What do you think?
Rate this book
The Executioner
Since their first publication in 1821, de Maistre's dark writings have fascinated and appalled critics, with their relentless hatred of the Enlightenment and view of humans as murderous beasts who can only be controlled by the threat of overwhelming punishment. Terrifying and bizarre, The Executioner is a meditation on human evil like no other.
Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves - and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives - and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization and helped make us who we are.
Throughout history, some books have changed the world. They have transformed the way we see ourselves - and each other. They have inspired debate, dissent, war and revolution. They have enlightened, outraged, provoked and comforted. They have enriched lives - and destroyed them. Now Penguin brings you the works of the great thinkers, pioneers, radicals and visionaries whose ideas shook civilization and helped make us who we are.
128 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1821
13 people are currently reading
630 people want to read
About the author
Joseph de Maistre
487 books195 followersA Savoyard lawyer, diplomat, writer, and philosopher. He was the most influential spokesmen for hierarchical political systems in the period immediately following the French Revolution of 1789. Despite his close personal and intellectual ties to France, Maistre remained throughout his life a loyal subject of the King of Sardinia, whom he served as member of the Savoy Senate (1787–1792), ambassador to Russia (1803–1817), and minister of state to the court in Turin (1817–1821).
Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. According to Maistre, only governments founded upon a Christian constitution, implicit in the customs and institutions of all European societies but especially in Catholic European monarchies, could avoid the disorder and bloodshed that followed the implementation of rationalist political programs, such as the 1789 revolution. Maistre was an enthusiastic proponent of the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy; he extolled the monarchy, he exalted the privileges of the papacy, and he glorified God's providence.
Xavier de Maistre was his younger brother.
Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. According to Maistre, only governments founded upon a Christian constitution, implicit in the customs and institutions of all European societies but especially in Catholic European monarchies, could avoid the disorder and bloodshed that followed the implementation of rationalist political programs, such as the 1789 revolution. Maistre was an enthusiastic proponent of the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy; he extolled the monarchy, he exalted the privileges of the papacy, and he glorified God's providence.
Xavier de Maistre was his younger brother.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 27, 2017
“Wherever you find an altar, there civilization is to be found.”
It is damn hard to get your hands on an English translation of Joseph de Maistre’s writings without spending a lot of money. Bookstores don’t have him; public libraries don’t have him; Amazon has a few editions, but they are long out of print and consequently very pricey. I’ve wanted so badly to read him for myself, given his reputation as archenemy of the Enlightenment and articulator of a continental throne-and-altar conservatism which has been largely superseded in the Anglophone world by the more liberal and populist conservatism of Burke.
Happily, I’ve found this volume from Penguin’s Great Ideas series, which provides a brief series of selections from de Maistre’s Saint Petersburg Dialogues. It’s not as substantial an introduction as I’d like; but hey, it’s better than nothing.
The Dialogues are about nothing less than the providential governance of the world, and the sacral origins of law, punishment, civilization, and war. Penguin’s title is misleading: the texts aren’t primarily about the role of the executioner, although de Maistre does call the executioner “an extraordinary being,” who was brought into existence by “a fiat of creative power,” which made him, “as a law on to himself.” They are more broadly about the fundamentally depraved nature of man and the goodness and necessity of punishment, temporal and divine.
For de Maistre, order is everything; not freedom, not reason. The only basis for a civilized and well-constituted society is an overriding authority that is not subject to reproach, questioning, or disbelief. De Maistre was a Papal supremacist; probably the last of his kind among prominent European intellectuals. The first and greatest sovereign is, of course, God; followed by the Pope, the vicar of Christ on Earth; and after him, the monarchs ordained by God (crowned by the Pope) to exercise absolute authority over the secular affairs of the realm.
Whereas the Enlightenment thinkers sought to criticize religion, tradition, and authority by bringing these into the light of reason, believing reason to be the true and appropriate foundation of human life, de Maistre held that order and security are the foundation of human life, and that order should thus have a nature and origin so imperviously mysterious as to be unassailable by reason.
Reason is not the foundation of truth; rather, the highest truths are those which reason cannot account for. Reason is endlessly divisive, making infinite distinctions between concepts, slicing up the original unity of things into an ever-expanding kaleidoscope of classifications. It is the enemy of cohesion. Anything which the reasoning of one person can build, the reasoning of another can tear down.
De Maistre takes the concept of original sin with deathly seriousness. From Edenic goodness, man disobeyed the will of God and in so doing made transgression and punishment the dialectic of life. “Evil exists on the earth and acts constantly,” de Maistre says, “and by a necessary consequence it must constantly be repressed by punishment…The sword of justice has no sheath; it must always be threatening or striking.”
Morally speaking, de Maistre thinks that everything flows downward to its lowest common denominator. Children take after the worst characteristics of their parents, and the best vanish through the generations. And the more man falls into criminal disobedience, the more justly he is chastised by the loving wrath of God. Even physical illness has its roots in human vice; de Maistre fondly quotes an old maxim to the effect that the dinner table kills more men than war.
In his view of human nature, he turns Rousseau on his head. Rousseau famously said that man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. De Maistre thinks this is a perfectly absurd statement. Man is born into order and civilization, duty and obligation. Mocking Rousseau’s affection for the “savages” of the new world, de Maistre says the savages are not the “original” men, uniquely in tune with the primordial goodness of humanity. Rather, they are the refuse of civilization, vagabonds who were cut off from civilization and then descended to the lowest levels of decadence. “If all humanity is descended from the three couples who repopulated the world [after the flood], and if humanity began with science, the savage can only be, as I have told you, a detached branch of the social tree.”
This aligns also with de Maistre’s view of war, according to which war is not an aberration in human affairs, but is rather the fundamental force through which God governs creation, doling out rewards and punishments.
One may be piqued by de Maistre’s assertion that humanity began with science; but as you may guess, he believes that the original “science” is the reflection on the divine, and the technological feats of the ancients were rightly a means of reflecting the divine glory.
Voltaire mocked the Egyptians for devoting their energy to building useless things like the pyramids. De Maistre counters thusly: considering we still don’t even know how the Egyptians built the pyramids or the sphinx, and that they clearly had a sophisticated knowledge of engineering, astronomy, and language, not to mention a complex religious and political system that held their civilization together for thousands of years, maybe we’re not in the best position to thumb our noses at them.
The Egyptians were “idiots” who survived for millennia, while the “Enlightened” people of France created a republic that lasted for a decade. Who are the real dummies?
It is damn hard to get your hands on an English translation of Joseph de Maistre’s writings without spending a lot of money. Bookstores don’t have him; public libraries don’t have him; Amazon has a few editions, but they are long out of print and consequently very pricey. I’ve wanted so badly to read him for myself, given his reputation as archenemy of the Enlightenment and articulator of a continental throne-and-altar conservatism which has been largely superseded in the Anglophone world by the more liberal and populist conservatism of Burke.
Happily, I’ve found this volume from Penguin’s Great Ideas series, which provides a brief series of selections from de Maistre’s Saint Petersburg Dialogues. It’s not as substantial an introduction as I’d like; but hey, it’s better than nothing.
The Dialogues are about nothing less than the providential governance of the world, and the sacral origins of law, punishment, civilization, and war. Penguin’s title is misleading: the texts aren’t primarily about the role of the executioner, although de Maistre does call the executioner “an extraordinary being,” who was brought into existence by “a fiat of creative power,” which made him, “as a law on to himself.” They are more broadly about the fundamentally depraved nature of man and the goodness and necessity of punishment, temporal and divine.
For de Maistre, order is everything; not freedom, not reason. The only basis for a civilized and well-constituted society is an overriding authority that is not subject to reproach, questioning, or disbelief. De Maistre was a Papal supremacist; probably the last of his kind among prominent European intellectuals. The first and greatest sovereign is, of course, God; followed by the Pope, the vicar of Christ on Earth; and after him, the monarchs ordained by God (crowned by the Pope) to exercise absolute authority over the secular affairs of the realm.
Whereas the Enlightenment thinkers sought to criticize religion, tradition, and authority by bringing these into the light of reason, believing reason to be the true and appropriate foundation of human life, de Maistre held that order and security are the foundation of human life, and that order should thus have a nature and origin so imperviously mysterious as to be unassailable by reason.
Reason is not the foundation of truth; rather, the highest truths are those which reason cannot account for. Reason is endlessly divisive, making infinite distinctions between concepts, slicing up the original unity of things into an ever-expanding kaleidoscope of classifications. It is the enemy of cohesion. Anything which the reasoning of one person can build, the reasoning of another can tear down.
De Maistre takes the concept of original sin with deathly seriousness. From Edenic goodness, man disobeyed the will of God and in so doing made transgression and punishment the dialectic of life. “Evil exists on the earth and acts constantly,” de Maistre says, “and by a necessary consequence it must constantly be repressed by punishment…The sword of justice has no sheath; it must always be threatening or striking.”
Morally speaking, de Maistre thinks that everything flows downward to its lowest common denominator. Children take after the worst characteristics of their parents, and the best vanish through the generations. And the more man falls into criminal disobedience, the more justly he is chastised by the loving wrath of God. Even physical illness has its roots in human vice; de Maistre fondly quotes an old maxim to the effect that the dinner table kills more men than war.
In his view of human nature, he turns Rousseau on his head. Rousseau famously said that man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. De Maistre thinks this is a perfectly absurd statement. Man is born into order and civilization, duty and obligation. Mocking Rousseau’s affection for the “savages” of the new world, de Maistre says the savages are not the “original” men, uniquely in tune with the primordial goodness of humanity. Rather, they are the refuse of civilization, vagabonds who were cut off from civilization and then descended to the lowest levels of decadence. “If all humanity is descended from the three couples who repopulated the world [after the flood], and if humanity began with science, the savage can only be, as I have told you, a detached branch of the social tree.”
This aligns also with de Maistre’s view of war, according to which war is not an aberration in human affairs, but is rather the fundamental force through which God governs creation, doling out rewards and punishments.
One may be piqued by de Maistre’s assertion that humanity began with science; but as you may guess, he believes that the original “science” is the reflection on the divine, and the technological feats of the ancients were rightly a means of reflecting the divine glory.
Voltaire mocked the Egyptians for devoting their energy to building useless things like the pyramids. De Maistre counters thusly: considering we still don’t even know how the Egyptians built the pyramids or the sphinx, and that they clearly had a sophisticated knowledge of engineering, astronomy, and language, not to mention a complex religious and political system that held their civilization together for thousands of years, maybe we’re not in the best position to thumb our noses at them.
The Egyptians were “idiots” who survived for millennia, while the “Enlightened” people of France created a republic that lasted for a decade. Who are the real dummies?
December 31, 2021
A tantalizing selection from one of Joseph de Maistre's later works, The St Petersburg Dialogues. Everything here is really good and thought-provoking, but it's just a sliver of the whole thing--and some of it seems to have been selected by Penguin purely for shock value, which is inevitably enhanced when removed from its context in the complete book--which is why I rate it four stars. As another reviewer has noted, "it is damn hard" to find de Maistre's work in (affordable) English editions, so this little book was a welcome discovery for me.
July 24, 2011
starts well but seems to lose focus, moving from the notion of human worth to well the night time or something
February 16, 2018
A series of thought-provoking, albeit obsolete, eccentric chanting that portrays de Maistre's ideas concerning suffering and crime, evil and violence, and to find the proof of God in the horrific experience of human who kill (i.e. criminals, executioners and soldiers) and are killed.
In addition to de Maistre's obsession about combining violence and prejudice with a certain version of Christianity, I take pleasure in reading his uncanny belief of a (European) civilization that, having been decaying since antiquity, mistakes sophism for science and can never distinguish itself from monstrosity without its precious and almighty Christian religion. His anti-Enlightenment stance, to me, might be worth investigating if the political milieu of post-revolution France to be explored. Gonna check out St. Petersburg Dialogues when I have more free time.
In addition to de Maistre's obsession about combining violence and prejudice with a certain version of Christianity, I take pleasure in reading his uncanny belief of a (European) civilization that, having been decaying since antiquity, mistakes sophism for science and can never distinguish itself from monstrosity without its precious and almighty Christian religion. His anti-Enlightenment stance, to me, might be worth investigating if the political milieu of post-revolution France to be explored. Gonna check out St. Petersburg Dialogues when I have more free time.
November 16, 2017
De Maistre's writting is beautiful, offering some insight into people's need for war and conflict and the intrinsic evils of the individual. To him order is everything, not freedom, much less reason. God made people suffer for a reason only he knows, but it's never undeserved.
Read
August 6, 2023ehhhhh questionable takes here
May 15, 2010
The history of culture and tradition through the ages, the continuation of the church through time.
That dreams may be used by the divine to communicate with us.
The paradox of the soldier who kills innocent good men wantonly and is revered and the executioner who kills the guilty and is ill-regarded.
That dreams may be used by the divine to communicate with us.
The paradox of the soldier who kills innocent good men wantonly and is revered and the executioner who kills the guilty and is ill-regarded.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 23, 2013
Long, dense, sometimes boring, but throughout there is a lot of interesting discussion. First dialogue is about why sometimes the good suffer and the wicked prosper, the nature of why there is no earthly justice, whether or not wicked people experience life the same way as good. The second is about crime, fear of punishment, executioners, soldiers. Third is about war and praying.
August 3, 2011
A study of the human capacity for violence; worth a look if you have an hour or two to spare.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews