What do you think?
Rate this book
Considerations on France
Joseph de Maistre's Considerations on France (1796) is the best known French equivalent of Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. The work of the self-exiled Maistre presents a providential interpretation of the French Revolution and argues for a new alliance of throne and altar under a restored Bourbon monarchy. Although Maistre's influence within France was delayed until the Restoration, he is now acknowledged as the most eloquent spokesperson for continental conservatism. This edition features an Introduction by Isaiah Berlin.
The present translation of Considérations sur la France is made from the critical French edition of R. de Johannet and F. Vermale (Paris: Vrin, 1936), which in turn is based on Maistre's own corrected edition of 1821.
The present translation of Considérations sur la France is made from the critical French edition of R. de Johannet and F. Vermale (Paris: Vrin, 1936), which in turn is based on Maistre's own corrected edition of 1821.
222 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1796
27 people are currently reading
1525 people want to read
About the author
Joseph de Maistre
495 books205 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 - 30 of 31 reviews
August 4, 2017
A work of powerful style, but like most 19th century conservatism, mainly rethorical. It is no wonder that they lost the cultural battle. It may be my just autism, but systems are the best thing in philosophy and are necessary if one wants to be the backbone of a consistent movement.
That said, de Maistre triggered all kinds of people in beautiful ways, he is essentially the original edgelord. If Chesterton is the Catholic Nee Chan, than de Maistre is a Catholic Schopenhauer. He really has produced a work of a haunting aesthetic, where you can almost feel the drums of violence and the flow of blood as you read.
That said, de Maistre triggered all kinds of people in beautiful ways, he is essentially the original edgelord. If Chesterton is the Catholic Nee Chan, than de Maistre is a Catholic Schopenhauer. He really has produced a work of a haunting aesthetic, where you can almost feel the drums of violence and the flow of blood as you read.
September 27, 2021
Esta obra conta com uma excelente introdução de Isaiah Berlin. Aliás, sem esta introdução seria difícil contextualizar a obra e o autor. Vale muitíssimo a pena ler com atenção a introdução de Berlin que complementa muito bem este livro.
É difícil ter uma opinião sólida e ponderada acerca da obra De Maistre apenas pela leitura (no meu caso) deste livro. Creio ser necessário aprofundar mais a obra do autor para se conhecer, minimamente, as intenções políticas e filosóficas do autor (embora aqui, De Maistre já as revele, em parte).
De Maistre foi, essencialmente, um inimigo do Iluminismo. Condillac exasperava-o. Voltaire, também. Todos os simpatizantes da liberdade humana, os homens das revoluções (sobretudo os mentores da Revolução Francesa, como Robespierre e outros); De Maistre foi um grande defensor do Papa, do Rei e da obediência.
Não confiava nos homens, mas não subscrevia um pessimismo agridoce como o de Schopenhauer, o pessimismo de Joseph de Maistre é amargo, cruel e intransigente.
Esta obra tece duras críticas à Revolução Francesa e traça o itinerário (e as vantagens) de uma contra-revolução. É impressionante que De Maistre passe despercebido tão amiúde e que, Hegel, por exemplo, seja interpretado como um dos mentores das tiranias (veja-se, a este propósito, por exemplo, a opinião de Karl Popper), ou então a desconfiança com que lemos as propostas políticas de Maquiavel, quando de Maistre foi, ideologicamente, mais perigoso que aquele.
Há páginas negras e cheias de amargura, há exposições brilhantes acerca da natureza umbilical da guerra e do Homem e há muita vontade de regressar, irresistivelmente, aos passados obscuros da História.
De Maistre provoca-nos, intriga-nos e causa alguma repulsa (aliás, aceitamos com dificuldade os inimigos dos ideais iluministas, pensemos também nas figuras de Herder e Vico) mas, também nos fascina, no final.
*
“Society is founded upon self-immolation. Why do soldiers march to battle? They do not know. If a king wishes to introduce something as harmless as a census or the alteration of a calendar, there are mutinies and riots among the population. But if there is a war, in which many innocent men will be slaughtered, and in which many hundreds of thousands will not come back to their wives and children, then people peacefully obey. Why, we cannot tell; it is irrational.”
É difícil ter uma opinião sólida e ponderada acerca da obra De Maistre apenas pela leitura (no meu caso) deste livro. Creio ser necessário aprofundar mais a obra do autor para se conhecer, minimamente, as intenções políticas e filosóficas do autor (embora aqui, De Maistre já as revele, em parte).
De Maistre foi, essencialmente, um inimigo do Iluminismo. Condillac exasperava-o. Voltaire, também. Todos os simpatizantes da liberdade humana, os homens das revoluções (sobretudo os mentores da Revolução Francesa, como Robespierre e outros); De Maistre foi um grande defensor do Papa, do Rei e da obediência.
Não confiava nos homens, mas não subscrevia um pessimismo agridoce como o de Schopenhauer, o pessimismo de Joseph de Maistre é amargo, cruel e intransigente.
Esta obra tece duras críticas à Revolução Francesa e traça o itinerário (e as vantagens) de uma contra-revolução. É impressionante que De Maistre passe despercebido tão amiúde e que, Hegel, por exemplo, seja interpretado como um dos mentores das tiranias (veja-se, a este propósito, por exemplo, a opinião de Karl Popper), ou então a desconfiança com que lemos as propostas políticas de Maquiavel, quando de Maistre foi, ideologicamente, mais perigoso que aquele.
Há páginas negras e cheias de amargura, há exposições brilhantes acerca da natureza umbilical da guerra e do Homem e há muita vontade de regressar, irresistivelmente, aos passados obscuros da História.
De Maistre provoca-nos, intriga-nos e causa alguma repulsa (aliás, aceitamos com dificuldade os inimigos dos ideais iluministas, pensemos também nas figuras de Herder e Vico) mas, também nos fascina, no final.
*
“Society is founded upon self-immolation. Why do soldiers march to battle? They do not know. If a king wishes to introduce something as harmless as a census or the alteration of a calendar, there are mutinies and riots among the population. But if there is a war, in which many innocent men will be slaughtered, and in which many hundreds of thousands will not come back to their wives and children, then people peacefully obey. Why, we cannot tell; it is irrational.”
June 23, 2021
The most eloquent, intriguing, and thought-provoking pamphlet you will ever read. Maistre is special, exceptional, unique.
June 14, 2019
pretty good, untill he implyed Racine was better than Shakespeare
January 14, 2014
The introduction by Isaiah Berlin makes this the edition to get (anything by him is worth reading). Although he describes de Maistre as a hardline, ultra-reactionary, proto-Fascist I think he over-eggs the pudding. Based on the evidence here, de Maistre was a reasonable fellow with opinions it is difficult to disagree with, and which have been largely upheld by the court of history. It is in the field of religion where most modern thinkers are likely to have least in common with the author, but even here I was surprised by his moderation. (He shows more sympathy for the Church of England than most English Roman Catholics have ever demonstrated).
Read
November 16, 2011I've read bits and pieces of this---makes Machiavelli look like a Sunday school teacher.
August 6, 2022
Many chapters of this work are wonderful (the chapters on war and the anti-Christian nature of the French Revolution come to mind). But they are wonderful in the aesthetic and rhetorical sense rather than the philosophical sense. This is not to say that de Maistre’s arguments are false—on the contrary, he adds vigor and energy to propositions that may be demonstrated as true. But de Maistre is not the one who performs the demonstration, and perhaps it is better that he does not. After all, it is de Maistre’s uniquely romantic writing—which would not have been possible under a systematic approach—that infuses his arguments with zeal. And it is zeal that the modern age lacks more than almost anything else.
Read
September 10, 2024What if everyone involved in the French revolution — not just the Third Estate, the defectors of the French Royal Army, the Sans-culottes, and the Jacobins (including and especially Robespierre), but also the counterrevolutionary émigrés and royalists, and the coalitions that emerged to combat the Revolution — what if every single one of them had been pwned all along?
What if, far from being an indictation that God had abandoned France, the sheer molten plasticity of the Revolution, its resentment and foolishness incarnating itself in numerous constitutions, regimes, reactions, reactions to reactions, using and discarding ambitious politicians as so many masks, was nothing more than a divine purgative, a "great purification", to free the metal of France from its "sour and impure dross", so that it could be made more malleable in the hands of a future king?
Maistre does not formulate the above as a question. Every sentence in Considerations on France appears in the form of a declaration: the Revolution just is God punishing and purifying France; the victory of the Republic against royalist insurgents just is a Providential guarantee of the integrity of France as a nation, not a vindication of republican government. In fact, republican government simply does not exist. We'll come back to that one, but let's be clear: Maistre is not interested in argument, "sound reasoning", or even internal consistency: if any of these things are present, it is not integral; it is merely an effect. The grandiose mad fury of his reactionary conservatism has less in common with Catholicism as a religious practice than it does with the intimidating, inhuman beauty of Catholic architecture.
Nothing could possibly live inside Maistre's architectonic hatred, but even for a nonbeliever it's one hell of a tourist attraction.
*
Maistre does not believe in any such thing as common humanity. With vicious brio, he declares: "In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me."
This embodies the conservative insight that people do not float indeterminately and accidentally through societies that have no hold on them, but exist in and through their history, culture, and language. In Maistre's thought, this is charged with reactionary disgust at cultural and ethical criticism as an unjustifiable and seditious leap into abstraction. Liberal political and ethical theory insists on the impossibility of fixed natural hierarchy, the solubility of ethical disagreement, and the categorical universality of political and ethical laws, and so liberals tend to find empirical reality embarrassing. Forgetting the men they live amongst, they are always inclined to speak of "the natural rights of man". For Maistre, this language commits a category error: rights belong to really existing people, not just to "man", a thing that has never existed and never will.
You may have heard this one before: Every attempt to bring "man" into being leads into satanic inhumanity, tyranny, and — God forbid — atheism...
*
From Maistre's reactionary contempt for the great mass of humankind (which is not the same thing as humanity — human beings are a particular kind of animal requiring constant and harsh discipline; humanity is nothing more than a rationalist hallucination), the following claim emerges: "A large and free nation cannot exist under a republican government." Democracy in modernity is, strictly speaking, impossible. The liberal postulate is that man is a rational animal capable of self-legislation and, by extension, universally valid legislation within a state. Maistre finds this absurd. He doesn't offer a "rational" argument for this and he doesn't feel a need to: empirically speaking, the Revolution is a clear refutation of democratic principles.
"Representative democracy" is a contradiction in terms, and even if it were not, the tendency for representatives to find themselves snatched up by parties, and then for parties to be dominated by certain ambitious personalities, which themselves use the organs of state to intimidate and to crush dissent, demonstrates the futility of this idea of democracy in practice. What is funny is just how modular this critique is. Who still believes in the abstract and universal human being of liberal theory today?
But reading it from the pen of someone like Maistre, does that worry you?
*
"There is nothing but violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by a modern philosophy that tells us all is good, whereas evil has tainted everything, and in a very real sense, all is evil, since nothing is in its place... But let us not lose courage: there is no chastisement that does not purify; there is no disorder that ETERNAL LOVE does not turn against the principle of evil."
I share with Maistre his impatience for rationalist abstractions, and his delight in rubbing the obvious fact of human evil in the faces of reformers and optimists too wilful to see it. Everything else about him is entirely alien to me — and idiotic: his monarchism, his delight in mystical or absurd argumentation, his naive insistence on the intrinsic value of tradition. Not once did I agree with anything in this text that wasn't merely a mirror of myself. This is an otherwordly psychology; a different genus of mind. Don't mistake convergence for sympathy.
People describe Maistre as cold and dry; frankly I think the opposite. The hand that wrote these words was slick with sweat and flush with hatred. As an insight into the fascist mindset, Maistre is exemplary: his contempt is not dangerous; his hope is.
What if, far from being an indictation that God had abandoned France, the sheer molten plasticity of the Revolution, its resentment and foolishness incarnating itself in numerous constitutions, regimes, reactions, reactions to reactions, using and discarding ambitious politicians as so many masks, was nothing more than a divine purgative, a "great purification", to free the metal of France from its "sour and impure dross", so that it could be made more malleable in the hands of a future king?
Maistre does not formulate the above as a question. Every sentence in Considerations on France appears in the form of a declaration: the Revolution just is God punishing and purifying France; the victory of the Republic against royalist insurgents just is a Providential guarantee of the integrity of France as a nation, not a vindication of republican government. In fact, republican government simply does not exist. We'll come back to that one, but let's be clear: Maistre is not interested in argument, "sound reasoning", or even internal consistency: if any of these things are present, it is not integral; it is merely an effect. The grandiose mad fury of his reactionary conservatism has less in common with Catholicism as a religious practice than it does with the intimidating, inhuman beauty of Catholic architecture.
Nothing could possibly live inside Maistre's architectonic hatred, but even for a nonbeliever it's one hell of a tourist attraction.
*
Maistre does not believe in any such thing as common humanity. With vicious brio, he declares: "In my lifetime I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; thanks to Montesquieu, I even know that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare that I have never in my life met him; if he exists, he is unknown to me."
This embodies the conservative insight that people do not float indeterminately and accidentally through societies that have no hold on them, but exist in and through their history, culture, and language. In Maistre's thought, this is charged with reactionary disgust at cultural and ethical criticism as an unjustifiable and seditious leap into abstraction. Liberal political and ethical theory insists on the impossibility of fixed natural hierarchy, the solubility of ethical disagreement, and the categorical universality of political and ethical laws, and so liberals tend to find empirical reality embarrassing. Forgetting the men they live amongst, they are always inclined to speak of "the natural rights of man". For Maistre, this language commits a category error: rights belong to really existing people, not just to "man", a thing that has never existed and never will.
You may have heard this one before: Every attempt to bring "man" into being leads into satanic inhumanity, tyranny, and — God forbid — atheism...
*
From Maistre's reactionary contempt for the great mass of humankind (which is not the same thing as humanity — human beings are a particular kind of animal requiring constant and harsh discipline; humanity is nothing more than a rationalist hallucination), the following claim emerges: "A large and free nation cannot exist under a republican government." Democracy in modernity is, strictly speaking, impossible. The liberal postulate is that man is a rational animal capable of self-legislation and, by extension, universally valid legislation within a state. Maistre finds this absurd. He doesn't offer a "rational" argument for this and he doesn't feel a need to: empirically speaking, the Revolution is a clear refutation of democratic principles.
"Representative democracy" is a contradiction in terms, and even if it were not, the tendency for representatives to find themselves snatched up by parties, and then for parties to be dominated by certain ambitious personalities, which themselves use the organs of state to intimidate and to crush dissent, demonstrates the futility of this idea of democracy in practice. What is funny is just how modular this critique is. Who still believes in the abstract and universal human being of liberal theory today?
But reading it from the pen of someone like Maistre, does that worry you?
*
"There is nothing but violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by a modern philosophy that tells us all is good, whereas evil has tainted everything, and in a very real sense, all is evil, since nothing is in its place... But let us not lose courage: there is no chastisement that does not purify; there is no disorder that ETERNAL LOVE does not turn against the principle of evil."
I share with Maistre his impatience for rationalist abstractions, and his delight in rubbing the obvious fact of human evil in the faces of reformers and optimists too wilful to see it. Everything else about him is entirely alien to me — and idiotic: his monarchism, his delight in mystical or absurd argumentation, his naive insistence on the intrinsic value of tradition. Not once did I agree with anything in this text that wasn't merely a mirror of myself. This is an otherwordly psychology; a different genus of mind. Don't mistake convergence for sympathy.
People describe Maistre as cold and dry; frankly I think the opposite. The hand that wrote these words was slick with sweat and flush with hatred. As an insight into the fascist mindset, Maistre is exemplary: his contempt is not dangerous; his hope is.
November 23, 2023
It is difficult for me to rate this book, as I did enjoy reading it, but at the same time, I disagreed with some of de Maistre's main arguments.
I first heard about de Maistre when reading Isaiah Berlin. Berlin made him sound like a fascist, hard right-wing, reactionary romantic. Given how much I've read from Enlightenment thinkers, I thought it would be fascinating to read someone who stood against the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. De Maistre was quite a fun read, I think he has great prose and humour in his critique of the bloody French Revolution. I think Berlin may have exaggerated him just a bit.
Essentially, he argues that revolutions are not from the people, and they will just feed into more revolutions because of the inherent lack of stability and structure that comes from a direct usurpation of power. The revolutionaries cannot be safe, because they undermined the authority of the state, and now nobody has to listen to the revolutionaries -- because if they were able to seize power at will, what is stopping the next revolutionaries from doing the same thing? The revolutionaries have no authority, no nobility, no tradition -- all they have is power, and that is volatile. Second, de Maistre also stresses the importance of the Catholic Church's role in society. Religion is the foundation of tradition and is the only thing that can really hold a people together. De Maistre made fun of the revolutionaries who tried to create secular holidays and a secular calendar, because there is nothing attractive or binding about random secular holidays, but religion has managed to attract people since time immemorial. Lastly, de Maistre argues for the role of Divine Providence in history. He is critical of the "philosophes" who worship reason and try to work against the will of God. He thinks that us humans are too fallible and it is plainly stupid to build a society on reason alone. This is where de Maistre's romantic side comes in -- reason is fallible, and we must work with God instead. Even in the face of evil -- like the French Revolution -- de Maistre says that God's providence is still at work and we will eventually come to see the fruits of it.
My critique of de Maistre is the same critique I have of most conservative thinkers. Although I did enjoy this much more than Burke's take on the French Revolution, I do see similarities. De Maistre does not seem to uphold the catholic faith so much, as he does uphold the role of a faith (of any sort) as being the bedrock of a society/country. He also believes that we should only follow tradition because we are too stupid to try to do otherwise. While I think there is much hubris in modern thinkers in believing they can simply rebuild a society from the ground up, I cannot agree that we simply need to follow tradition because it has been working in the past. I see de Maistre's free masonry in his writing, in believing in a supreme Being (in the case of Europe, this would be the catholic God) who guides history. He never really emphasized the truths of the catholic faith, but instead emphasized the importance of having at least some kind of faith to guide the people.
I first heard about de Maistre when reading Isaiah Berlin. Berlin made him sound like a fascist, hard right-wing, reactionary romantic. Given how much I've read from Enlightenment thinkers, I thought it would be fascinating to read someone who stood against the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. De Maistre was quite a fun read, I think he has great prose and humour in his critique of the bloody French Revolution. I think Berlin may have exaggerated him just a bit.
Essentially, he argues that revolutions are not from the people, and they will just feed into more revolutions because of the inherent lack of stability and structure that comes from a direct usurpation of power. The revolutionaries cannot be safe, because they undermined the authority of the state, and now nobody has to listen to the revolutionaries -- because if they were able to seize power at will, what is stopping the next revolutionaries from doing the same thing? The revolutionaries have no authority, no nobility, no tradition -- all they have is power, and that is volatile. Second, de Maistre also stresses the importance of the Catholic Church's role in society. Religion is the foundation of tradition and is the only thing that can really hold a people together. De Maistre made fun of the revolutionaries who tried to create secular holidays and a secular calendar, because there is nothing attractive or binding about random secular holidays, but religion has managed to attract people since time immemorial. Lastly, de Maistre argues for the role of Divine Providence in history. He is critical of the "philosophes" who worship reason and try to work against the will of God. He thinks that us humans are too fallible and it is plainly stupid to build a society on reason alone. This is where de Maistre's romantic side comes in -- reason is fallible, and we must work with God instead. Even in the face of evil -- like the French Revolution -- de Maistre says that God's providence is still at work and we will eventually come to see the fruits of it.
My critique of de Maistre is the same critique I have of most conservative thinkers. Although I did enjoy this much more than Burke's take on the French Revolution, I do see similarities. De Maistre does not seem to uphold the catholic faith so much, as he does uphold the role of a faith (of any sort) as being the bedrock of a society/country. He also believes that we should only follow tradition because we are too stupid to try to do otherwise. While I think there is much hubris in modern thinkers in believing they can simply rebuild a society from the ground up, I cannot agree that we simply need to follow tradition because it has been working in the past. I see de Maistre's free masonry in his writing, in believing in a supreme Being (in the case of Europe, this would be the catholic God) who guides history. He never really emphasized the truths of the catholic faith, but instead emphasized the importance of having at least some kind of faith to guide the people.
February 14, 2023
Ok uselessly generalized criticism but they (all the writers) should simply try writing shorter books. Maistre would have done good to review his own manuscripts and cut it until it was a 20 page pamphlet, 1/9th of the original size. "Why would he do such a thing when his writing clearly points towards polemic issues not unlike Unqualified Reservations going on ages about daily American things, he wanted to convince people not create scripture." Well his power as any of his liberal readers remark in the other reviews is he is "very detachedly antinome towards everything modern society stands for", his writings suffers ill from this dislocation of focus while he should have worn his focus like a spear.
"Do you think he was considered with a gimmick in 1798?" Of course not, though he is the same with St Petersburg Dialogues, pages endlessly follow each other, his good bits lost among countless pointless remarks.
His best remark within the book comes near start, when the sovereignity got stripped from the monarch it got divided and disappeared among the 28 million of France. Revolution is not a thing that belongs to people, the wave doesnt have a surfer it just drowns and consumes the people and some serf has the gall to cheer on as people more fairer than them (Bourbons) sunks with their riches leaving nothing for the new republic. France in 1790 is barren, its people doesnt live and led with middling magistraites the likes of best personified by Robespierre himself. It condemns Lavoiser and Church alike because the revolutionary wave is a mechanism that promotes higher revolutionaryism in every step, it is locked in mechanism unlike compassionate contradictions that the Ancien Regime had etc. Maistre never gets to explain the concepts that matter of course, he is too lost in his own Religious cum Polemic paper. It is still better than the droning trash written by Burke and uncomparably better contrasted against the age appropriate republican writings.
Oh another thing, if Maistre was here today he would suck! I cant imagine him trying to wrap his head around the catholic church and both of the Vatican councils even though the first one was directly influenced by him. I mean he himself says: "I am dying alongside Europe, I am in good company." So yeah, he didnt had to cope his way out of the hellscape of 20th century. I am envious.
"Do you think he was considered with a gimmick in 1798?" Of course not, though he is the same with St Petersburg Dialogues, pages endlessly follow each other, his good bits lost among countless pointless remarks.
His best remark within the book comes near start, when the sovereignity got stripped from the monarch it got divided and disappeared among the 28 million of France. Revolution is not a thing that belongs to people, the wave doesnt have a surfer it just drowns and consumes the people and some serf has the gall to cheer on as people more fairer than them (Bourbons) sunks with their riches leaving nothing for the new republic. France in 1790 is barren, its people doesnt live and led with middling magistraites the likes of best personified by Robespierre himself. It condemns Lavoiser and Church alike because the revolutionary wave is a mechanism that promotes higher revolutionaryism in every step, it is locked in mechanism unlike compassionate contradictions that the Ancien Regime had etc. Maistre never gets to explain the concepts that matter of course, he is too lost in his own Religious cum Polemic paper. It is still better than the droning trash written by Burke and uncomparably better contrasted against the age appropriate republican writings.
Oh another thing, if Maistre was here today he would suck! I cant imagine him trying to wrap his head around the catholic church and both of the Vatican councils even though the first one was directly influenced by him. I mean he himself says: "I am dying alongside Europe, I am in good company." So yeah, he didnt had to cope his way out of the hellscape of 20th century. I am envious.
February 7, 2026
Joseph de Maistre offers one of the most radical and theologically charged interpretations of the French Revolution ever written. Rather than treating the Revolution as a political accident or a social upheaval driven by human agency, Maistre frames it as an instrument of divine providence—a punishment inflicted upon France for its spiritual and intellectual decay. For Maistre, violence, terror, and even execution are not aberrations of history but mysterious mechanisms through which God restores order.
So this book is not merely a defense of monarchy; it is a sweeping rejection of Enlightenment rationalism and the idea that societies can be reconstructed according to abstract principles. A conception inherited from Augustine—the idea of the Two Cities—and a profound sense of humanity’s fundamental incapacity to realize absolute goodness. These darkest elements in Augustine’s thought are here released in their most extreme form: they are unleashed by transforming France into an altar upon which the blood of the innocent is offered in sacrifice.
Yet beyond these grand themes, I am more inclined to speak of something personal. The structure of Chapter Eleven in Maistre’s work is highly unusual. As a Frenchman, he constantly invokes English history in order to mirror that of his own country. This parallel arrangement subtly suggests that the will of God and the illusion of human freedom are not confined to any single nation, yet they must be expressed through the differences between nations in order to be grasped. How many readers, I wonder, are led to recall the history of their own country and smile?
As a Chinese reader, for example, one cannot help but think of the Cultural Revolution. Maistre unexpectedly reveals to me a genealogical connection between the French Revolution and that upheaval. Moreover, it then becomes less puzzling why Maoism found such resonance in Paris during the events of May 1968. The explanation cannot simply be reduced to youthful rebellion or misunderstandings; rather, these radical movements seem to share a striking and unsettling common core.
So this book is not merely a defense of monarchy; it is a sweeping rejection of Enlightenment rationalism and the idea that societies can be reconstructed according to abstract principles. A conception inherited from Augustine—the idea of the Two Cities—and a profound sense of humanity’s fundamental incapacity to realize absolute goodness. These darkest elements in Augustine’s thought are here released in their most extreme form: they are unleashed by transforming France into an altar upon which the blood of the innocent is offered in sacrifice.
Yet beyond these grand themes, I am more inclined to speak of something personal. The structure of Chapter Eleven in Maistre’s work is highly unusual. As a Frenchman, he constantly invokes English history in order to mirror that of his own country. This parallel arrangement subtly suggests that the will of God and the illusion of human freedom are not confined to any single nation, yet they must be expressed through the differences between nations in order to be grasped. How many readers, I wonder, are led to recall the history of their own country and smile?
As a Chinese reader, for example, one cannot help but think of the Cultural Revolution. Maistre unexpectedly reveals to me a genealogical connection between the French Revolution and that upheaval. Moreover, it then becomes less puzzling why Maoism found such resonance in Paris during the events of May 1968. The explanation cannot simply be reduced to youthful rebellion or misunderstandings; rather, these radical movements seem to share a striking and unsettling common core.
January 26, 2021
Note: I read this book a while ago.
Allow me to clarify the 3 star rating.
It is not intended to dissuade a potential reader of De Maistre's corpus. The ol' Savoyard opponent of the revolution deserves his place in the history of Political Theory.
The pros of Considerations: The writing is impeccable. Prose-wise it's hard to think of a Rightist author who matches Maistre's literary talents - Bardeche, perhaps? His wit matches his prose. Sections of delightful schadenfreude indubitably induce audible laughter - case in point: "We groan to see illustrious scholars fall beneath Robespierre's axe. Humanly, we cannot be too sorry for them; but divine justice has not the least respect for geometers or physicists".
The Cons: Much of work concerns matters of irrelevance, for the modern day reader. This is not De Maistre's fault. He wrote it for his contemporaries, not us. Nonetheless, it takes away from the text. It's tedious. That's what I recall: tedium. I was bored at points. Again, to reiterate: not De Maistre's fault. His other works, owing to the subject matter, likely would be of more interest to a contemporary audience. An audience that seeks De Maistre's wisdom to combat contemporary Jacobinism - not to learn about the France of his day.
So I give it 3 stars. 3 stars on the basis of beauty and wit, and to Hail that Savoyard opponent of Jacobinism.
Allow me to clarify the 3 star rating.
It is not intended to dissuade a potential reader of De Maistre's corpus. The ol' Savoyard opponent of the revolution deserves his place in the history of Political Theory.
The pros of Considerations: The writing is impeccable. Prose-wise it's hard to think of a Rightist author who matches Maistre's literary talents - Bardeche, perhaps? His wit matches his prose. Sections of delightful schadenfreude indubitably induce audible laughter - case in point: "We groan to see illustrious scholars fall beneath Robespierre's axe. Humanly, we cannot be too sorry for them; but divine justice has not the least respect for geometers or physicists".
The Cons: Much of work concerns matters of irrelevance, for the modern day reader. This is not De Maistre's fault. He wrote it for his contemporaries, not us. Nonetheless, it takes away from the text. It's tedious. That's what I recall: tedium. I was bored at points. Again, to reiterate: not De Maistre's fault. His other works, owing to the subject matter, likely would be of more interest to a contemporary audience. An audience that seeks De Maistre's wisdom to combat contemporary Jacobinism - not to learn about the France of his day.
So I give it 3 stars. 3 stars on the basis of beauty and wit, and to Hail that Savoyard opponent of Jacobinism.
October 1, 2024
Llegué a la lectura de Joseph de Maistre gracias al premio nobel de economía F.A Hayek, que lo menciona (junto a Coleridge, Louis de Bonald, Justus Moser y Donoso Cortés) en su libro "Los fundamentos de la libertad". Dice Hayek ahí que les vendría bien a los liberales leer a estos autores, debido a sus finas observaciones acerca de la importancia de instituciones como la moral o el derecho para un correcto mantenimiento de ese orden espontaneo que llamamos "sociedad".
De los mencionados por Hayek, el conde de Maistre es el que escribe con un estilo más ameno, claro, y sencillo de leer, entre otras cosas gracias a la fina ironía que desprende y que har�� las delicias de más de uno. Anticipó muchos de los problemas que se iban a dar con posterioridad en las democracias occidentales, y sacó a relucir las vergüenzas de los filósofos supuestamente "ilustrados" (probablemente habría que revisar esa calificación, que tiene mucho de ideológico. Está claro quién ganó la batalla de las ideas). Entre otras cosas, de Maistre hace añicos algunas de las teorias de Rousseau, Voltaire, Condillac, Locke...Ya solo por esto merece la pena leerlo.
Es una lástima que este autor no sea más conocido, y por el contrario, no paren de darte la matraca en la clase de filosofía de bachillerato con Nietzsche o Kant.
De los mencionados por Hayek, el conde de Maistre es el que escribe con un estilo más ameno, claro, y sencillo de leer, entre otras cosas gracias a la fina ironía que desprende y que har�� las delicias de más de uno. Anticipó muchos de los problemas que se iban a dar con posterioridad en las democracias occidentales, y sacó a relucir las vergüenzas de los filósofos supuestamente "ilustrados" (probablemente habría que revisar esa calificación, que tiene mucho de ideológico. Está claro quién ganó la batalla de las ideas). Entre otras cosas, de Maistre hace añicos algunas de las teorias de Rousseau, Voltaire, Condillac, Locke...Ya solo por esto merece la pena leerlo.
Es una lástima que este autor no sea más conocido, y por el contrario, no paren de darte la matraca en la clase de filosofía de bachillerato con Nietzsche o Kant.
December 16, 2024
The Count's Considerations on France is a necessary piece of the Conservative syllabus. However, do not let that turn you away if you consider yourself to be anything but a Conservative. Joseph de Maistre is an invaluable piece of modern human history.
The short essay by Berlin is worth reading for the sake of Berlin's role in the development of Liberal political philosophy in the West, but only for that.
Joseph de Maistre was known to be a humorous, social, and truly vibrant man. However, he was no fool. His opinions and thoughts were shaped by experience and not abstractions or theories. This, really, distinguishes him from his critics who deal in abstractions and oversimplifications.
This is a translation but if you can read French and can get your hands on the original, do it. Long after his death de Maistre's writings were used in schools as a gold-standard for French. His command of the language is truly masterful.
De Maistre is witty, he is concise, he is direct. He is the Father of Conservatism. This man, along with Bonald, Cortes, Chateaubriand, Burke, Disraeli etc. is a political mastermind. His only shortcoming is the ease with which his concept of Divine Revelation and knowledge about God can be manipulated.
This work should be required reading in any political science or philosophy class.
The short essay by Berlin is worth reading for the sake of Berlin's role in the development of Liberal political philosophy in the West, but only for that.
Joseph de Maistre was known to be a humorous, social, and truly vibrant man. However, he was no fool. His opinions and thoughts were shaped by experience and not abstractions or theories. This, really, distinguishes him from his critics who deal in abstractions and oversimplifications.
This is a translation but if you can read French and can get your hands on the original, do it. Long after his death de Maistre's writings were used in schools as a gold-standard for French. His command of the language is truly masterful.
De Maistre is witty, he is concise, he is direct. He is the Father of Conservatism. This man, along with Bonald, Cortes, Chateaubriand, Burke, Disraeli etc. is a political mastermind. His only shortcoming is the ease with which his concept of Divine Revelation and knowledge about God can be manipulated.
This work should be required reading in any political science or philosophy class.
November 7, 2025
De Maistre es casi un pensador clásico, sigue siendo un gnóstico antiguo—recuperando una noción Voegeliniana—porque para el, el desorden es producto de los vicios y los excesos(la maldad en la ética aristotélica) mientras que la monarquía conduce a la virtud, a la moderación. Por algo le exclama a los franceses “no basta con sacrificar vuestra vida por un monarca, basta tan solo con renunciar a sus prejuicios y conllevar una prudencia y una mesura en sus acciones”. La idea de que la fuerza y la permanencia de la instituciones reposa sobre la idea divina intenta explicar que las instituciones tienen su base sobre la idea de la conciliación de dos virtudes: la misericordia y la justicia.
Me parece central su pensamiento porque, al margen de no ofrecer argumentos —muchas veces—y simplemente reducirse a juicios de afirmación o valoración, su idea de que la “contrarrevolución no será una revolución contraria sino lo contrario a una revolución”, ya está poniendo en foco la disputa de cómo restablecer un orden después de haber sido derrocado el antiguo régimen y que, la falta de una autoridad cuyo poder soberano reside en la decisión, vuelve frágil a una nación frente a potencias extranjeras viendo como el desmoronamiento de una monarquía como en Francia puede propagarse sobre el resto de monarquías en Europa.
Me parece central su pensamiento porque, al margen de no ofrecer argumentos —muchas veces—y simplemente reducirse a juicios de afirmación o valoración, su idea de que la “contrarrevolución no será una revolución contraria sino lo contrario a una revolución”, ya está poniendo en foco la disputa de cómo restablecer un orden después de haber sido derrocado el antiguo régimen y que, la falta de una autoridad cuyo poder soberano reside en la decisión, vuelve frágil a una nación frente a potencias extranjeras viendo como el desmoronamiento de una monarquía como en Francia puede propagarse sobre el resto de monarquías en Europa.
May 5, 2023
Ranskan vallankumous pidetään länsimaisessa liberaalifilosofiassa pääasiassa positiivisena asiana. Usein oletetaan, että suurin osa aikalaisista filosofeista, älymystöstä ja tavallisesta kansasta kannatti sitä. Sain juuri luettua Les Miserablesin, jonka kirjoittaja Victor Hugo oli suuri tasavallan kannattaja. Joseph de Maistre ei sellainen ollut.
de Maistre antaa oman näkemyksensä siitä, että tasavaltalainen yhteiskuntajärjestelmä ei ole toimiva. Argumentteina käytetään tyrannimaista valtajärjestystä, tietämätöntä kansakokousta, ulkosuhteiden ja talouden rappiotilaa, ja kansaa yhdistävän henkilön puutetta. Jos olen rehellinen, niin osa näistä argumenteista ovat erittäin päteviä ottaen huomioon tasavallan tilan kirjaa kirjoittaessa. Osa argumenteista on kieltämättä hiukan kiusallisia, kuten tietty kritiikki Yhdysvaltojen juuri itsenäistynyttä tasavaltalaista järjestelmää kohtaan. de Maistre ei tosin voinut tietää millaiseksi USA kehittyy.
Kirja antaa vaihtoehtoisen näkemyksen Ranskan vallankumouksesta ja antaa monelle uuden perspektiivin tasavallan toimista omaa kansaa kohtaan. Suosittelen jos 1700- ja 1800-lukujen vaihteen ranskalainen yhteiskuntapolitiikka vähänkin kiinnostaa.
de Maistre antaa oman näkemyksensä siitä, että tasavaltalainen yhteiskuntajärjestelmä ei ole toimiva. Argumentteina käytetään tyrannimaista valtajärjestystä, tietämätöntä kansakokousta, ulkosuhteiden ja talouden rappiotilaa, ja kansaa yhdistävän henkilön puutetta. Jos olen rehellinen, niin osa näistä argumenteista ovat erittäin päteviä ottaen huomioon tasavallan tilan kirjaa kirjoittaessa. Osa argumenteista on kieltämättä hiukan kiusallisia, kuten tietty kritiikki Yhdysvaltojen juuri itsenäistynyttä tasavaltalaista järjestelmää kohtaan. de Maistre ei tosin voinut tietää millaiseksi USA kehittyy.
Kirja antaa vaihtoehtoisen näkemyksen Ranskan vallankumouksesta ja antaa monelle uuden perspektiivin tasavallan toimista omaa kansaa kohtaan. Suosittelen jos 1700- ja 1800-lukujen vaihteen ranskalainen yhteiskuntapolitiikka vähänkin kiinnostaa.
December 1, 2019
I did really enjoy this, but it is light reading and very much a product of its time. Isn't really a timeless philosophical treatise like "Du pape." However, that gives it its own historical charm, as does his conviction of the importance of the role of the French nation in history (which, to be fair, was totally true). Anyway, his understanding of revolution and counterrevolution as well as the history of "philosophism" and its role in the state were all interesting. His views on the role of Providence and God in the affairs of nations were particularly refreshing, since I have rarely seen such a (radically reactionary, I suppose you could call it, though he certainly wouldn't) approach to events as late as the French revolution, especially given all the Enlightenment-era stuff I've been consuming lately.
October 17, 2022
A work of powerful style, but like most 19th century conservatism, mainly rethorical. It is no wonder that they lost the cultural battle. It may be my just autism, but systems are the best thing in philosophy and are necessary if one wants to be the backbone of a consistent movement.That said, de Maistre triggered all kinds of people in beautiful ways, he is essentially the original edgelord. If Chesterton is the Catholic Nee Chan, than de Maistre is a Catholic Schopenhauer. He really has produced a work of a haunting aesthetic, where you can almost feel the drums of violence and the flow of blood as you read.
March 7, 2024
My first thought was that this is an old head who is afraid of change. But then I thought what if a revolution of this scale occurred in the U.S.? I'd be more comfortable with the 'democracy' as it stands today. So, my opinion of De Maistre changed. He is the adamant voice of reason within a state of total chaos.
February 3, 2019
It is striking how de Maistre's critique of the totalised point of view of the French Revolutionaries foreshadows some of the leftist critiques of naive Marxist totalizing. (ie that de Maistre seems aligned with anti-totalitarian positions of Adorno, Horkheimer etc..)
January 20, 2023
An emphatic speaker. De Maistre used his religious and monarchial supporting vision to make the case for counter revolution against the ‘usurpers’. The practical to Burke’s words; it is important that we recognise those thinkers who were the antithesis to the Enlightenment
January 10, 2020
Strong but little more than a French Burke. He lacked Burke's wisdom and prose. Still a good response to the monster Revolution
February 6, 2021
My first introduction to De Maistres works and I think I'll be coming back to them soon very good analysis and somewhat relevant.
June 2, 2025
A book that combined beautiful writing with sound political principles.
February 11, 2026
Washington, D.C. in fact, exists
June 19, 2023
“Considerations on France" by Joseph de Maistre is a profound and controversial treatise that offers a unique perspective on the political, social, and philosophical aspects of France during the early 19th century. In this comprehensive book, we aim to delve into the key themes and arguments put forth by Maistre, critically analyze his views, and explore the lasting impact of his ideas on political thought. By examining the historical context, philosophical underpinnings, and rhetorical strategies employed by Maistre, we seek to provide a thorough academic examination of "Considerations on France."
"Considerations on France" is a complex and multi-faceted work that addresses various aspects of French society and politics during a turbulent period in its history. Joseph de Maistre offers a deeply conservative critique of the French Revolution, arguing for the necessity of a strong monarchy and the importance of tradition, authority, and hierarchy in maintaining social order. He contends that the Revolution's rejection of established institutions and its emphasis on individual rights and rationalism have led to societal decay and moral corruption.
Maistre's treatise can be divided into several key sections. Firstly, he examines the role of religion, arguing that the Catholic Church is an essential pillar of social stability and should have a prominent place in the governance of the nation. He emphasizes the need for a religiously unified society, as he sees it as a source of moral cohesion and a counterbalance to individualism and moral relativism.
Secondly, Maistre scrutinizes the nature of political power and defends the monarchical system as the most suitable form of government. He asserts that monarchy, with its hereditary succession and the divine right of kings, provides the necessary stability and continuity for a well-ordered society. Maistre argues that the unchecked pursuit of individual liberty, as witnessed during the Revolution, leads to chaos and the erosion of social cohesion.
Furthermore, Maistre delves into the concept of divine providence, positing that historical events are guided by a higher power and that societies should heed this divine guidance to maintain order and avoid catastrophe. He emphasizes the importance of obedience to authority and argues against revolutionary movements that seek to upend established structures.
"Considerations on France" presents a unique and often controversial perspective on political and social issues of the time. Maistre's treatise is notable for its rhetorical prowess and its ability to provoke intellectual debate. The book's historical context and the author's deep understanding of French society lend credibility to his arguments, even if they are fundamentally rooted in conservative ideology.
Maistre's work is marked by a profound skepticism towards human reason and the Enlightenment ideals that underpinned the French Revolution. While some of his criticisms of the excesses and violence of the Revolution are valid, his outright rejection of Enlightenment principles and his advocacy for absolute monarchy may limit the book's appeal to contemporary readers.
It is important to acknowledge the potential limitations of Maistre's arguments, as they are inherently biased by his conservative worldview. His opposition to liberal democracy, individual rights, and the rise of secularism may conflict with modern conceptions of political and social progress. However, engaging with his ideas can be intellectually stimulating and serve as a reminder of the complex and nuanced debates that have shaped political thought throughout history.
"Considerations on France" by Joseph de Maistre is a significant work that offers a conservative critique of the French Revolution and its aftermath. The book's emphasis on tradition, authority, and religious unity, while controversial, provides valuable insights into the historical context and intellectual climate of the time. Despite the inherent biases and limitations of Maistre’s thought.
GPT
"Considerations on France" is a complex and multi-faceted work that addresses various aspects of French society and politics during a turbulent period in its history. Joseph de Maistre offers a deeply conservative critique of the French Revolution, arguing for the necessity of a strong monarchy and the importance of tradition, authority, and hierarchy in maintaining social order. He contends that the Revolution's rejection of established institutions and its emphasis on individual rights and rationalism have led to societal decay and moral corruption.
Maistre's treatise can be divided into several key sections. Firstly, he examines the role of religion, arguing that the Catholic Church is an essential pillar of social stability and should have a prominent place in the governance of the nation. He emphasizes the need for a religiously unified society, as he sees it as a source of moral cohesion and a counterbalance to individualism and moral relativism.
Secondly, Maistre scrutinizes the nature of political power and defends the monarchical system as the most suitable form of government. He asserts that monarchy, with its hereditary succession and the divine right of kings, provides the necessary stability and continuity for a well-ordered society. Maistre argues that the unchecked pursuit of individual liberty, as witnessed during the Revolution, leads to chaos and the erosion of social cohesion.
Furthermore, Maistre delves into the concept of divine providence, positing that historical events are guided by a higher power and that societies should heed this divine guidance to maintain order and avoid catastrophe. He emphasizes the importance of obedience to authority and argues against revolutionary movements that seek to upend established structures.
"Considerations on France" presents a unique and often controversial perspective on political and social issues of the time. Maistre's treatise is notable for its rhetorical prowess and its ability to provoke intellectual debate. The book's historical context and the author's deep understanding of French society lend credibility to his arguments, even if they are fundamentally rooted in conservative ideology.
Maistre's work is marked by a profound skepticism towards human reason and the Enlightenment ideals that underpinned the French Revolution. While some of his criticisms of the excesses and violence of the Revolution are valid, his outright rejection of Enlightenment principles and his advocacy for absolute monarchy may limit the book's appeal to contemporary readers.
It is important to acknowledge the potential limitations of Maistre's arguments, as they are inherently biased by his conservative worldview. His opposition to liberal democracy, individual rights, and the rise of secularism may conflict with modern conceptions of political and social progress. However, engaging with his ideas can be intellectually stimulating and serve as a reminder of the complex and nuanced debates that have shaped political thought throughout history.
"Considerations on France" by Joseph de Maistre is a significant work that offers a conservative critique of the French Revolution and its aftermath. The book's emphasis on tradition, authority, and religious unity, while controversial, provides valuable insights into the historical context and intellectual climate of the time. Despite the inherent biases and limitations of Maistre’s thought.
GPT
August 9, 2015
De Maistre had an eye for a pertinent observation and there are plenty of these in his discussion of the French revolution and its aftermath. It is essentially rhetoric and the book has a lot of energy as a result but at times it does sag a little and veer off the script.
February 5, 2016
I think I almost ("almost" being the operative word here) disagree with everything that Joseph de Maistre has written in this book. Nonetheless, I'm giving it a high rating due to his very clear writing style.
August 15, 2011
I'm sure it's far superior in the original French, but one of the best short books on a lost strain of political thought. A grim but extremely well written work.
July 31, 2023
psycho but a necessary psycho. captivating reactionary author. doesn’t compensate the fact that he is truly annoying
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews