ABSTRACT This essay seeks to clarify a facet of Montesquieu’s doux-commerce thesis. On the one hand, I agree with the scholarly consensus that Montesquieu was a doux-commerce thinker. Indeed, I argue that from the Persian Letters to The Spirit of the Laws he consistently presented self-interest as a psychological spring of action superior in point of humanity to virtue (the spring of ancient republics like Rome and Sparta). On the other hand, I contend that he went out of his way (...) to show that commercial regimes need not be characterized by ‘softness’ (mollesse), even if they are marked by ‘gentleness’ (douceur). Not only are these qualities conceptually distinct, but there is no reason (Montesquieu suggested) why they must go together in practice. Keeping in mind the distinction between douceur and mollesse helps to establish that Montesquieu made not only a doux-commerce argument but also a dur-commerce argument. In other words, he maintained that commerce went hand-in-hand with hardiness and vigour, as well as gentleness. (shrink)