Part III Part IV
Part V Part VI
Because Maistre’s name might not be readily known in the twenty-first century, one might assume his ideas were his alone, and had little actual influence outside of a small circle of admirers. Such, however, was not the case. While he was alive, he established a large circle of friends and readers which could be found throughout Europe. In his work in Russia, not only did he charm the Tsar, but he developed close bonds with many prominent Russian families, even converting some of his friends to Catholicism. [77] And, in theological circles, it must be noted that his thought held a great amount of influence upon thinkers such as Lamennais (a topic worthy of its own investigation). [78] Of course, many disagreed with him, and some people whose approval he wanted to receive, he did not get, as can be seen from the way Pope Pius VII refused to accept a dedication to him in Maistre’s Du Pape. [79]
If during his life he was able to build a significant group of admirers, his influence would become greater after he died. In the upheaval of nineteenth century Europe, Maistre’s predictions would appear prophetic, encouraging many to listen to his recommendations as to how to overcome the chaos. He could be read not just as a prophet of doom, but also of the eventual restoration of Europe. “Son oeuvre, qui abonde en prédictions, contient pour l’essentiel deux types d’annonces: tantôt Maistre prophétise le triopmhe de sa proper cause, autrement dit le rétablissement de la monarchie en France et la recatholicisation de l’Europe; tantôt il agite le menace imprecise d’une longue agonie de l’Europe…” [80] He provided an analysis for Europe’s problems, showing it came out of the liberty given to fallen humanity itself, and his solutions to the problem sounded reasonable to many of his readers.
And what a readership did he have! His great literary skill was appreciated not just by his supporters, but also by his critics. [81] “Maistre’s popularity in the nineteenth century is evidenced by the frequent republication of his works – Considerations being reprinted fourteen times between 1843 and 1868, while Du Pape went through 40 reprints in France and was translated into English, German and Spanish.” [82] His books were heavily read by traditionalists who opposed the modern age. Du Pape was to become “the charter of ultramontanism.” [83]Cardinal Manning, one of the most important defenders of papal infallibility at Vatican I, held a high opinion of Maistre’s writings, having read them at “the eve of his conversion to Catholicism.” [84]
Since Maistre was writing against the ills of the modern age, it should not be surprising that popes, facing what Maistre predicted, would issue encyclicals and decrees which could be read as if they were mimicking his writings. Indeed, this is especially true for the reign of Pope Pius IX, who, in his papacy, started out as a moderate like Maistre did early in his career, but would be forced to move against modernism as he saw it threaten the existence of the papacy, just as Maistre was forced to move away from his moderate opinions after the French Revolution. Thus, during his reign, not only would we see Vatican I’s declaration of papal infallibility, but Maistre’s sharp criticism of the modern era would be revived in the infamous Syllabus of Errors. [85] To understand Maistre is to understand 19th century Catholicism and its fight against the modern age.
Unsurprisingly, Maistre’s influence was not limited to Catholics. He had a significant number of admirers in Russia, and we can find his influence upon Peter Chaadev [86], Fedor Tiutchev [87], Fyodor Dosteovsky [88], and Vladimir Solovyov. [89]Nor did his ideas die out in the nineteenth century. The absolutism which Maistre advocated was taken up by Carl Schmitt, one of the most important advocates and adherents of fascism. As a political philosopher, he believed Maistre to be one of his major influences. [90]Indeed, Maistre’s methodology for establishing peace through force could easily satisfy many fascist tastes. Yet we must not go too far with this association. Fundamental differences between a fascist and Maistre are easy to spot. We must start with the fact that Maistre ultimately disliked the violence he so radically discussed (suggesting that his discussion on violence should be read as a phenomenology). The executioner is necessary, but not someone Maistre wanted to praise. “He is not a criminal, however, it is not at all permitted to say, he is virtuous, he is an honest man, he is estimable, etc. It is not possible to eulogize him, for this all supposes connections with humanity, and there is none.” [91] What a difference that makes between Maistre and many who would use his writings for their own benefit. His justification for force was not meant to be a glorification of it. It would be easy for one to ignore that caveat, and once they did, Maistre’s thought could be transformed into a deadly tool, as was to happen. And the reason why Maistre put this in is easy to see, and once again, this serves to demonstrate what separates him from his later fascist readers: his political theory relied upon traditional Christian morality, and not its rejection. [92] Finally, Maistre did not want to see the rise of secularism, but the restoration of Christian Europe, where the Church acted as the bringer of peace. “Only the spiritual legitimacy of the Church might restore its real meaning to the idea of authority and calm the rebellious spirit of a population against the secular sovereign.” [93]
Maistre was a man of his age; he undertook an examination of the papacy within the domains of modern theories of sovereignty. From Bodin and Hobbes he learned of the necessity of an absolute sovereign. He did not think it was permissible, like Hobbes or Rousseau, to suggest that the authority of a sovereign rested upon a social contract or covenant. Yet, Maistre clearly was influenced by the Enlightenment. Even Rousseau, who received some of his most bitter criticisms, can be shown to have left his mark on Maistre. For Rousseau understood that there was a role within society for a specific civil religion, and indeed, that it was a necessary component of a healthy state. [94]This was something Maistre could agree with, but he would go a step further than his opponent, for he showed that this religion should not just be any religion, but the Catholic faith, and that the Catholic faith cannot remain pure unless it accepted the absolute authority of the pope. His judicial mind came to the conclusion that the pope was a sovereign whose judgments no one had the right to criticize. Thus, the pope’s spiritual sovereignty, when read by the development of the political thought and theory he found most agreeable, indicated to him the necessity of papal infallibility. It was to him a consequence of papal sovereignty. While the debate would rage on after his death, his marriage between modern political theory and papal authority would find resonance in the Church, especially under the papacy of Pope Pius IX who took on himself the mission of demonstrating the errors of modern society. Maistre was able to take what he thought was the best of modern thought, but to use it to the defense of the ancient regime. Is it any surprise that the generations of Ultramontanists which came immediately after Maistre’s death were to read his books with much pleasure, when they too would be living in a milieu where many of the new theories of sovereignty were accepted almost de facto? They needed someone who could take advantage of modern political situation, and in Maistre, they found him.
But this leads us to an important, question. If there is some basis by which we can say Vatican I’s declaration of papal infallibility was at once true, but also spoken of within the context nineteenth century political and social thought, how much of its declaration is universal and how much of it must be seen as a particular representation of a universal teaching? How much of it should be adapted to be better appreciated and understood in today’s society? That question, which even the fathers of the Vatican Council understood, was left for a future generation to debate, forming the basis by which Vatican Council II was to interpret the authority of the pope.
Footnotes
[77] Vera Mitchyna, “Joseph de Maistre’s Works in Russia: A Look at their Reception,” in Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought and Influence: Select Studies (ed. Richard A. Lebrun; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 241.
[78] See for example, Bradley, Modern Masitre, 17 – 20.
[79]The reasons for this are, as Lebrun points out, complex. See Lebrun, An Intellectual Militant, 242 – 45 for a thorough examination of his attempt to win Vatican support for his work, and mixed messages he would receive. The Vatican questioned the purely political nature that Maistre would give to the Pope.
[80]Jean-Yves Pranchère, “La Philosophie de Joseph de Maistre,” in Revue des Études Maistriennes vol. 13 (2001): 51.
[81] See Isaiah Berlin, Crooked Timber, 94-5.
[82] Hayward, After the French Revolution, 63.
[83]John W. Padberg, S.J., “Cardinal Louis-Edouard-Désiré Pie,” in Varieties of Ultramontanism(ed., Jeffrey Von Arx, S.J.;Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 42.
[84]Richard A. Lebrun, “Maistre in the Anglophone World”: 273.
[85]Jean-Yves Pranchère, “The Persistence of Maistrian Thought,” in Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought and Influence: Select Studies (ed. Richard A. Lebrun; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001), 304.
[86]Mitchyna, “Joseph de Maistre’s Works in Russia,” 253-5. Chaadaev believed that Russian misfortunes resulted from their lack of unity with Europe. Like Maistre, he wanted a new Christendom, with a place for Russia in the mix.
[87]Ibid., 259-63. As one of the great Slavophiles, he saw a restoration to Europe was to be had, not by the Pope, but by a restored Christendom with Orthodox Russia and the Tsar as its savior.
[88]Ibid., 263 -5. For example, his story of the Grand Inquisitor is seen to resemble all too closely the political absolutism found in Maistrean thought.
[89]Vladimir Solovyov’s La Russie et L’Eglise Universelle, written in French to overcome Tsarist censors, traced a plan to restore civilization with the Pope as its spiritual head and the Tsar as its political authority.
[90]Alberto Spektorowski, “Maistre, Donoso Cortés, and the Legacy of Catholic Authoritarianism,” in Journal of the History of Ideas vol. 63, no. 2 (2002): 283.
[91]Joseph de Maistre, Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg, O.C., 4:33.
[92]Graeme Garrard, “Joseph de Maistre and Carl Schmitt,” 226 -8.
[93]Spektorowski, “Joseph de Maistre and Donoso Cortés,” 290.
[94]Diane Fourny, “Rousseau’s Civil Religion Reconsidered,” in The French Review vol. 60, no. 4 (1987):491.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In