本文主要比較孟德斯鳩與魁奈對於傳統中國專制政府思想研究之差異。析論孟德斯鳩與魁奈如何論證與觀察傳統中國專制政府，兩人憑藉的方法論與認識論為何？評判政府制度的價值標準為何？藉以描繪孟德斯鳩與魁奈眼中傳統中國政府的樣貌？孟德斯鳩是十八世紀啟蒙運動思想家中少數對於當時中國政府有專門著述討論者；儘管孟德斯鳩在其《論法的精神》一書中探討的中國政府是否足以為其專制政府理論的代表？其本人在不少地方即顯出自相矛盾之處，然多數是持負面的態度與看法。本文主要從孟德斯鳩對於傳統中國專制政府之經驗歸納的研究方法、實證的認識論與本體論之角度對於孟德斯鳩傳統中國專制政府理論做一深入的分析與探討。與此同時，啟蒙運動思想家中有另外一派的人關於當時中國政府理論與制度卻有不同的看法，主要以重農學派的魁奈(Francois Quesnay)在其《中華帝國的專制制度》一書為代表，其對於中國政府的看法持正面的肯定居多。面對同樣關於傳教士、旅行家與商人們紀錄當時中國的經驗事實資料，在同樣宣稱自然科學研究方法的立場下，魁奈卻提出與孟德斯鳩迥然不同的觀點與思考方式，對此一有趣的問題，本文將對此有一詳細的研究與評述。
孟德斯鳩與魁奈探討傳統中國專制政府所採取的自然科學研究方法與認識立場，這樣的研究方法與認識立場是否更為鞏固其藉以評判傳統中國專制政府的價值標準？在其宣稱客觀中立之經驗歸納的研究方法與經驗實證的認識立場是否在其背後已有某種的價值預設存在？孟德斯鳩與魁奈從其研究方法與認識立場所鞏固的價值標準是否剛好坐實某種西方中心主義的立場？藉著所謂客觀中立的經驗歸納研究方法與經驗實證的認識立場之名，實則貶抑或拒斥其他非西方文化價值評判標準的可能？因為其他非西方文化的價值標準可能無法從其所謂客觀中立的研究方法與認識立場所證成？本文將借用Thomas S. Kuhn「典範」與「不可共量」的等概念從方法論的角度，對此有一深入的反省。
如果孟德斯鳩對於傳統中國專制政府理論的論證，可以作為當前西方文化主體的代表；則魁奈對於傳統中國專制政府的觀察是否代表在西方文化的基礎上，存在著不同的價值，因而願意欣賞不同社群的價值標準與政府理論，但這樣的價值標準與政府理論是否為近代中國知識份子所忽略？則是值得吾人深思與反省的重要問題。

關鍵字：孟德斯鳩、魁奈、重農學派、專制政府、開明專制、中國專制政府、自然科學研究方法、理論負載、孔恩、典範、不可共量

This dissertation aims to contrast the differences between Montesquieu’s and Quesnay’s thoughts of China Despotism theory, to analyze the methodology and epistemology used by the two scholars to demonstrate and observe traditional China despotism, and, to expound and examine the description of traditional China despotism in Montesquieu’s and Quesnay’s thoughts. Montesquieu was a rare one among Enlightenment philosophers who profoundly discussed China Despotism in the eighteenth century. In the elaboration of Montesquieu’s China Despotism, there were lots of contradictions in De L'espirt Des Lois. Traditional China government was depreciated by him. From the empirical induce methodology, positivism epistemology and ontology’s point of view, this dissertation tries to deeply analyze and research Montesquieu‘s China Despotism. At the time, there were also some Enlightenment Philosophers who have a different view of China Despotism. The representative was a Physiocrat – Francois Quesnay. In his Le Despotisme De La Chine, he marked traditional China government positively. Quesnay, who developed his view based on the same empirical facts about traditional China according to the eighteenth century’s Jesuits, travelers and businessmen and with the same natural science methodology, had totally different views and thoughts about China Despotism from Montesquieu. This dissertation has a detailed study and review on these differences.
Questions will be explored in this dissertation are as below. Did the natural science methodology and epistemology of Montesquieu’s and Quesnay’s China Despotism strengthen the judgment of how they valued traditional China government? Were there pre-judgments in their so-called neutral and objective denouncement about the way they researched China Despotism in the empirical induce methodology and epistemology? Were Montesquieu’s and Quesnay’s judgments about China Depotism enhanced by the natural science methodology and epistemology a kind of western centralism? Did they, in the name of neutral and objective empirical induce methodology and epistemology that could not reason non-western value, refuse and devaluate other non-western value? This dissertation has a deeply reflection on these from the “paradigm” and “incommensurable” methodological concepts of Thomas S. Kuhn’s.
If Montesquieu’s China Despotism was the main point of western culture, was the way Quesnay observed traditional China government presenting a different value in the west culture and there were still some admiring this kind of value? Was this kind of evaluation neglected by recent Chinese intellects? This is a serious problem worthy of reconsideration and reflection.

Keywords: Montesquieu, François Quesnay, Physiocracy, Despotism, enlightened despotism, China Despotism, natural science methodology, theory laden, Thomas S. Kuhn, paradigm, incommensurable

目錄
第一章 前言 1
第一節 研究動機與研究目的 1
一、研究動機 1
二、研究目的 6
第二節 文獻探討、研究限制與章節安排 8
ㄧ、文獻探討與研究限制 8
二、章節安排 13
第三節 論證基礎 19
第二章 時代背景與思想淵源 27
第一節 孟德斯鳩與魁奈的時代背景 27
一、自然科學研究方法的影響 27
二、「理性」的意義 33
第二節 孟德斯鳩與魁奈專制政府觀點的思想淵源 38
第三節 小結 45
第三章 孟德斯鳩對於傳統中國專制政府之論證 47
第一節 研究方法的建立 48
一、自然科學研究方法的影響──經驗實證的研究 49
二、笛卡兒式理性主義的影響──邏輯演繹的推理 55
第二節 政府的性質與原則 60
一、個人意志的統治 60
二、恐怖統治的服從原則 62
第三節 政府與社會的關係 70
一、培養奴隸特質的教育 70
二、程序與內涵簡化的法律 71
三、政治自由的闕如 73
第四節 小結 85
第四章 魁奈對於傳統中國專制政府之觀察 87
第一節 研究方法的建立 88
一、自然法傳統的影響──邏輯演繹的論證 89
二、自然科學研究方法的影響──生物學的類比 95
第二節 政府的性質與原則 101
一、開明專制的統治 109
二、倫理道德的治理原則 115
第三節 政府與社會的關係 117
一、理性塑造的教育 117
二、倫理原則與健全制度的法律 119
三、政府控制的自由經濟 121
第四節 小結 129
第五章 對於孟德斯鳩與魁奈論證的幾個批判 131
第一節 研究方法的質疑 131
一、邏輯演繹的循環論證與歸納邏輯的休謨懷疑 131
二、自然科學研究方法的限制與錯置 140
第二節 政府性質與原則的探討 154
一、孟德斯鳩權力制衡與魁奈政府效率的價值對比 158
二、孟德斯鳩恐怖統治的循環論證與魁奈權力因素影響的忽略 162
第三節 政府與社會關係的分析 166
一、孟德斯鳩「禮教」的奴隸教育特質與魁奈「禮教」之自然情感的理性認識 166
二、孟德斯鳩維護貴族特權的法律與魁奈道德及政治合一的實在法 169
三、孟德斯鳩權力制衡體現的自由價值與魁奈政府效率展現的安定價值 170
第四節 小結 177
第六章 結論 181
參考文獻 187

中文部分
一、專書
1981 《論語》，十三經疏書本。台北：藝文印書館。
1981 《孟子》，十三經疏書本。台北：藝文印書館。
1981 《大學》，十三經疏書本。台北：藝文印書館。
(明)王夫之
1972 《船山遺書全集•讀通鑑論》，第14-15冊。台北市：自由出版社。
1988a 《黃書》，楊家駱編。台北：世界書局。
1988b 《俟解》，楊家駱編。台北：世界書局。
(明)呂留良
1978 《四書講義》，陳縱編次。台北：廣文書局。
(明)黃宗羲
1988 《明夷待訪錄》，楊家駱編。台北：世界書局。
(明)顧炎武
1984 《日知錄集釋》，楊家駱編。台北：世界書局。
(清)趙翼
1986 《廿二史劄記》。台北市：世界書局。
(清)李瀚章等纂
1975 《大清律例彙輯便覽》。台北：成文出版社。
(清)高舉
1969 《明律集解附例》。台北：成文出版社。
(清)張廷玉等敕修
1956 《明史》，全5冊。台北市：藝文印書館。
(清)王鴻緖纂
1984 《明史稿》，全7冊。台北市：文海書局。
(清)谷應泰撰
1966 《明史記事本末》，全10冊。台北市：藝文印書館。
(清)馬齊等奉敕撰
1964 《大清聖祖仁(康熙)皇帝實錄》，全6冊。台北市：華聯出版。
(清)鄂爾泰等奉敕撰
1964 《大清世宗憲(雍正) 皇帝實錄》，全3冊。台北市：華聯出版。
(清)慶桂等奉敕撰
1964 《大清高宗純(乾隆)皇帝實錄》，全30冊。台北市：華聯出版。
(清)鄭觀應
1965 《盛世危言增定訂新編》，吳相湘主編，中國史學叢書。台北：台灣學生書局。
(法)杜赫德編
2001 《耶穌會士中國書簡集：中國回憶錄》，全三卷，鄭德弟、朱靜等譯。鄭州：大象出版社。
Anderson, Perry.
2001 《絕對主義國家的系譜》，劉北成、龔曉莊譯。台北市：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
Becker, Carl L.
2002 《十八世紀哲學家的天城》，何兆武譯。台北市：左岸文化。
Berlin, Isaiah.
2005 《啟蒙的時代：十八世紀哲學家》，孫尚揚，楊深譯。南京：譯林出版社。
Cassirer, Ernst.
1989 《啟蒙運動的哲學》，李日章譯。臺北市：聯經。
Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de.
1997 《人類知識起源論(1746)》，洪洁求，洪丕柱譯。北京：商務印書館。
Desgraves, Louis.著
1997 《孟德斯鳩傳》，許明龍、趙克非譯。北京：商務印書館。
Diderot, Denis
1997 《狄德羅哲學選集》，江天驥，陳修齋，王太慶譯。北京：商務印書館。
Etiemble, Rene.
1994 《中國之歐洲》(L’Europe chinoise: De I’Empire romain à Leibniz)，上下卷，許鈞、錢林森譯。河南：河南人民出版社。
Galilei, Galileo
2005 《關於兩門新科學的對話》(Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences) ，Stephen Hawking編輯導讀，戈革譯。台北市：大塊文化。
Gay, Peter.
2008 《啟蒙運動》，梁永安譯。台北縣：立緒文化。
Higgs, Henry.
1972 《重農學派》(The Physiocrats)。台北：台灣銀行。
Hampson, Norman.
1987 《啟蒙運動》，李豐斌譯。臺北市:聯經。
Kepler, Johannes.
2005 《世界的和諧》(Harmonies of the World)，Stephen Hawking編輯導讀，張卜天譯。台北市：大塊文化。
Marx, Karl
1990a 《資本論》(第一卷)(Capital vol. 1)，吳家駟譯。台北：時報文化。
1990b 《資本論》(第二卷)(Capital vol.2)，吳家駟譯。台北：時報文化。
1990c 《資本論》(第三卷)(Capital vol.3)，吳家駟譯。台北：時報文化。
Newton, Issac
2005 《自然哲學之數學原理》(Principia) ，Stephen Hawking編輯導讀，王克迪譯。台北市：大塊文化。
Osterhammel, Jurgen.
2007 《亞洲去魔化：十八世紀的歐洲與亞洲帝國》，劉興華譯。台北市：左岸文化。
Reichwein, Adolf.
1991 《十八世紀中國與歐洲文化的接觸》(China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century.)，朱杰勤譯。北京：商務印書館。
Reill, Peter Hanns. and Wilson, Ellen Judy.
2004 《啟蒙運動百科全書》，劉北成，王皖強編譯。上海：上海人民出版社。
Russell, Bertrand.
2005 《西方哲學史》(下)(History of Western Philosophy- and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances From the Earliest Times to the Present Day.)，馬元德譯。台北：左岸文化。
Quesnay, Francios
2007 《魁奈經濟著作選集》，吳斐丹，張草紉選譯。北京：商務印書館。
Sabine, George H.
1991 《西方政治思想史》(A History of Political Theory)，李少軍，尚新建譯。臺北市：桂冠。
Schumpeter, Joseph A.
2001 《經濟分析史》(卷一)(History of Economic Analysis)，朱泱，孫鴻敞譯。台北：左岸文化。
Voltaire, Francois-Maire Arouer
2005 《哲學通信》(Letters Philosophique)，高達觀等譯。上海：上海人民出版社。
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
1996 《開放社會科學：重見社會科學報告書》(Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences.)，劉鋒譯。香港：牛津大學出版社。
中華民國七年國務院法制局重校天一閣本
1974 《宋刑統》。台北：文海出版社。
李瑞全
1993 《休謨》。台北市：東大圖書公司。
吳以義
2000 《牛頓》。台北市：東大圖書公司。
徐復觀
1993 《兩漢思想史》卷一。台北市：台灣學生書局。
曾國祥
2009 《主體危機與理性批判：自由主義的保守詮釋》。臺北市：巨流。
黃光國
2003 《社會科學的理路》。台北市：心理出版社。
張翰書
1987 《西洋政治思想史》。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。
國史館校註
1999 《清史稿校註》，第一冊。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。
侯鴻勳
1983 《孟德斯鳩》。台北：東大書局。
趙建民
1994 《威權政治》。台北市：幼獅。
施治生與劉欣如編
1993 《古代王權與專制主義》。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
盧瑞鍾
1990 《誅殺暴君的權利：暴君放伐理論新探》。台北市：時英出版社。
孫哲
1995 《獨裁政治學》。台北市：楊智文化。
劉澤華、汪茂和與王蘭仲
2005 《專制權利與中國社會》。天津：天津古籍出版社。
孔令侃
1970 《暴君政治》，全二冊。台北市：正中書局。
郭成康
2001 《十八世紀的中國政治》。台北市：聯經。
熊月之
1990 《像專制主義告別──中國近代民主思想歷程》。香港：中華書局。
梁啟超
1972a 《飲冰室文集》，第一冊。台北：中華書局。
1972b 《飲冰室文集》，第二冊。台北：中華書局。
1972c 《飲冰室文集》，第三冊。台北：中華書局。
陳顧遠
1935 《中國法制史》。上海：商務印書館。
1977 《中國法制史概要》。台北市：三民書局。
陳瑞麟
2001 〈《科學革命的結構》之後〉，收於朱元鴻和傅大為編，《孔恩：評論集》。臺北市：巨流。
傅大為
2001 〈H2O的一個不可共量史──重論「不可共量性」及其與意義理論之爭〉，收於朱元鴻和傅大為編，《孔恩：評論集》。臺北市：巨流。
談敏
1992《法國重農學派學說的中國淵源》。上海：上海人民出版社。
蕭一山
1963 《清代通史》，全五冊。台北：商務印書館。
蕭公權
1988 《中國政治思想史》。台北市：中國文化大學出版部。
錢穆
1988 《中國歷代政治得失》。台北：東大圖書股份有限公司
戴炎輝
2000 《中國法制史》。台北：三民書局。
薩孟武
1991a 《中國社會政治史》(一)。台北：三民書局。
1991b 《中國社會政治史》(四)。台北：三民書局。
1992 《中國政治思想史》。台北：三民書局。
嚴復
1937 《孟德斯鳩法意》。上海：商務印書館。
二、期刊論文
王仲君
1998 〈”政府之手”：魁奈的國家干預論〉，《渭南師範學院學報》，15卷5期，頁19-23。
1999 〈利益機制與”政府之手”──魁奈的市場經濟運行模式理論〉，《經濟科學》，5期，頁123-128。
朱浤源
2004 〈孟德斯鳩、韋伯、費正清與中國史研究的新方向及發現〉，《興大歷史學報》，15期，頁139-162。
朱靜
2002 〈孟德斯鳩的”中國印象”之印象〉，《復旦學報》，2期，頁86-92。
李禹价與冀伯祥
2007 〈”重農”與”困農”──評魁奈對中國古代重農思想的認識〉，《重慶師範大學學報》，3期，頁5-10。
何解定
1999 〈評魁奈的重農主義思想〉，《零陵師範高等專科學校學報》，20卷2期，頁25-28。
周憲文
1977a 〈孟德斯鳩(Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu 1689-1755)年譜〉，《東方雜誌》，11卷1期，頁33-38。
1977b 〈François Quesnay年譜(1694-1774)〉，《臺灣經濟金融月刊》，13卷11期，頁55-59 。
曾國祥
2004，〈社會科學的經驗主義危機〉，《政治學報》，38期，頁171-213。
陳俊龍
2002 〈魁奈經濟政策之探討〉，《東吳經濟商學學報》，36期，頁1-21。
薛世平
2002 〈一個對孟德斯鳩有深刻影響的莆田人──黃嘉略〉，《福建師範大學福清分校學報》，54期，頁15-17。
曹希岭與曾光梅
2007 〈孟德斯鳩論東方專制主義〉，《魯東大學學報》，24卷4期，頁14-17。
曹希岭
2004 〈孟德斯鳩對東西方政體與法制的比較研究〉，《河北法學》，22卷1期，頁12-15。
黃忠晶
2004 〈孟德斯鳩論中國政體〉，《天中學刊》，19卷3期，頁46-48。
2007 〈孟德斯鳩論中國的德政〉，《遼東學院學到》，9卷2期，頁46-48-。
龔鵬程
2001 〈孟德斯鳩的中國觀〉，《國際論壇》，2期，頁1-51。
外文部分
Abrahamian, Ervand.
1974 “Oriental Despotism: The Case of Qajar Iran,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 5(1): 3-31.
Albaum, Martin.
1955 “The Moral Defenses of the Physiocrat’s Laissez-Faire,” Journal of the History of Ideas. 16(2): 179-197.
Althusser, Louis.
2007 Politics and History, trans. by Ben Brewster. London: Verso.
Almond, Gabriel A. and Genco, Stephen J.
1977 “Clouds, Clocks, and the study of Politics,” World Politics 29(4): 489-522.
Anderson, Perry.
1978 Lineages of the Absolutist State. London and New York: Verso.
Arendt, Hannah.
1973 The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Aristotle
1988 The Politics, ed. by Stephen Everson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aron, Raymond.
1968 Main Currents in Sociological Thought: v. 1. Montesquieu, Comte, Marx, Tocqueville, and The Sociologists and The Revolution of 1848. trans. by Richard Howard and Helen Weaver. New York: Doubleday.
Aspromourgos, Tony.
1989 “The Theory of Production and Distribution in Cantillon's Essai,” Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, 41(2): 356-373.
Beales, Derek.
2005 Enlightenment and Reform in Eighteenth-Century Europe. London and New York: I. B. Tauris.
Becker, Carl Lotus.
1932 The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Berlin, Isaiah.
1950 “Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century” Foreign Affairs 28(3): 351-387.
1981 Against The Current-Essays in the History of Ideas-Montesquieu. London: Oxford University Press.
1991 The Crooked Timber of Humanity. Glasgow: Fontana Press.
2000 Three Critics of the Enlightment: Vico, Hamann, Heder. London: Pimlico.
Bobbio, Norberto.
1989 Democracy and Dictatorship, trans. by Peter Kennealy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Boesche, Rpger.
1990 “Fearing Monarchs and Merchants: Montesquieu’s Two Theories of Despotism,” The Western Political Quarterly 43(4): 741-761.
Carrithers, David W.
2001 “ Introduction: An Appreciation of The Spirit of Laws” in David W. Carrithers, Michael A. Mosher, and Paul a. Rahe eds., Montesquieu’s Science of Politics. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Cassirer, Ernst.
1968 The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, trans. by Fritz C. A. Koelln and James P. Pettegrove. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cavanaugh, Gerald J.
1969 “Turgot: The Rejection of Enlightened Despotism,” French Historical Studies 6(1): 31-58.
Charbit, Yves. and Virmani, Arundhati.
2002 “The Political Failure of an Economic Theory: Physiocracy,” Population 57(6): 855-883.
Cirakman, Asli.
2001 “From Tyranny to Despotism: The Enlightment’s Unenlighted Image of The Turks,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 33(1): 49-68.
Clarke, J. J.
1997 Oriental Enlightenment. London and New York: Routledge.
Cohler, Anne M.
1988 Montesquieu's Comparative Politics and The Spirit of American Constitutionalism. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas Press.
Cobban, Alfred.
1960 In Search of Humanity: The Role of the Enlightenment in Modern History. London: Jonathan Cape.
Conroy, Peter V. Jr.
1992 Montesquieu Revisited. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Courtney, C. P.
2001 “Montesquieu and Natural Law,” in David W. Carrithers, Michael A. Mosher, and Paul A. Rahe eds., Montesquieu’s Science of Politics: Essays on The Spirit of Laws. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Creel, H. G.
1964 “The Beginnings of Bureaucracy in China: The Origin of the Hsien,” The Journal of Asian Studies 23(2): 155-184.
Davis, Walter W.
1983 “China, the Confucian Ideal, and the European Age of Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 44(4): 523-548.
Eaton, William Joseph
2006 “The Old Regime and the Middle Kingdom: The French Physiocrats and China as a Model for Reform in the Eighteenth Century, a Cautionary Tale,” Tamkang Journal of International Affairs 10(1): 55-95.
Einaudi, Mario.
1938 The Physiocratic Doctrine of Judicial Control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fontaine, Philippe.
1996 “The French Economists and Politics, 1750-1850: The Science and Art of Political Economy,” The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d'Economique 29(2): 379-393.
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth
1976 The Origins of Physiocracy : Economic Revolution and Social Order in Eighteenth- Century France. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Gay, Peter.
1977 The Enlightenment: An Interpretation- The Science of Freedom. New York: Knopf.
Gide, Charles.
1956 “The Physiocrats,” trans. by R. Richards in Charles Gide and Charles Rst A History of Economic Doctrines: From the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day. London: George G. Harrap & Co. LTD.
Gudeman, Stephen F.
1980 “Physiocracy : A Natural Economics,” American Ethnologist. 7(2): 240-258.
Hampson, Norman.
1968 The Enlightenment. Harmondsworth : Penguin.
1983 Will & circumstance :Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the French Revolution. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Hanson, Norwood Russell.
1965 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hazard, Paul.
1973 European Thought in the Eighteenth Century: From Montesquieu to Lessing. Ohio: The World Publishing Company.
Henshall, Nicholas.
1992 The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy. London and New York: Longman
Hobson, John M.
2004 The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, R. L.
1930 “A Chinese Mirror,” The British Museum Quarterly 5(2): 57-58.
Hudson, G. F.
1961 Europe & China: A Survey of Their Relations from the Earliest Times to 1800. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hume, David.
1949 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding And Selections From A Treatise of Human Nature. L.A., Salle, Illinois: The Open Court Publishing Company.
Hung, Ho-Fung.
2003 “Orientalist Knowledge and Social Theories: China and the European Conceptions of East-West Differences from 1600 to 1900,” Sociological Theory 21(3): 254-280.
Jones, Robert Alun.
1994 “Ambivalent Cartesians: Durkheim, Montesquieu, and Method,” The American Journal of Sociology. 100(1): 1-39.
Kaise, Thomas.
2000 ” The Evil Empire? The Debate on Turkish Despotism in Eighteenth-Century French Political Culture,” The Journal of Modern History 72(1): 6-34.
Keith, Ronald C.
1991 “Chinese Politics and the New Theory of "Rule of Law",” The China Quarterly 125: 109-118.
Krause, Sharon R.
2002 ” The Uncertain Inevitability of Decline in Montesquieu,” Political Theory 30(5): 702-727.
Kuhn, Thomas.
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1965a “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research.,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1965b “Reflections on My Critics.,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1977 The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2000 “What Are Scientific Revolution?.,” in James Conant and John Haugeland eds., The Road Since Structure: Philosophy Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Laski, Harold Joseph.
1936 The Rise of Liberalism. London and New York: Harper.
Liebel, Helen P.
1965 “Enlightened Bureaucracy versus Enlightened Despotism in Baden, 1750-1792,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 55(5): 1-132.
Linz, Juan J.
1975 “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes” in Fred I. Greenstein, and Nelson W. Polsby eds., Handbook of Political Science. Vol. 3, Macropolitical Theory. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Lowe, Lisa.
1990 ” Rereadings in Orientalism: Oriental Inventions and Inventions of the Orient in Montesquieu's "Lettres persanes",” Cultural Critique 15: 115-143.
Macfarlane, Alan.
2000 The riddle of the modern world :of liberty, wealth and equality. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Manicas, Peter T.
1987 A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Masterman, Margaret.
1965 “The Nature of a Paradigm.,” in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave eds., Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masterson, M. P.
1972 ”Montesquieu's Grand Design: The Political Sociology of 'Esprit des Lois',” British Journal of Political Science 2(3): 283-318.
Maverick, Lewis Adams.
1946 China a Model for Europe v. I: China’s Economy and Government Admired by Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Europe. San Antonio: Paul Anderson.
Merrick, Jeffrey.
1998 “The Body Politics of French Absolutism” in Sara E. Melzer and Kathryn Norberg eds., From The Royal to the Republican Body: Incorporating the Political in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth- Century France. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de.
1990 The Spirit of Law, trans. and eds. by Ann M. Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(為了引註方便，文中將本書簡稱為SL)
1973 Persian Letters, trans. by C. J. Betts. London: Penguin.
1759 Miscellaneous pieces of M. de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. London: D. Wilson and T. Durham. http://huso2.stpi.org.tw.ezproxy.lib.nsysu.edu.tw:8080/EP_ECCO/1A_BrowsePages.php?PHPSESSID=3fec103c57efc30085b489a94ca518e1&Pact=init#
1750 The Spirit of Law, trans. by Thomas Nugent. London: printed for J. Nourse and P. Villant.
1800a The Spirit of Law, in The Works of M. de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. vol. I. London: printed for Vernor & Hood.
1800b Consideration on the Cause of the Grandeur and Declension of the Roman Empire, in The Works of M. de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu. vol. III. London: printed for Vernor & Hood.
Neill, Thomas P.
1948 “Quesnay and Physiocracy,” Journal of the History of Ideas 9(2): 153-173.
Neumann, Franz L.
1949 “Introduction,” in Thomas Nugent trans., Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws. New York: Hafner Publication.
Newton, Issac, Sir.
1947 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World. Translated into English by Andrew Motte in 1729, trans revised. by Florian Cajori. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1952 Optics: or A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colors of Light. Based on the Fourth edition London 1730, New York: Dover Publications.
Oakeshott, Michael.
1993 Morality and Politics in Modern Europe-The Harvard Lecture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Outhwaite, William.
1987 New Philosophy of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. London: Macmillian.
Outram, Dorinda.
2005 The Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pangle, Thomas L.
1973 Montesquieu’s Philosophy of Liberalism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
1990 “The Philosophic Understandings of Human Nature Informing the Constitution,” in Allan Bloom ed., Confronting the Constitution :the challenge to Locke, Montesquieu, Jefferson, and the Federalists from utilitarianism, historicism, Marxism, Freudianism, pragmatism, existentialism. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press.
Plamenatz, John.
1991 Man and society :political and social theories from Machiavelli to Marx: v. 2. From Montesquieu to the early socialists. New York: Longman.
Popper, Karl R.
1957 The poverty of historicism. London: Routledge.
1968 Conjectures and refutations : the growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Haper & Row.
1972 Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Quesnay, Francios
1767 Despotism in China, trans. by Lewis Adams Maverick in China a Model for Europe v. II. San Antonio: Paul Anderson.
Richter, Melvin.
1969 “Comparative Political Analysis in Montesquieu and Tocqueville,” Comparative Politics 1(2): 129-160.
1977 The Political Theory of Montesquieu. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2002 “Montesquieu’s theory and practice of the comparative method,” History of the Human Sciences. 15(2): 21-33.
Robin, Corey.
2000 “Reflection on Fear: Montesquieu in Retrieval,” The American Political Science Review 94(2): 347-360.
Roney, Lois.
1994 “Winner and Waster's "Wyse Wordes": Teaching Economics and Nationalism in Fourteenth-Century England,” Speculum 69(4): 1070-1100.
Rowbotham, Arnold H.
1950 “China in the Esprit Des Lois: Montesquieu and Mgr. Foucquet,” Comparative Literature 2(4): 354-359.
Samuels, Warren J.
1961 “The Physiocratic Theory of Property and State,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 75(1): 96-111.
1962 “The Physiocratic Theory of Economic Policy,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 76(1): 145-162.
Schachter, Gustav.
1991 “Francois Quesnay: Interpreters and Critics Revisited, “ American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50(3): 313-322.
Scott, Hamish M. ed.
1990 Enlightened Absolutism: reform and reformers in later eighteenth-century Europe. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Shklar, Judith N.
1987 Montesquieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sondrol, Paul C.
1991 “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 23(3): 599-620.
Stark, Werner.
2001 Montesquieu: Pioneer of the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Steiner, Philippe.
2007 “Physiocracy and French Pre-Classical Political Economy,” in Samuels Warren J., Biddle Jeff E., and Malden John B. Davis eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. MA : Blackwell.
Sun, Lung-Kee.
1992 “Social Psychology in the Late Qing Period,” Modern China 18(3): 235-262.
Taylor, O. H.
1930 “Economics and the Idea of Jus Naturale,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 44(2): 205-241.
Taylor, Charles.
1985 Philosophy and the Human Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Venturi, Franco.
1963 “Oriental Despotism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 24(1): 133-142.
Wakeman, Jr. Frederic.
1973 ” The Chinese Mirror,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 31(1): 208-219.
Walzer, Michael
1983 Sphere of Justuce: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.
Winch, Peter.
1967 The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wittfogel. Karl A.
1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1969 ” Results and Problems of the Study of Oriental Despotism,” The Journal of Asian Studies, 28(2): 357-365.
Young, David.
1978 “Montesquieu’s View of Despotism and His Use of Travel Literature,” The Review of Politics 40(3): 392-405.