hercules are from Carthage. This situation is quite remarkable; it shows that Gaipon limited his settlements to the 25th degree of north latitude, that is, two or three degrees south of the Capari Islands.

From Tserpeia, Gapnon undertook a new voyage to the south with the aim of new discoveries. He collected almost no information about the continent and, after sailing off the coast for 26 days, was forced to return due to lack of food. It seems that the Carthaginians did not take advantage of this enterprise of Hanno. Scylax says that on the other side of Cernei, the mors is inconvenient for navigation, because it is shallow there, .1 muddy and covered with sea grasses; indeed, there is plenty of all this in those places. The Carthaginian merchants Scylax speaks of could have been stopped by obstacles that Hanno was able to overcome with his 60 fifty-oared ships. Difficulties are relative;

besides, one cannot confuse an ordinary everyday matter with an enterprise that was dictated by courage and daring courage.

Description of Ganionp's journey is one of the beautiful creations of antiquity. It was written by the very person who committed it. There is not a trace of vanity visible in him. Great sailors describe their exploits simply because they take more pride in their deeds than in their words.

Hapnop noticed during his journey that during the day there was deep silence on the continent, and at night the sounds of various musical instruments were heard there and lights of varying brightness were visible everywhere. Confirmation of this is found in the reports of our navigators; it says that during the day these savages take refuge in the forests from the heat of the sun, and at night they build large fires to ward off wild animals, and that they are passionate about dancing and music.

Hanno describes the volcano with all those phenomena that are now observed on Vesuvius, and even his story about two shaggy women, whose skin he brought to Carthage, since they themselves preferred to be killed than to follow the Carthaginians, is not as incredible as they think.

This message is especially precious as a Punic monument, and on the basis that it was a Punic monument, it was considered fabulous: the Romans continued to hate the Carthaginians even after they destroyed them. But victory alone decided which of the two expressions should enter into the saying: Punic loyalty or Roman loyalty.

This prejudice was shared by some writers of modern times. What happened to those cities, they say, which Hanno described and of which not a trace remained in the time of Plipius? But it would be surprising if these traces remained. Did Gaipon build a second Athens or Corinth on these shores? He settled several Carthaginian families in some places suitable for trade and quickly built fences for them from savages and predatory animals. When, after the disasters that struck the Carthaginians, navigation to Africa ceased, these families could either perish or turn into savages. Moreover, even if the ruins of these cities were preserved, then who would find them among the forests and swamps? However, both Scylax and Polybius say that the Carthaginians had significant settlements on these shores. Here are the traces of the cities of Hanno; there are no others and there cannot be, because almost no other traces have survived from Carthage itself.

The Carthaginians were on their way to wealth; if they had penetrated to the 14th degree north latitude and 15th west longitude, they would have discovered the Gold Coast and its neighboring shores. They would have established a much more serious trade there than is carried on there at the present time, when America seems to have devalued the wealth of all other countries. They would find treasures here that the Romans could not take from them.

Many wonderful things were told about the riches of Spain. If you believe Aristotle, then the Phoenicians, who came to Tartessus, found so much silver there that they did not have enough ships. to load it. From With this metal they began to make things for the lowest use. By According to Diodorus, the Carthaginians found so much gold and silver in the Pyrenees that they used it as anchors for their ships. These folk tales should not be relied upon, but here are the actual facts.

From the passage of Polybius cited by Strabo, it is clear that the silver mines at the source of the Betnes River, the development of which employed 40 thousand people, delivered to the Roman people 25 thousand drachmas per day, which is about 5 million livres per year, counting 50 francs per mark. The mountains that contained these mines were called the Silver Mountains, which makes them identify with the Potosi Mountains. Nowadays, the development of mines in Hanover employs four times fewer workers than the Spanish mines of that time, but they produce more. But since the Romans had almost exclusively copper mines and very few silver ones, and the Greeks knew only the very poor mines of Attica, it is no wonder that they were surprised at the wealth of the mines of Spain.

During the War of the Spanish Succession, a certain Marquis de Rod, who was said to have gone bankrupt in gold mines and enriched himself in hospitals, proposed to the French court to find mines in the Pyrenees. He pointed to the examples of the Tyrians, Carthaginians and Romans. He was allowed to undertake the search; he searched everywhere, never ceasing to quote ancient authors, and found nothing.

The Carthaginians, who owned the trade in gold and silver, also wanted to master the trade in lead and tin* These metals were transported by land from the Gallic ports on the ocean to the ports of the Mediterranean Sea. The Carthaginians wanted to receive them first-hand and sent Himilcon with instructions to found colonies on the Cassitern Islands, believed to be the same ones that are now called Syllae. Based on these voyages from Baetica to England, it has been suggested that the Carthaginians had a compass; it is clear, however, that they stuck to the shores. The best proof of this is the statement of Himilcon himself that he spent four months moving from the mouth of the Betis to England. And the notorious story about the Carthaginian helmsman who, seeing the approach of a Roman ship, ran his ship aground. in order not to show him the way to England, he proves that at the time of the meeting these ships were at a very close distance from the coast.

The ancients sometimes made such sea voyages that gave reason to think that they used a compass, although they did not have one. So, for example, a helmsman who moved away from the shores and made his voyage in clear weather, when one of the polar stars was constantly visible to him at night, and the rising and setting of the sun during the day, could direct his path along them in the same way as now with a compass. But such trips were an accident, not a rule,

From the treaty that ended the first Punic War, it is clear that Carthage was mainly concerned about maintaining its dominance over the sea, and Rome over the land. Hanno stated during negotiations with the Romans, that he would not even tolerate them washing their hands in the Sicilian seas; them forbidden was swim Further Wonderful cape:

they were not supposed to trade in Sicily, Sardinia and Africa with anyone except Carthage - an exception showing that trade there did not promise to be profitable for them.

In ancient times, great wars were fought between Carthage and Marseille over fishing. After peace was concluded, they began to compete with each other in economical trade. Marcel was especially envied by the fact that, while not inferior to his rival in industry, he was inferior to him in strength. This is the reason for Marseille's unwavering loyalty to the Romans. The war that the latter waged with the Carthaginians in Spain contributed to the enrichment of Marseille, which served as a warehouse. The destruction of Carthage and Corinth further increased the glory of Marseille. And if it were not for the civil strife that divided its inhabitants into parties hostile to each other, he could have lived happily under the protection of the Romans, who were not at all jealous of his trade.

CHAPTER XII Island of Delos. Mithridates

When the Romans destroyed Corinth, the merchants fled from there to Delos. Religion and the general reverence of the peoples forced them to look at this island as a safe refuge. In addition, it occupied a very advantageous position for Italian and Asian trade, the importance of which increased after the destruction of Africa and the weakening of Greece.

The Greeks, as we have already said, from ancient times founded colonies on the shores of the Marmara and Black Seas; these colonies retained their freedom and their laws under the Persians. Alexander, who set out on a campaign only against the barbarians, did not touch them. Apparently, even the Pontinian kings, who took possession of many of these colonies, did not deprive them of state independence.

The power of the Pontic kings increased after they took possession of these colonies. Mithridates was able to hire troops everywhere, constantly replace his losses, have workers, ships, war machines, acquire allies, bribe the allies of the Romans and even the Romans themselves, keep Asian and European barbarians on payroll, wage a long war and, therefore, train his troops to discipline. He was able to arm them, teach them the Roman art of war and form large detachments of Roman defectors; finally, he could suffer great losses and withstand great defeats. Mithridates would not have perished if this sovereign, great in misfortune, had not turned out to be a voluptuous barbarian in happiness and had not destroyed what he himself had created.

Thus, at a time when the Romans were at the height of their greatness and seemed to have no one to fear but themselves, Mithridates again called into question what had already been decided by the capture of Carthage and the defeats of Philip, Antiochus and Perseus. There has never been a war more destructive than this; and since both sides possessed enormous power and equal benefits, the peoples of Greece and Asia were exterminated either as friends or as enemies of Mithridates. Delos did not escape the general misfortune. Trade was dying everywhere; and how could she not perish when peoples perished.

The Romans, who, following the system I indicated elsewhere, preferred to destroy, so as not to be conquerors, destroyed Carthage and Corinth and, perhaps, continuing to act in this way, would have destroyed themselves if “they had not conquered the whole world. On the contrary, “the Pontic kings, having taken possession of the Greek colonies on the Black Sea, were careful not to destroy what was supposed to be the source of their greatness.

CHAPTER XIII On the attitude of the Romans to maritime affairs

The Romans recognized only the ground army, the spirit of which was to always stand firm, fight and die on the spot. They could not respect the tactics of sailors who, having entered into battle, then retreat, then advance and, always avoiding danger, take more by cunning than by force. All this was not at all in the spirit of the Greeks and, even less, the Romans.

Therefore, they appointed for naval service only those citizens who, due to their less honorable position, could not serve in the legions. The sailors were usually freedmen.

At present we have neither this respect for the land army nor this contempt for the navy. In the first, the art of war decreased, in the second it increased;

and people always make their assessments depending on the abilities that are required to perform a particular task.

CHAPTER XIV About the commercial spirit of the Romans

The Romans never showed envy of other people's trade. They entered into the struggle with Carthage as a rival, and not as a trading city. They patronized the cities engaged in trade, although these cities were not subject to them. For example, they increased the power of Marseille by ceding several regions to it. They feared the barbarians, but did not fear the trading peoples. And the very spirit of the Romans, their glory, military education and form of government alienated them from trade.

The inhabitants of the city were concerned only with wars, elections, intrigues and trials, the rural population was engaged only in agriculture, and in the provinces harsh and tyrannical governance was incompatible with trade.

No less than their government structure was opposed to trade and their international law. “Peoples,” says the lawyer Pomponius. - with whom we have neither friendship, nor mutual hospitality, nor alliance, are not our enemies; but if anything belonging to us falls into their hands, it becomes their property, free men become their slaves; and we treat them the same way.”

Their civil rights were no less restrictive. The law of Constantine, having declared the illegitimate children of a man of low birth who married a woman of high rank, further confuses women who own a goods store with slaves, innkeepers, comedians, with the daughters of a man who runs an indecent house or is condemned to fight in a circus.

I know that people, convinced, firstly, that trade is the most useful business in the world for the state, and, secondly, that the Romans had the best state structure in the world, believed that the Romans greatly encouraged and respected trade. However, they didn't really think much of her.

Chapter XV Trade of the Romans with the Barbarians

The Romans formed one vast empire from Europe, Asia and Africa. The weakness of nations and the tyranny of government have fused together the parts of this enormous body. Since then, the goal of Rome's policy was alienation from all peoples not subject to it: the fear of transferring to them their art of winning forced the Romans to neglect the art of enriching themselves. They created laws that prohibited all communication with barbarians.<--Да не осмелится никто, -говорят Валент и Грациан, -посылать им вино, масло и другие жидкости даже только для угощения». «Пусть не отвозят к ним золота, - добавляют Грациан, Валентиниан и Феодосии, - но пусть стараются хитро

the risk of depriving them of even what they have.” The export of iron was prohibited under penalty of death.

Domitian, that timid sovereign, ordered the destruction of the vineyards in Gaul, of course, out of fear that wine would not attract barbarians there, as it once attracted them to Italy. Probus and Julian, who were not at all afraid of the barbarians, restored these vineyards.

I know that at a time of weakness of the empire, the barbarians forced the Romans to build warehouses for goods and trade with them. But this proves that the spirit of the Romans was opposed to trade.

CHAPTER XVI Concerning the Roman Trade with Arabia and India

Trade with Arabia and India was almost the only branch of foreign trade. The Arabs owned great wealth, which they extracted from their seas and forests; and since they bought little and sold much, they attracted gold and silver from neighboring countries. Augustus knew about their wealth and decided to make friends or enemies in them. He sent Aelius Gallus from Egypt to Arabia. The latter found the people there idle, peaceful and little accustomed to war. He fought battles, besieged cities and lost only seven soldiers; but the treachery of the guides, difficult marches, climate, hunger, thirst, disease and unsuccessful orders destroyed his army.

So, we had to be content only with the trade with the Arabs that other peoples conducted with them, that is, to give gold and silver for their goods. This is how they trade with them even now:

caravans from Aleppo and ships from Suep bring them huge sums.

Nature destined the Arabs for trade, and not at all for war. But, finding themselves neighbors of the Parthians and Romans, these peace-loving peoples became allies of both. Aelius Gallus found them still merchants; by the time of Mohammed they were already warriors; Mohammed inspired them with enthusiasm and they became conquerors.

Roman trade with India was significant. Strabo learned in Egypt that they used 120 ships for it, but this trade was supported only by Roman money. The Romans sent there 50 million sesterces every year. Pliny says that goods brought from India were sold in Rome 100 times more expensive than they cost locally. But I think that this is expressed in too general a sense, since if anyone really received such a profit, then everyone would rush after it, and, therefore, no one would receive it.

One can also ask whether their trade with Arabia and India was beneficial to the Romans. They had to send money there, but they didn’t have America, like we do, to reimburse us for our expenses. I am convinced that one of the reasons that forced the Romans to increase the nominal value of their coins, that is, to mint predominantly copper coins, was the rarity of money, resulting from their constant export to India. If the goods of this country were paid for a hundredfold in Rome, then such a profit could not serve to enrich the empire, since the Romans profited from the Romans themselves.

It can be said, on the other hand, that this trade developed the naval forces of the Romans, and therefore increased their power; that new goods strengthened internal trade, favored the development of crafts, and supported industry; that with the advent of new means of subsistence the number of citizens increased; that this new trade gave rise to luxury, which, as we have already proved, is as useful in the reign of one person as it is harmful in the reign of many; that the time of its appearance coincides with the time of the fall of the republic; that luxury in Rome was necessary and that the city, which attracted to itself all the riches of the world, had, of necessity, to return them through its luxury.

Strabo says that Rome carried on much more significant trade with India than the Egyptian kings. But isn’t it strange that the Romans, so little versed in trade, paid much more attention to trade with India than the Egyptian kings, who had it, so to speak, at hand. We need to explain this.

After the death of Alexander, the Egyptian kings established maritime trade with India, and the kings of Syria, who owned the remote eastern regions of the empire and, consequently, India, supported the trade we mentioned in Chapter VI, which was conducted by land and along rivers and which was greatly favored by the establishment of Macedonian colonies, so that Europe could communicate with India both through Egypt and through the Syrian kingdom. The collapse of this latter and the emergence of the Bactrian state on its ruins did not cause any harm to this trade. Marinus, a Tyrian, quoted by Ptolemy, speaks of discoveries made in India by several Macedonian merchants. What the expeditions sent by the kings failed to do, the merchants did. According to Ptolemy, they made expeditions beyond the Stone Tower and reached Sera; the discovery by the merchants was so

The foam region of northeastern China was a miracle in its own right. Thus, under the kings of Syria and Baktrni, the goods of South India went through the Ipd, Amu Darya and the Caspian Sea to the West; and the goods of the more distant eastern and northern countries went from the Brimstone, the Stone Tower and other storage places to the Euphrates. These merchants made their way, keeping approximately 40 degrees north latitude, through the countries to the west of China, which at that time were more civilized than now, since the Tatars had not yet had time to overrun them.

But while Syria was so assiduous in expanding its land trade, Egypt's sea trade increased very little.

The Parthians appeared and founded their state. When Egypt fell under Roman rule, this state was in full force and expanding its borders.

Rome and the Parthian state were two rival powers who fought each other not for dominance, but for existence. A desert formed between them; both empires were always in a state of combat readiness; There was not only no trade between them, but even no communication. Ambition, envy, hatred, religion, morals completely separated them. As a result, only one remained for trade between East and West, which previously had many routes, and Alexandria, which became the main storage place for this trade, began to grow rapidly.

I will only say one thing about domestic trade. Its main industry was the importation of grain to feed the Roman people, which related more to administration than to its own trade. The shipowners involved in this matter received some privileges, since the salvation of the state depended on their vigilance.

CHAPTER XVII About trade after the destruction of WesternRoman Empire

The Roman Empire was conquered, and one of the consequences of the general disaster was the destruction of trade. The barbarians at first saw in it only an object of robbery. When they settled in place, they showed no more respect for it than for agriculture and other industries of the conquered people.

Soon trade in Europe almost completely disappeared. The ruling nobility everywhere did not care about her at all.

Visigothic law allowed private individuals to occupy half of the beds of large rivers, provided that the other half remained free for fishing nets and boats; Apparently, in the countries conquered by the Visigoths, trade was very insignificant.

During these times, a reckless right of inheritance by the sovereign of the property of foreigners and coastal law was established. People believed that since they were not connected with foreigners by any provisions of civil law, they were not obliged to show them either justice or compassion.

Within the narrow borders within which the life of the northern peoples was confined, everything seemed alien to them, and given their poverty, everything seemed to them wealth. Before their conquests, they lived on the shores of the sea, hemmed in by rocks and strewn with underwater rocks; and they managed to benefit even from these stones.

But the Romans, who were the legislators of the universe, made very humane laws regarding shipwrecks; They curbed both the robbery of the coastal inhabitants and, more importantly, the greed of their treasury.

CHAPTER XVIII Special resolution

However, the Visigothic law contained one regulation favorable to trade. He ordered that mutual litigation between merchants who came from overseas be discussed according to the laws of their country and by their judges. This flowed from the custom that had taken root among all these mixed peoples, that everyone should live under the law of his people, about which I will talk a lot later.

CHAPTER XIX About trade after the weakening of the Romans in the East

The Mohammedans came, made conquests and divided. Egypt had its own separate sovereigns. He continued to trade with India. Having become master of the goods of this country, he attracted to himself the wealth of all other countries. Its sultans were the most powerful sovereigns of that time. We see from history how their constant and well-distributed forces triumphed over the ardor, zeal and indomitable courage of the crusaders.

Chapter XX How the trade worked outyour way in Europe among barbarism

The philosophy of Aristotle, transferred to Europe, appealed to people of refined minds, who in times of ignorance pass for smart people. The scholastics became addicted to it and borrowed from this philosopher many opinions about borrowing at interest, instead of being guided in this matter by the simple rules of the gospel. They condemned interest unconditionally in all cases. As a result of this, trade, which until then was the profession of people of low birth, has also become the profession of dishonest people, since by prohibiting any activity that is in itself permissible or necessary, we thereby only force the people who are engaged in it to be dishonest .

Then trade passed into the hands of the people, who at that time were considered contemptible, 116 and soon it was no longer distinguished from the most terrible usury, from monopolies and all dishonest means of obtaining money.

The Jews, who enriched themselves through their extortion, were in turn subjected to equally cruel robbery by the sovereigns, which consoled the people, but did not alleviate their situation,

What happened in England can be used to judge what happened in other countries. King John, wishing to take possession of the property of the Jews, imprisoned them, and rare of the prisoners did not have at least one eye gouged out there. This is how this king administered justice. One of the Jews, who had seven teeth pulled out, one a day, gave 10 thousand silver marks on the eighth day. Henry III demanded from the York Jew Aaron 14 thousand marks in silver for himself and K) thousand for the queen. In those days they showed brutal violence, doing what is now done in Poland somewhat more moderately. Unable to reach into the purse of their subjects because of their privileges, kings tortured Jews who were not considered citizens.

Finally, it became a custom to confiscate all property from Jews who converted to Christianity. We know about the existence of this strange custom from the law issued to abolish it. The reasons given for his explanation were absurd. They said that they wanted to test the Jews and completely cleanse them of the power of the devil. But it is obvious that this confiscation was for the king and lords a kind of compensation for the taxes that they collected from the Jews and which they were deprived of when the latter converted to Christianity. In those days, people were looked at as plots of land. I just want to note in passing how from century to century these people were mocked. Jews had their property confiscated when they expressed a desire to become Christians, and soon they began to be burned because they did not want to accept Christianity.

And yet trade made its way out of the very depths of violence and despair. The Jews, who were expelled alternately from one country and then from another, found a way to secure their property and thereby forever deprived the sovereigns of the opportunity to expel them, since the sovereigns, who very much wanted to get rid of them, had no desire to get rid of their money.

They invented the bill of exchange, by means of which trade was protected from violence and could be maintained everywhere, since thanks to it the property of the richest merchants took on an elusive form in which it could be transferred everywhere without leaving a trace anywhere.

The theologians were forced to limit their prescriptions, and trade, which had been forced into dishonor, returned, so to speak, to the bosom of honor.

So, we owe to the wisdom of the scholastics all the disasters that accompanied the destruction of trade, and to the greed of the sovereigns we owe the invention of a thing that in some way placed trade outside their arbitrariness.

From that time on, the sovereigns had to show prudence, which they had not previously thought of, since the inconsistency of harsh measures of power, established by experience, clearly proved that prosperity could be achieved only by meek governance.

States have begun to heal from Machiavellianism and will get rid of it more and more every day. All decisions will have to show greater moderation. What were once called emergency measures have now become, apart from the dire consequences of such actions, simply unwise actions.

It is a great happiness for people to be in a position which forces them to be good for their own benefit, while their passions inspire them with evil thoughts.

CHAPTER XXI Discovery of two new worlds; the state of Europe in connection with this event

The invention of the compass opened up, so to speak, the entire universe. Thanks to him, Asia and Africa, previously only very little known, and America, which was completely unknown, were discovered.

The Portuguese, sailing across the Atlantic Ocean, discovered the southernmost tip of Africa and saw before them a vast sea that led them to the East Indies. The dangers to which they were exposed in this sea, and the discoveries they made of Mozambique, Melinda and Calcutta, were sung by Ka Moens in a poem reminiscent of the charm of the Odyssey and the greatness of the Aeneid.

Until that time, the Venetians carried out trade through Turkish possessions, where they were subjected to all kinds of oppression and insults. As a result of the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope and other discoveries that followed, Italy ceased to be the center of the trading world; it remained, so to speak, in the corner of the universe, where it remains now. And even in trade with the East, which now depends on the trade carried on by strong nations with the two Indies, Italy plays only a secondary role,

The Portuguese traded with India as conquerors. The restrictive trade laws that the Dutch now impose on petty Indian sovereigns were established by the Portuguese before them.

The Austrian house was surprisingly happy. Charles V united Burgundy, Castile and Araga in his hands. he became an emperor, and, as if to exalt him even more, the universe expanded its boundaries and revealed a new world that submitted to his power.

Christopher Columbus discovered America, and although Spain sent no more troops there than any minor European sovereign could have sent, she still conquered two great empires and other large states,

While the Spaniards were discovering and conquering in the West, the Portuguese were advancing their conquests and discoveries in the East. Both These peoples met and asked Pope Alexander VI to resolve their claims, who settled this great dispute by drawing the famous demarcation line.

But other European nations did not allow them to calmly use this division: the Dutch ousted the Portuguese from almost the entire East Indies, and various nations founded their colonies in America 117.

The Spaniards first looked at the discovery of lands as a subject of conquest; more perspicacious peoples saw in them an object of trade and focused all their attention on it. Many of these peoples showed great prudence in giving power there to trading companies, which, governing these distant countries solely for commercial purposes, formed in them a kind of large additional states without any burden on the mother country 118.

The colonies founded there, whether they depend directly on the state or on some trading company existing in it, represent a unique form of dependence, which has almost no examples in the colonies of antiquity.

The purpose of these colonies is to carry on trade on better terms than those on which it is carried on with neighboring nations, all benefits being mutual. Moreover, it is accepted as a rule that only the metropolis can trade in the colonies; the rule is very thorough, since colonies are created with the aim of expanding trade, and not in order to found a new city or a new state.

From this follows the second fundamental law of Europe, by virtue of which any trade with a foreign colony is considered as a pure monopoly 119 punishable by the law of the country. One should not judge the law by the laws and examples of ancient peoples, which are not applicable here at all.

It is also accepted as a rule that trade established between metropolises does not extend to their colonies, where it remains prohibited at all times.

As for the inconveniences resulting to the colonies from the deprivation of their freedom of trade, they are clearly compensated by the protection of the mother country, which protects their trade with its arms and supports it with its laws.

This leads to the third law of Europe, according to which the prohibition of foreigners from trading with a colony entails the prohibition of navigation in the seas of these colonies, except in cases established by special treaties.

Nations, which are to the universe what private individuals are to the state, are governed, like these private individuals, by natural law and by laws which they have made for themselves. One nation can cede the sea to another, just as it would cede land to him. The Carthaginians demanded that the Romans limit their navigation to certain limits, just as the Greeks demanded that the king of the Persians not approach the sea shores closer than a horse's distance.

The extreme remoteness of our colonies does not constitute an obstacle to their safety, because if the mother country is too distant to defend them, then the nations rivaling the mother country are no less distant to conquer them.

In addition, this remoteness of the colonies has the consequence that the people who settle there cannot assimilate the way of life of a country with such an unusual climate for them and are forced to receive all the amenities of everyday life from the country from which they came. In order to keep the inhabitants of Sardinia and Corsica more dependent, the Carthaginians forbade them, under threat of death, to plant or sow anything, as well as any other activities of this kind, and you They showered them with food from Africa. We came to this without the help of such cruel laws, as exemplified by our excellent colonies in this regard in the Antilles: they have goods that we do not and cannot have, and need those that constitute the subject of our trade.

The discovery of America resulted in the rapprochement of Asia and Africa with Europe. Europe began to receive material from America for its trade with that vast part of Asia, which is called the East Indies. Silver, that metal so useful for trade as a sign of value, became as a commodity the subject of the most extensive trade in the world. Finally, sailing to Africa became necessary as a means of obtaining slaves there for the development of American mines and lands.

Europe has achieved a power unparalleled in history; it is enough to pay attention to its colossal costs, enormous obligations, numerous standing armies, which are maintained even when they are completely useless and serve only to satisfy vanity.

Dugald says China's domestic trade exceeds that of all of Europe. This might be true if our foreign trade were not added to our internal trade. Europe controls the trade and navigation of the other three parts of the world, just as France, England and Holland control the trade and navigation of almost all of Europe.

CHAPTER XXII Of the wealth extracted by Spain from America

If Europe received so many benefits from trade with America, then it would be natural to think that the greatest benefits fell to Spain. She exported from the New World a colossal amount of gold and silver, incomparably superior to what was available in Europe until that time.

But, what no one could have predicted, poverty was hot on her heels. Philip II, who succeeded Charles V, was forced to suffer a famous bankruptcy known to the whole world; Never before has any sovereign had to endure so much from the murmuring, insolence and indignation of his always poorly paid troops.

From this time on, the Spanish monarchy invariably tended to decline for the reason that in the very nature of its wealth there was an internal natural vice that destroyed them and became more and more visible every day.

Gold and silver are fictitious wealth, consisting of signs. These signs are very durable and by their very nature are destroyed very slowly. But the more their number increases, the more they depreciate, because they begin to represent fewer things.

Having conquered Mexico and Peru, the Spaniards abandoned the development of natural resources in pursuit of wealth consisting of these depreciating signs. Gold and silver were very rare in Europe. Spain, which suddenly became the owner of a huge amount of these metals, was carried away by hopes that it had never had before. The wealth she found in the conquered countries was only a small part of what was in their mines. The Indians hid some of this wealth; Moreover, this people, whose gold and silver served only to decorate the temples of their gods and the palaces of their sovereigns, did not seek these metals as greedily as we do; finally, he did not possess the art of extracting metals from any mines and developed only those mines where they are separated by fire, since he did not know the use of mercury, and perhaps even mercury itself.

Meanwhile, the amount of money in Europe soon doubled, which was reflected in the prices of all goods, which also doubled.

The Spaniards dug into mines, dug through mountains, invented machines for scooping up water, crushing ores and separating metals and, putting the lives of the Indians at nothing, mercilessly forced them to work. When the amount of money in Europe doubled, the profit received by Spain from it was halved, since every year it received the same amount of metal, which became half the price.

After some time, the amount of money doubled again, and the profit correspondingly halved.

It has even more than halved, and here's why.

To extract gold from the mines, process it properly and transport it to Europe, certain costs were required. Let us assume that their value is expressed by the ratio of 1 to 64; after the quantity of money had doubled and, consequently, its price had become half as much, the value of the costs was expressed in the ratio of 2 to 64, so that the ships that brought the same amount of gold to Spain were actually bringing there a product that was valued at half the price and cost twice as much expensive.

Walking. Thus, from doubling to doubling, we will discover how the causes of the depletion of Spanish wealth progressed.

American mines have been developed for about 200 years. Suppose that the amount of money now circulating in the commercial world is related to the amount that existed before the discovery of America as 32 to 1, i.e., that it has increased 5 times. After another 200 years, the same amount of money will skew to the amount before the discovery of America as 6-1 to 1, that is, it will double again. But now 50 quintals of gold ore yield 4, 5, or 6 ounces of pure gold, and when they yield not more than 2 ounces, the miner only covers the expenses he has incurred in extracting the gold. This means that in 200 years, when the same amount of ore will still yield no more than 4 ounces, the miner will only cover his costs, so gold mining does not promise to be profitable. The same should be said about silver, with the difference that the development of silver mines is slightly more profitable than gold mines.

If ever mines are found so rich that they will give greater profit, then the richer they are, the sooner the profit will cease.

The Portuguese had found so much gold in Brazil that the inevitable consequence must be a great reduction in the profits of the Spaniards, and also of themselves.

More than once I heard complaints about the short-sightedness of the advisers of Francis I, who rejected Christopher Columbus, who offered them India. In fact, perhaps, out of their foolishness, they acted very wisely. Spain became like that reckless king who asked the gods that everything he touched would turn into gold, and was forced to beg them to spare him from such a disaster.

Companies and banks founded by many nations completed the decline of gold and silver as signs of the value of goods, since by means of new fictions they multiplied these signs to such an extent that gold and silver lost their exclusive value and had to fall in price,

Thus, public credit replaced the mines and thereby further reduced the profitability of the Spanish mines.

True, the Dutch, through their trade with the East Indies, gave some value to Spanish goods, since in exchange for the products of the East they exported money and thereby freed Spain and Europe from some of the goods that were in abundance there.

This trade was equally beneficial both for the peoples involved in it and for Spain, which it seemed to affect only indirectly.

Based on all that has been said, one can judge the decrees of the Spanish council that prohibited the use of gold and silver for gilding and similar excesses. It's the same as if the Dutch states banned the consumption of cinnamon.

What I said does not apply to all mines in general:

the mines of Germany and Hungary, which yield very little above the cost of their development, are very useful. They are located on the territory of the state itself and provide employment to many people who consume the country's excess supplies. This is, strictly speaking, a domestic manufacture.

The mines of Germany and Hungary contribute to the development of agriculture, while the development of the mines of Mexico and Peru destroys it.

America and Spain are two powers subject to the same sovereign; but America is the main one, and Spain is only a secondary power. And in vain does politics want to attract the main power to the secondary one; America always attracts Spain.

About 50 million worth of goods are imported to America annually, with Spain's share being only 2.5 million. Thus America trades 50 million and Spain trades 2.5 million.

Income dependent on chance, not connected either with the industry of the country, or with the size of its population, or with its agriculture, constitutes the worst kind of wealth. The Spanish king, who receives enormous sums from his customs at Cadiz, is only a very rich man in a very poor state. Everything comes from foreigners to him almost without any participation of his subjects; this trade does not depend on the good or bad condition of his state.

This sovereign would have been much more powerful if he had received from any of the provinces of Castile the same amount that the Cadiz customs brought him. His personal wealth would then be a consequence of the wealth of his country; his prosperous provinces would influence all the others;

it would be easier for all of them together to bear common burdens, and instead of a great treasury, Spain would have a great people.

CHAPTER XXIII Task

It is not for me to decide whether it would not be better for Spain if she, not being able to lead the Torah herself, I trade with America, and gave freedom to foreigners to trade with it. I will only say that for her own benefit she should create as few obstacles to this trade as possible, as far as this is compatible with the interests of her policy. When goods brought to America by various nations are expensive, America gives in exchange for them a larger quantity of its goods, that is, gold and silver, than when they are cheap. Perhaps, in order to maintain low prices for these goods, it would be useful if the peoples bringing them to America tried to harm each other 120. These are the principles to be considered, without, however, separating them from other considerations, such as, for example, those which have in view the security of America, the utility of a single customs house, the dangers of great changes, and all the inconveniences that can be foreseen. , are often less dangerous than those that cannot be foreseen.

On political freedom and separation of powers

C. Montesquieu talks a lot about freedom in general in his work. He says that the word "freedom" has so many different meanings that it would be very difficult to remember everything. Everyone interprets this word in their own way. But when talking about political freedom, what the author means by it is not at all that you can do whatever you want. Freedom is the right to do everything that is permitted by law.

“Democracy and aristocracy are not states that are free by their very nature. Political freedom occurs only under moderate governments. However, it is not always found in temperate states; it occurs in them only when power is not abused there.”

Here S. Montesquieu gives the example of the government structure of England. And finally, he talks about the separation of powers, that each state has three types of power: executive, legislative and judicial. He writes about the separation of powers in this book because political freedom is inextricably linked with the separation of powers. The author believes that the state is not free as long as it does not have the separate above-mentioned branches of government. This is precisely the indicator of the political freedom of the state.

“In every state there are three types of power: legislative power, executive power in charge of issues of international law, and executive power in charge of issues of civil law. By virtue of the first power, a prince or institution makes laws, temporary or permanent, and amends or repeals existing laws. By virtue of the second power, he declares war or makes peace, sends or receives ambassadors, ensures security, prevents invasions. By virtue of the third power, he punishes crimes and resolves conflicts between private individuals. The latter power can be called the judicial power, and the second simply the executive power of the state.”

The writer says that under no circumstances should the legislative and executive powers be combined, otherwise the legislator may issue tyrannical laws and ensure their implementation. It is also impossible to combine the judicial power with the other branches. If united with the legislative power, the life and freedom of citizens will be at the mercy of arbitrariness, because the judge will become a legislator. This means that any sentence passed can be changed and interpreted as law in accordance with the mood and personal preferences of the judge-legislator. If the power is judicial and the power is executive, then the judge could oppress citizens because he executes the laws. S. Montesquieu cites the example of the Turks and Italy, where all three branches of government were united. In Turkey there is a terrible despotism, and in Italy there is less freedom than in monarchies. But in England, an excellent system of balance of powers has been established through laws.

In whose hands should the branches of power be concentrated? Answering this question, S. Montesquieu says that executive power should be concentrated in the hands of the monarch, because this side of government always requires quick action and is better carried out by one than by many.

Indeed, even in modern states, executive power belongs to the president (for example, in Russia) or the queen (in Great Britain). This turned out to be the optimal solution to the problem: in whose hands should the executive power be? C. Montesquieu dwelled on it in detail, and we still use this conclusion of his to this day.

But: everything that depends on the legislative power is often better established by many than by one.

“If there were no monarch, and if the legislative power were entrusted to a certain number of persons from among the members of the legislative assembly, then freedom would no longer exist: both powers would be united, since the same persons would sometimes use - they could always I would like to use that too. and other authorities. There would be no freedom even if the legislative assembly did not meet for a significant period of time, since then one of two things would happen: either legislative activity would cease completely and the state would fall into a state of anarchy, or this activity would take over. executive power, as a result of which this power would become absolute.”

If the executive and legislative branches of government do not have the right to suspend each other's actions, then the legislature may become despotic, since, being able to grant itself any power it desires, it will destroy all other branches of government. Executive power is limited by its nature, so there is no need to limit it in any other way.

This is approximately where S. Montesquieu’s description of political freedom in its relation to the political system ends. Next, he begins to describe political freedom in relation to the citizen. If in the first case it is established by the distribution of the three powers described above, then in the second case it should be considered from a different point of view; here it lies in the security or confidence of a citizen in his safety.

“Philosophical freedom consists in the unhindered manifestation of our will, or, at least (according to the general meaning of all philosophical systems) in our conviction that we exercise it unhindered. Political freedom lies in our security, or at least in our confidence that we are secure. This security is most often attacked in criminal proceedings on charges of a public or private nature. Therefore, the freedom of a citizen depends mainly on the good quality of criminal laws.”

C. Montesquieu also believes that laws that allow the death of a person based on the testimony of one witness are detrimental to freedom; that reason requires two witnesses, so that a third person, besides the accused and the accuser, will decide the problem.

Thus, political freedom in relation to the state system and political freedom in relation to the citizen are different concepts, and each of them contains something of its own. Namely: the political freedom of the state depends on the division of power into three branches and their mutual restraint on each other, and the political freedom of a citizen depends on the laws that operate in the state, as well as on its political security.

A state is free when one power restrains another, and a citizen is free when he is protected by law.

About laws in their relation to the properties of climate, and also about religion

The fourteenth book tells us about the laws in their relation to the properties of climate.

According to S. Montesquieu, the character of the mind and the passions of the heart are extremely different in different climates, therefore the laws must correspond to both the difference in these passions and the difference in these characters. He believes that in cold countries people are stronger, this depends on their physiological characteristics of the body. Therefore, in northern countries people are tougher and more able to control themselves. It is because of this that slavery is more developed in southern countries. For peoples living in hot climates, it does not seem such a punishment as it would seem to the north.

Here we can cite the example of Great Britain, which often emerged victorious from its many wars. Moreover, even now it has colonies, that is, states it has conquered in one way or another.

Also, S. Montesquieu himself cites America as an example; The despotic states of Mexico and Peru lie near the equator, and all the free tribes lived and still live closer to the poles.

Thus, the dependence of a country on another and the nature of laws are largely influenced by climatic conditions and the geographical location of the state.

C. Montesquieu does not forget about religion in his work. He believes that in general, religion depends on the type of government; “that a moderate form of government is more consistent with the Christian religion, and a despotic one with the Mohammedan religion.”

“Pure despotism is alien to the Christian religion; Thanks to the meekness so persistently prescribed by the gospel, she resists the indomitable anger that prompts the sovereign to arbitrariness and cruelty. While the Mohammedan rulers constantly sow death around them and themselves die a violent death, among Christians, religion makes the rulers less fearful, and therefore less cruel. The sovereign relies on his subjects, and the subjects rely on their sovereign.”

If we compare the character of the Christian and Mohammedan religions alone, we should unconditionally accept the first and reject the second, because it is much more obvious that religion should soften the morals of people than which of them is true.

Thus, religion also has a strong influence on the laws of a country. Even in modern states we can see that in many despotic countries the Mohammedan religion predominates, and in many republican countries the Christian religion predominates.

About trading

It is worth saying a few words about trade. C. Montesquieu devoted as many as 2 books of his work to it, which means he considered it an important point in the management process. Trade, in his opinion, is connected with the state system. The main purpose of trade under the rule of one is to provide the trading people with everything that can serve their vanity, pleasures and whims. Under the rule of many, according to S. Montesquieu, it is usually based on economy.

Trade has a great influence on laws, because it cures people of painful prejudices. It can be considered almost a general rule that wherever morals are gentle, there is trade, and wherever there is trade, morals are gentle. Thanks to trade, all peoples learned the customs of other peoples and were able to compare them. This led to beneficial consequences. But the spirit of trade, while uniting nations, does not unite individuals. In countries where people are animated only by the spirit of trade, all their affairs and even moral virtues become the subject of bargaining. At the same time, the spirit of trade gives rise to a feeling of strict justice in people: this feeling is opposite, on the one hand, to the desire for robbery, and on the other, to those moral virtues that encourage us not only to relentlessly pursue our own benefits, but also to sacrifice them for the sake of other people. It may be said that the laws of commerce improve morals for the same reason that they destroy them. Trade corrupts pure morals - Plato spoke about this. At the same time, it polishes and softens barbaric morals, for the complete absence of trade leads to robberies. Some nations sacrifice commercial interests for political ones. England has always sacrificed political interests for the sake of the interests of its trade. This people, better than any other people in the world, has been able to take advantage of three elements of great importance: religion, trade and freedom. Muscovy would like to abandon its despotism - and cannot. Trade, in order to become strong, requires bill transactions, but bill transactions are in conflict with all the laws of this country. Subjects of the empire, like slaves, do not have the right to travel abroad or send their property there without special permission - therefore, the exchange rate, which makes it possible to transfer money from one country to another, contradicts the laws of Muscovy, and trade by its nature contradicts such restrictions .

Here we can cite the example of Sparta, which was by nature a state with a military-democratic regime.

“The military-democratic regime of Sparta was based on state rather than private slavery, land ownership and even consumption. The Spartans were given land for hereditary use without the right to sell it. Citizens transferred to barracks regime practiced eating together. Every Spartan had to be a warrior, so a very strict collective system for educating young people was created. Trade and craft activities were not encouraged.”

Largely due to undeveloped trade relations, the morals of Sparta were cruel and contrary to morality and ethics.

Also, in all developed countries of the Middle Ages, trade developed and actively flourished. Thanks to her, they became developed. Italy, England, France - these are the countries that are the founders of the first direction of economic thought: mercantilism (a direction of economic thought that assumes an active trade balance - exports should exceed imports, accumulation of money in the treasury, patronage of domestic industry). And these countries are precisely classic examples of republics even at that time.

For example, one of the representatives of mercantilism, T. Maine, believed that “the wealth of a country is a set of material goods, consisting of natural resources and products of labor. Wealth is necessarily expressed in monetary form. T. Maine considered strict regulation of monetary circulation harmful and advocated the free export of coins, without which the normal development of foreign trade is impossible.

It should be noted that the mercantilist program in England was the most effective. Its implementation contributed in the 17th century to the creation of conditions for the transformation of England into the first industrial power in the world.”

Thus, C. Montesquieu, considering trade one of the important points in the management process, turned out to be right. After all, the integrity of its citizens largely depends on the wealth of the country.

J. Locke's concept of separation of powers

Without denying the decisive role of Charles Montesquieu in substantiating the classical version of the doctrine of separation of powers, it is necessary, however, to note that the ideas put forward by Montesquieu were not “the revelation of a previously unknown secret.” Connected with contemporary reality, they were based on the entire previous development of political thought (the doctrine of J. Locke on the separation of powers).

In the 40-60s. XVII century Representatives of some movements in England can find a clearly formulated provision about the inadmissibility of combining the legislative and executive powers in the hands of any one body of the state, otherwise there is a threat of despotism and the elimination of natural rights and freedoms. Constitutional projects embodying these ideas were also put forward. J. Locke gave the theory of separation of powers the character of a universal doctrine. He developed its main provisions: on the exercise of legislative power through an elected representative body, on the inadmissibility of a representative body to carry out the execution of laws, on the creation in this regard of a permanent body, etc. He wrote that in a constitutional state there can be only one supreme power - legislative, which everyone must obey. The king, as head of the executive branch, was called upon to “use the power of the state to preserve the community and its members.” His activities were strictly regulated by laws, obedience to which was his primary duty. The ministers who governed the country had to be responsible to parliament. Judges, as guardians of the laws, were recognized as independent of the will of the ruler. It was in the rule of laws that a guarantee of the security of the state as a whole and of each individual was seen.

J. Locke in his teaching claims that the state was created by mutual consent of people to protect their life, liberty and property. To accomplish this task, political power is given the power to make laws and to use the power of the community to enforce these laws. The legislative and executive powers are independent in their activities, but both of these powers have a supreme judge over them in the person of the people, who have the right to hold any power to account. The legislative power, represented by the people, has the exclusive right to make laws binding on everyone. Differing from each other in their functions, these powers, according to J. Locke, must be divided and transferred to different ones, because otherwise rulers have the opportunity to free themselves from subordination to laws and adapt them to their private interests.

Thus, the separation of powers was for J. Locke a matter of practical convenience and expediency. It denotes the main directions and principles of the study of political power: the separation and interaction of powers, the need for their connection and subordination, the representative nature of the legislative branch, the rule of law, the independence of judges.

One of the main ideas of J. Locke is that man is a material being by nature, subject to personal feelings, guided, first of all, by the desire for pleasure and the desire to avoid pain. Therefore, the weakness of human nature is manifested in susceptibility to temptation, the tendency to “cling to power.” Persons “who have the power to create laws may also, according to the English philosopher, want to concentrate in their hands the right to execute them and not obey the laws they create.” The key to understanding the relationship of powers in the state is J. Locke's thought about the supremacy of the legislative power, which becomes “sacred and immutable in the hands of those to whom the community has once entrusted it.”

The originality of J. Locke’s views lies in the fact that after the “Glorious Revolution”, in the conditions of the dominance of the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament in the public consciousness of England, he tried to determine the limits of power. Firstly, according to J. Locke, the legislature cannot delegate its legislative power to anyone else. Secondly, raising taxes and depriving property can only occur as a result of the consent of the entire people or interested parties. And, finally, perhaps the most important limitation on the power of parliament - the legislative branch "is obliged to administer justice and determine the rights of the subject by means of proclaimed permanent laws and known authorized judges." The significance of J. Locke's work lies not so much in defining the principles of the parliamentary model of separation of powers, but in trying to find guarantees against excessive concentration of power in the hands of a representative institution.

Thus, J. Locke and C. Montesquieu worked in the same direction, but Montesquieu, continuing J. Locke’s teaching on the separation of powers, revealed it in more detail, complementing and streamlining it.

In my opinion, C. Montesquieu managed to create an ideal model of the separation of powers, and also talk about who should own each power separately. Before him, no one had identified a special judicial power, although the administration of justice in some teachings was actually isolated. Having developed the theoretical foundations of the doctrine of separation of powers, C. Montesquieu put forward the idea of “balance” and mutual “restraints” of authorities, and also expressed the idea that all classes of society should be represented in government bodies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can draw the following conclusions: one of the main ideas of C. Montesquieu’s work “On the Spirit of Laws” is the idea of three types of government: republican government is one in which the supreme power is in the hands of either all the people or part of it; monarchical, in which one person rules, but through established, unchanging laws; whereas in the despotic, everything, outside of any laws and rules, moves by the will and arbitrariness of one person.

According to S. Montesquieu, one can distinguish three main types of political feeling, each of which ensures the stability of one or another form of government. A republic rests on virtue, a monarchy on honor, despotism on fear.

If two forms of government - republican and monarchical - are essentially different, since one is based on equality, and the other on inequality (since the first is based on the political virtue of citizens, and the second on the substitution of honor for virtue), then nevertheless these two systems have a common feature: they are moderate, there is no arbitrariness in them, no one rules without observing the laws. But when it comes to the third form of government, a despotic regime, then moderation ends here. In his description of the three types of government, C. Montesquieu gives a double classification of them, dividing them into moderate and immoderate. He considers the republic and monarchy as moderate types, but despotism is not.

Analyzing the republican order, C. Montesquieu advocates universal suffrage. He proves that the people can choose worthy leaders and control them. At the same time, he is against people from the people being elected to leadership positions. He sees the main flaw of the republic in the fact that it is led by the masses, acting “by the inclination of the heart, and not by the dictates of the mind.” He preferred a reasonable monarch based on laws.

Despite his sympathy for the enlightened monarchy, C. Montesquieu finds evidence in history of the well-known advantages of the republican system. He was opposed to the revolutionary overthrow of the monarchy and spoke out for a compromise with royal power.

S. Montesquieu speaks about the advantages of the republican regime: “Civil equality promotes the well-being of the population, while despotism leads to poverty and destitution for the overwhelming mass of people. In a republic, the wealth of the country leads to population growth. All republics are proof of this, and most of all Switzerland and Holland, the two worst countries in Europe, if we bear in mind the natural conditions of their territory, and yet the most populous.

Also, one of the main ideas of S. Montesquieu was the idea of separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of powers under the conditions of absolutism of that time served mainly to prevent lawlessness and arbitrariness on the part of the royal administration, and to ensure fundamental human rights and freedoms. This in itself undoubtedly had important progressive significance. The concept of separation of powers contributed to the strengthening of new, bourgeois social relations and the creation of an organization of state power corresponding to them.

Speaking about political freedom, C. Montesquieu divides it into the political freedom of the state and the political freedom of the citizen. If the political freedom of the state depends on the separation and mutual restraint of powers, then the political freedom of a citizen depends on his protection by law. This means that the country must have strong and fair laws, as well as their supremacy, that is, the authorities must also be subordinate to it.

In comparison with J. Locke, C. Montesquieu explored the topic of separation of powers in more detail, separated justice from other branches of government and was the first to write about the system of checks and balances.

C. Montesquieu paid much attention to the climate, geographical location of countries, as well as the religions that dominate them. His work said that these factors have a huge impact on the laws of the country, as well as on the management processes in them. In many ways, the modes of government in each country depend on these factors: how close or distant the country is from the equator, how cold or hot its climate is, and also what religion is professed by the vast majority of the population of a particular country.

C. Montesquieu paid great attention to trade. In his opinion, it is one of the determining factors influencing the laws of the country and the way of government.

The works and views of C. Montesquieu reveal the origins of liberalism as a state ideology, previously successfully developed in the publications of the English philosopher J. Locke and further established in the teachings of the Scottish economist Adam Smith.

The political and legal ideas of C. Montesquieu had a direct influence on the drafters of the US Constitution, the constitutional legislation of the period of the Great French Revolution, on the French Civil Code of 1804, as well as on modern principles of public administration and the processes of exercising power.

literature

Charles Louis de Montesquieu "On the Spirit of Laws".

Electronic variant. 463s.
Anikin A.V., Kostyuk V.N. and others. History of economic doctrines. Electronic variant. 235s. As the basis for the structure of the state mechanism
Abstract >> State and law B. political and legal theories. J Locke J. Ideas regarding the need and importance separation authorities regarding the need and importance separation were set out in his...appointment principles regarding the need and importance separation. Principle was largely not accepted by Marxism, concept
whom... B. political and legal theories. Thomas Hobbes and Locke
about natural law and natural law (2)
Abstract >> Philosophy B. political and legal theories. J...). The immediate social-class meaning of ideas O separation separation clear They ideologically justified that... landed nobility (Tory party). But regarding the need and importance separation concept
also contained a theoretical-cognitive... regarding the need and importance separation B. political and legal theories. J
Concept
... Abstract >> Political Science clear They ideologically justified that... landed nobility (Tory party). But regarding the need and importance separation Locke in the state into legislative, executive and federal. Chapter 2: "Main Ideas" regarding the need and importance separation concepts Jonah were set out in his...appointment principles regarding the need and importance separation ...
Locke" separation Separation
As the basis for the structure of the state mechanism
as a principle of the rule of law It was talked about separation separation B. political and legal theories. J (1632-1704). Thomas Hobbes and can be considered a job in the state into legislative, executive and federal. Chapter 2: "Main Ideas" regarding the need and importance separation //Locke" separation in his views... Eksmo”, 2008. 8. Terekhov V.I. Formation and development