What do you think?
Rate this book
Contra Mundum: Joseph de Maistre & The Birth of Tradition
In response to the vainglory of the Enlightenment and the depredations of the French Revolution, writer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre proclaimed anew for his time the merits of tradition in religion, politics, and the social order, employing his masterful pen to counter the disruptions of his age and to predict their repercussions in the years ahead. Though de Maistre died nearly two centuries ago, his ideas hold much of value for the present day, as many shades of traditional thought square off against an excoriating assault on social and religious values far exceeding those of his own revolutionary milieu. Anyone concerned with setting a salvific course through the clashing rocks of Tradition and Modernity, deriving the best from both, will be well advised to take up de Maistre’s log and compass as they plot their course. In this effort, as Thomas Isham’s new book shows, we may turn for some considerable insight also to another guide in this domain whose work spans the time between de Maistre’s and our own—the traditionalist metaphysician René Guénon, who recognized and to some extent built upon, de Maistre’s ties to esoteric theory and practice, and his immersion in things both divine and human, macrocosmic and microcosmic. “Anyone who wants to understand modern ultramontanism, monarchism, or integralism, is led to engage with the highly influential and controversial figure of Joseph de Maistre. Thomas Isham provides here a lively and readable introduction to Maistre’s thought. Partly through an extended and helpful comparison to René Guénon, Isham shows the unity behind Maistre’s combination of such disparate elements as reactionary Catholicism, Freemasonry, Origenist universalism, Cambridge Platonism, and Cartesian rationalism. Isham writes from a position of frank admiration for Maistre and his system, but his book will also be useful for those who see flaws in Maistre’s understanding of the tradition he attempted to defend against the Revolution.”—PATER EDMUND WALDSTEIN, O.Cist.
“In his excellent new work, Thomas Isham shows how de Maistre got to know the inner, or ‘esoteric’ core of his religion without thinking that—to do so—he had to give up its more outward, ‘exoteric’ form. In this, he paved the way for the later work of the metaphysician René Guénon (examined here in great depth), who developed de Maistre’s insights much further, applying them also to other world religions. Isham also makes clear that de Maistre’s rejection of modernity derived from his understanding of the false philosophy on which it has always been based—the dogma that knowledge and truth derive solely from sense-perception. De Maistre’s project was to supply some guidance on a way forward by resurrecting the best elements of the past—a project upon which we are all still, and desperately, engaged.”—ROBERT BOLTON, author of The Order of the Ages
“In his excellent new work, Thomas Isham shows how de Maistre got to know the inner, or ‘esoteric’ core of his religion without thinking that—to do so—he had to give up its more outward, ‘exoteric’ form. In this, he paved the way for the later work of the metaphysician René Guénon (examined here in great depth), who developed de Maistre’s insights much further, applying them also to other world religions. Isham also makes clear that de Maistre’s rejection of modernity derived from his understanding of the false philosophy on which it has always been based—the dogma that knowledge and truth derive solely from sense-perception. De Maistre’s project was to supply some guidance on a way forward by resurrecting the best elements of the past—a project upon which we are all still, and desperately, engaged.”—ROBERT BOLTON, author of The Order of the Ages
156 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 16, 2017
10 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 23, 2022
Wasn't expecting all the comparisons to Guenon to be made in the book was published by a traditionalist publishing house so it's not that surprising. I would recommend this book if are looking for a good introduction or intellectual biography of De Maistre.
May 14, 2023
It was an interesting read, but I was a little frustrated at how they didn't show how he was able to integrate his Catholicism with the esoteric background and involvement.
April 20, 2022
Joseph de Maistre (1753-1823) was a leading intellectual of the counter-revolution and counter-enlightenment. This is a short summary of some of his intellectual interests, however it skirts around some of the key questions.
What the book does well is to provide narrative detail about Maistre. The chapters are clearly delineated and they present relevant information which will interest the reader.
There is an odd comparison running throughout the book, as the author wants to compare Maistre with a twentieth century figure. This is peculiar as there is no mention of the figure in the title, so it came as a jarring disappointment to see parts of the book devoted to explaining another figure, when actually I picked the book up to focus on Maistre.
I also thought that the book shied away from probing some of the important questions.
The book tells us much about de Maistre, including his membership and status as a leading Freemason. Yet the Papacy condemned Freemasonry from 1738 and de Maistre was one of the strongest defenders of the Papacy of his era. He wrote arguing for the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, as well as submitting all his writings to the judgement of the Catholic Church. So how should we reconcile the apparent conflict in facts like these? I had hoped that the book would probe issues like this, but it doesn’t even raise the question.
A similar puzzle arises around Maistre’s commitment to the Cambridge Platonists when the contemporary theological thrust of Catholicism was Aristotelianism. Critics have queried whether de Maistre properly understood Aristotelian ideas like Natural Law, as they do not feature in his thinking, in a way that one would expect for a Catholic apologist. But once again these kinds of questions are neither asked nor answered by the book.
What de Maistre is best known for, is his strong attack upon the ideas and circumstances of the French Revolution. He is the archetypal voice of the Counter Revolution and the Counter-Enlightenment. He challenges the rationalism of the philosophers as a prime cause of the irreligion which led God to providentially punish the French people by allowing the Revolution.
The book narrates his anti-revolutionary focus clearly and thoughtfully. Yet there is a potential oddness in his approach that the book does not query. Maistre responds to the intellectual revolution by essentially trying to reject it and encouraging a return to earlier principles. He also rejects the revolution’s destruction of the monarchy and argues for a return for the Bourbons. But he does not see that as a revival of the ancien regime. The return of the monarchy cannot go back to exactly how things were, as circumstances have changed. Yet is that not also the case with the intellectual issues? We cannot un-think the questions raised by the rationalists. So why does Maistre think that they can be dismissed by an appeal to the previous intellectual status quo?
One of the distinguishing features of Maistre’s work is his style, which can seem emotional and intemperate. It would have been good if the book could have included more extracts from his works, so that readers can see the characteristics of how he argues and presents himself. This is especially so the author makes points such as Maistre’s preference for a tempered version of (absolute) monarchy, using secondary sources to make the point, when primary sources could have been used instead (Kindle 62%).
Overall, this is a relatively straightforward book to read, but I was disappointed that it did not press de Maistre harder, and hold him to account for the rationality and coherence of his thinking.
What the book does well is to provide narrative detail about Maistre. The chapters are clearly delineated and they present relevant information which will interest the reader.
There is an odd comparison running throughout the book, as the author wants to compare Maistre with a twentieth century figure. This is peculiar as there is no mention of the figure in the title, so it came as a jarring disappointment to see parts of the book devoted to explaining another figure, when actually I picked the book up to focus on Maistre.
I also thought that the book shied away from probing some of the important questions.
The book tells us much about de Maistre, including his membership and status as a leading Freemason. Yet the Papacy condemned Freemasonry from 1738 and de Maistre was one of the strongest defenders of the Papacy of his era. He wrote arguing for the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, as well as submitting all his writings to the judgement of the Catholic Church. So how should we reconcile the apparent conflict in facts like these? I had hoped that the book would probe issues like this, but it doesn’t even raise the question.
A similar puzzle arises around Maistre’s commitment to the Cambridge Platonists when the contemporary theological thrust of Catholicism was Aristotelianism. Critics have queried whether de Maistre properly understood Aristotelian ideas like Natural Law, as they do not feature in his thinking, in a way that one would expect for a Catholic apologist. But once again these kinds of questions are neither asked nor answered by the book.
What de Maistre is best known for, is his strong attack upon the ideas and circumstances of the French Revolution. He is the archetypal voice of the Counter Revolution and the Counter-Enlightenment. He challenges the rationalism of the philosophers as a prime cause of the irreligion which led God to providentially punish the French people by allowing the Revolution.
The book narrates his anti-revolutionary focus clearly and thoughtfully. Yet there is a potential oddness in his approach that the book does not query. Maistre responds to the intellectual revolution by essentially trying to reject it and encouraging a return to earlier principles. He also rejects the revolution’s destruction of the monarchy and argues for a return for the Bourbons. But he does not see that as a revival of the ancien regime. The return of the monarchy cannot go back to exactly how things were, as circumstances have changed. Yet is that not also the case with the intellectual issues? We cannot un-think the questions raised by the rationalists. So why does Maistre think that they can be dismissed by an appeal to the previous intellectual status quo?
One of the distinguishing features of Maistre’s work is his style, which can seem emotional and intemperate. It would have been good if the book could have included more extracts from his works, so that readers can see the characteristics of how he argues and presents himself. This is especially so the author makes points such as Maistre’s preference for a tempered version of (absolute) monarchy, using secondary sources to make the point, when primary sources could have been used instead (Kindle 62%).
Overall, this is a relatively straightforward book to read, but I was disappointed that it did not press de Maistre harder, and hold him to account for the rationality and coherence of his thinking.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews