Joseph De Maistre (1753-1821) painted by Carl Christian Vogel von Vogelstein
Available from Amazon and directly from the publisher, Imperium Press
Book Length: 348 pages
Among philosophers, Joseph de Maistre rests among the truly great. Yet, most have not heard of him, even in Catholic circles—despite his masterful defense of the Church against the errors of the so-called and ill named “Enlightenment”—a sad injustice that the publication of this volume seeks to rectify. His profound insights and observations, which shine forth the light of divine truth amid a deluge of darkness, are well worth a rediscovery by modern readers.
This first volume contains what were originally three separate works, which are in the order of their presentation in this book: Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and Other Human Institutions, Considerations on France, and Study on Sovereignty.
Essay on the Generative Principle is the shortest of these three works, but that does not mean it should be overlooked. The reason for this is that certain important points which were only briefly discussed in the other two works are given an excellent treatment in this one. Maistre’s focus here is on the nature of political constitutions, as the title implies. And on that point, it is well worth adding that despite the seemingly boring implication of that title, this is a fascinating read for those who enjoy contemplating the things of politics and society.
His main point in this brief work is that constitutions, if they are to truly last, are only written as a record of previous political traditions and rights. Maistre uses the analogy of how, in the course of Church History, ecumenical councils were only called to clarify teachings by defining them, in order to better defend truth from the assault of the heretic, though they had been believed beforehand. The count tells us:
Never, doubtless, would those Englishmen have demanded the Magna Carta if the privileges of the nation had not violated; nor would they have asked for it unless these privileges had existed before the Charter. It is the same for the Church as for the State: if Christianity had never been attacked, it would have never written in order to establish its dogma; but dogma has never been established in writing except where it existed in its natural state, which is that of speech.
(17)1
Maistre expands on this point in this and his other works by stating that the origin of the state, of civil society, is both divine and organic. Furthermore, in a society that follows the natural law at the very least, there is sure to be a process of organic development in which unwritten traditions are passed down from generation to generation. However, men being fallen, eventually there comes a time where these traditions must be transmitted from speech to writing.
Despite the great depth which the author treats his subject, he still finds a way to comment without wasting his words on other subjects. Particularly, his treatment of language, which only reinforces the teachings of Divine Revelation, is a superb response to the claims of the erring Deconstructionists.
Considerations on France is the most well-known of Maistre’s many writings, and for good reason; it is both a brilliant polemical work aimed against the Revolution itself, and an engrossing meditation on the spiritual causes and effects of that chastisement. Though he wrote this book as that deluge of violence was ongoing, the Savoyard count did not doubt the ways of Providence upon hearing of the horrors and outrages it spawned. He rightly saw the Revolution as a punishment allowed by God upon France for her abuse of her status as the Eldest Daughter of the Church, which one can find ample evidence of (among other things) in the case of the Gallican heresy.2 Thus, with superb clarity he writes:
It was necessary that the great purification be accomplished and that eyes be opened; it was necessary that the metal of France, purged of its sour and impure dross, should devolve cleaner and more malleable upon the hands of a future King.
(62)
With the hindsight of over two hundred years since those words were written, they have been proven correct to a striking degree. Though the Restoration left much to be hoped for when it eventually happened (as Maistre himself thought),3 one cannot honestly examine that chapter in the history of France and remain dim to the abundant graces God poured out upon that nation. Seeds were planted in that time which survived the overthrow of the monarchy by another revolution in 1848, seeds that one day blossomed into magnificent fruits. Consider the revelation of the Miraculous Medal to St. Catherine Labouré (1830), the revelations of the Holy Face Devotion to Sister Mary of Saint Peter (1844), and of course, how can one leave out the apparition of the Immaculate at Lourdes (1858)?
Is it any coincidence that God worked through the French to give the Universal Church these devotions, as a means of returning their nation to the role He assigned it?
There are also a happy number of French saints and servants of God who lived around that time as well, such as Blessed Marcellin Champagnat (1789-1840), St. John Marie Vianney (1786-1859), Venerable Pauline Jaricot (1799-1862), the aforementioned St. Catherine Labouré (1806-1876), and St. Bernadette (1844-1879).
A true reactionary is one who desires to restore the rights of Christ the King, as all of those aforementioned souls did. For to be a reactionary is not merely political in nature; no, it is far more than this. Too many self-proclaimed “reactionaries” today lose that point, stunted by their preoccupying reactions to the news of things around them that they cannot control. I refer primarily to the movement which has become known as “Neo-Reaction” (NRx) or the “Dark Enlightenment”. This movement held promise in the beginning, but because it lost the proper sense of what reactionaries are supposed to be fighting for, it therefore lost its power. One cannot be a modernist or even a secular reactionary; this is a contradiction in terms, yet such contradictions filled that movement. If we are to understand this term and live it in truth, we must go back to the meaning which Maistre generously gave us all those years ago:
…[W]hen man works to restore order, he associates himself with the Author of order; he is favored by nature, that is, by the ensemble of secondary forces which are the ministers of the Divinity. His action has something of the divine in it, being at once gentle and imperious; it forces nothing, and nothing resists it: in arranging, it restores health: as it acts, we see disquiet calmed, that painful agitation which is the effect and the symptom of disorder; just as, under the hand of the skilled surgeon, it is apparent by the cessation of pain that the dislocated joint has been put right.
(126)
Since there is no other order beside that which has been created by Our Heavenly Father, and there can be no other true religion outside of the Church founded by Christ, the reactionary, therefore, must be Catholic. To restore a historically Protestant or even a Mohammedan society polluted by Liberalism is to restore an older error in favor of a younger one. Such a society, though it may be traditional in a certain sense, will never provide true happiness to its members. Furthermore, the Revolution to which Maistre responds in this work sought to eradicate the Catholic civilization of France, though the assault was not limited to that nation alone. The Revolution, after all, was a demonic onslaught against Christendom—something which became more evident when the Napoleonic Empire later swept through Europe and infected her nations with a less extreme Jacobinism. This comparative moderation made this flavor of revolutionary ideology far more influential, and therefore far more dangerous, for the errors that stand in the middle between black and white prove the most tempting. It was from this moderate Jacobinism which spawned Liberalism, and it was against this moderation that the original reactionaries fought against.
Maistre, therefore, unlike later commentators, successfully identified the root causes of the Revolution and the response which was needed to defeat it.
Study on Sovereignty is a deeply engrossing refutation of the false principles circulated by Jean Jacques Rousseau, a philosopher key to both the Liberal and Marxist schools of thought. In an incredibly satisfying manner, Maistre exercises great wit in using the very words of Rousseau to illustrate the many contradictions contained in the Genevan’s thought. Commenting a protestation of Rousseau against the philosophers of the period, Maistre writes:
“If you count their voices,” said he, “each speaks for himself.” Behold, all at once, the condemnation of philosophy and the charter of philosophy inflicted on Rousseau by Rousseau himself. What is philosophy in the modern sense? It is the substitution of individual reason for national dogmas; and it is for this that Rousseau has worked all his life, his indomitable pride having constantly thrown himself into trouble with all sorts of authority. Rousseau is, therefore, a philosophe, since he has only his own voice which has not the slightest right over that of others.
(221)
The pages of this work are littered with such excellent utterances as these; and considering that Rousseau’s thought has a pronounced influence in our times, it makes the reading of this work all the more rewarding. Maistre leaves significant room here for a salient apologia for monarchy, and does well in establishing a framework for understanding the origins of civil society rooted, as it must be, in both faith and reason. One also finds, as in his other works, sentences which are very applicable to our time, almost to the point of sounding prophetic. For example:
But of all monarchs, the harshest, most despotic, most intolerable is the monarch people. Again, history testifies in favour of this great truth, that the liberty of the few is founded upon the slavery of the multitude…
(277)
Indeed, such a sentence could well be uttered in our time, and it proves even more truthful. It would seem that wretched Herod could not have been more intolerable in his slaughter of the Holy Innocents than the monarch people in the historically Catholic nations of Argentina and Ireland, who only some years ago voted to legalize abortion in the name of “women’s health”? To endorse the death of the unborn is worse, far worse, than to endorse the enslavement of millions, as did happen in the Roman Republic. This is not to say that the modern republics have succeeded in abolishing slavery; no, it is evident they have not. The more common notion of slavery still exists in the world, it has only been renamed to “human trafficking”. Moreover, and more intimate to Maistre’s point, is that intrinsic to the functioning of modern republics is the existence of many citizens who, in reality, live not as citizens but as slaves—slaves to sin and debt. Thus in this place, as in many other places in this volume, there is ample room for Catholics to reflect.
Therefore, to any Catholic I unreservedly recommend the reading of this volume—especially to those who have a disposition for politics. Maistre addressed many things that modern right wing commentators, even dissident ones, struggle to address, and therefore one cuts to the chase by reading him. There is also a refreshing absence of the despair in his writings; hope animates him, which is unsurprising, for he was both a hearer and a doer of the Word. I prayerfully hope that the thought of this great man be disseminated as far as possible, so that my brothers and sisters in the Faith may be better inoculated against the errors which seem to surround us on all fronts.
- “To this general rule, that no constitution can be written or made a priori, only one exception is known; that is, the law of Moses.” (24)
- The consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus was meant to avert the revolution, and to remedy these errors. Because it was done late, this did not happen. However, this act of the noble martyr-king Louis XVI was not in vain.
- See for reference this video about Maistre: “Introduction to Joseph de Maistre (Commentary).” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ifljdrRUFA.