Critical Miscellanies (Vol. 2 of 3), Essay 4: Joseph de Maistre — A Closer Reading

Two Paths After the Revolution

Morley identifies two possible courses for reconstructing society after the Revolution. The first treats the eighteenth century as a mere episode, a "sombre and pestilent stream" that should be ignored, and seeks to revive the medieval synthesis of Christianity and feudalism. The second sees the eighteenth century as the "seed-ground of a new and better future," embracing its ideas of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. De Maistre, Morley argues, represents the first path, viewing the Revolution as a blind rebellion that threw European order into confusion. Morley does not endorse either path but presents them as the two tenable options for social thinkers of the time.

De Maistre's Ultramontane Politics

Morley emphasizes that de Maistre's primary concern was social and political order, not theology. He viewed Christianity from a statesman's perspective, valuing the Papacy for its historical role in unifying Europe. De Maistre insisted on the revival of papal power as essential for restoring order, and he defended the doctrine of infallibility on political grounds. Morley notes the analogy at the bottom of de Maistre's ultramontane doctrine: just as a sovereign must be absolute to maintain order, so the Pope must be infallible to guide the Church. This led de Maistre to oppose the authority of General Councils and to argue that the Pope is not bound by canons.

Hostility to Protestantism and Speculative Philosophy

Morley highlights de Maistre's hatred of the "purely speculative temper of the Greeks" and his strictures on Protestantism. For de Maistre, Protestantism was a disruptive force that undermined authority and led to chaos. He saw the Reformation as a precursor to the Revolution, both being rebellions against legitimate authority. Morley also notes de Maistre's critique of physical science, which he viewed as materialistic and destructive of spiritual values. However, Morley suggests that de Maistre's aspirations were ultimately futile, as the modern spirit could not be reversed by a return to medieval institutions.

Morley's essay offers a nuanced portrait of a thinker who was both a product of his time and a critic of it. Readers should attend to the way Morley uses de Maistre's life and writings to explore broader questions about authority, tradition, and revolution. The essay is not a biography but an intellectual analysis, and Morley's own liberal perspective shapes his evaluation. Those interested in the history of political thought or the Catholic reaction to the Enlightenment will find this a valuable study.

That rainy afternoon, Morley’s de Maistre left me pondering how order clings to old forms, even when reason begs otherwise. Later, idly shelving books, my hand landed on The works of Richard Hurd, volume 3 (of 8) — Themes and Context. Hurd’s measured eighteenth-century voice felt like a quiet window opening onto that same anxious century, though from a gentler side.