What do you think?
Rate this book
Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and other Human Institutions
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
176 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1814
9 people are currently reading
566 people want to read
About the author
Joseph de Maistre
496 books191 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 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 26, 2010
Glittering daggers of brilliance. Concise, profound, eloquent, and endlessly thought-provoking.
I'm beginning to notice an interesting trend--the more Catholic, the better at political theology. What should we make of this?
And here's another troubling trend--why is it that divine-right monarchists always strike me as the most reasonable, palatable, and biblical of political philosophers?
I'm beginning to notice an interesting trend--the more Catholic, the better at political theology. What should we make of this?
And here's another troubling trend--why is it that divine-right monarchists always strike me as the most reasonable, palatable, and biblical of political philosophers?
September 29, 2022
wth, conservatism based?!?!?
March 2, 2024
Detta är första gången jag läst du Maistre i original och mer än ensidesutdrag. Jag får konstatera att denna essä inte innehåller speciellt mycket mer än det ensidesutdrag jag läste, så det var väl valt. Det som sägs i essän är att vi inte väljer våra lagar (konstitutioner/samhällsnormer), utan att lagen föregår den civilisation som byggs kring den. Lagen i sig, vad gäller det viktiga, är outsäglig, eftersom den vid utsägandet skulle bli föremål för tolkningar och därmed missbruk. Lagen är dessutom personlig, en laggivares preferens. Dessa två teser föregår båda du Maistre, men vad jag vet är han den som sammanför dem. Väldigt läsvärd bok.
September 29, 2024
Maistre is a clear writer at his best exposing the weakness of other thinkers. Yet, like most reactionaries he is restricted by being descriptive but not proscriptive. Also, as the piece went on the word bloviate came to mind.
August 15, 2022
In what it argues, it is simply brilliant. Maistre’s anthropological argument against Sola Scriptura and written law is fascinating. His anti-rationalism retains its piercing force. These argument are, of course, filtered through Maistre’s characteristically powerful prose. However, Maistre’s essay would have benefitted from more reference to modern examples of secular or religious political orders. This would have helped substantiate and more clearly explain his theoretical analysis. Nonetheless, this is a great read.
January 5, 2013
Divinity and history are the real basis of social order, not a nominalistic decree by an assembly of men.
February 14, 2021
Superb edition to have on hand, and most scintillating bus reading.
July 15, 2020
negative entropy
November 12, 2020
A lot of the references he makes are to political events and figures that the average reader wouldn't understand. But there are other moments where he is very clear and timeless in what he says. His main idea is that governments founded on principles against God will not last. And I agree
December 16, 2024
The perfect example of politics and theology, and the truth within them, by way of experience and not abstract idealism. De Maistre is simply one of those intellectual masters who come only once in a generation.
His wit and irony are caustic to his rivals. He has a clear solution to the worlds problems and that solution is the Divine and obedience to Divine Law. Joseph de Maistre loved God, that is something his critics do not fully understand.
When thinking of his rhetorical skill, I can't help but think of his offensive against Rousseau's understanding of the will of the people in a Democracy. "Drink, Socrates, drink and console yourself with these distinctions: the good people of Athens only appear to will what is evil..."
His wit and irony are caustic to his rivals. He has a clear solution to the worlds problems and that solution is the Divine and obedience to Divine Law. Joseph de Maistre loved God, that is something his critics do not fully understand.
When thinking of his rhetorical skill, I can't help but think of his offensive against Rousseau's understanding of the will of the people in a Democracy. "Drink, Socrates, drink and console yourself with these distinctions: the good people of Athens only appear to will what is evil..."
January 4, 2024
Very interesting, with well argued points and masterful use of irony
December 18, 2024
Joseph de Maistre’s The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions (1814) is a foundational text in the conservative tradition of political thought. Written in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the work presents a critique of Enlightenment rationalism and revolutionary constitutionalism, arguing instead for the organic, historical, and divinely guided origins of legitimate political order. De Maistre’s essay, though brief, is a profound meditation on the nature of sovereignty, authority, and the limitations of human reason in the political sphere.
De Maistre’s central thesis is that political constitutions cannot be artificially constructed through rational design or abstract theorizing. Instead, he argues that constitutions emerge from the unique historical, cultural, and religious circumstances of a people. This “generative principle” is a divine and providential process, beyond the capacity of human ingenuity to fully control or comprehend. For de Maistre, enduring political institutions are rooted in tradition, custom, and the lived experiences of a society, rather than in the speculative philosophies of revolutionaries or reformers.
One of the essay’s strengths is its incisive critique of the revolutionary project, particularly its reliance on abstract universal principles divorced from historical and cultural particularities. De Maistre identifies what he sees as the hubris of Enlightenment rationalism, which assumes that political systems can be imposed through theoretical reasoning, as exemplified by the French Revolution’s attempts to construct a new order from scratch. His critique resonates with subsequent conservative and counter-revolutionary thinkers, who have similarly emphasized the fragility of human institutions and the dangers of radical political experimentation.
De Maistre’s discussion of sovereignty is particularly noteworthy. He insists that legitimate authority derives not from human agreement or social contract theories but from divine providence and the historical evolution of political communities. This theological dimension of his thought underscores his rejection of the Enlightenment’s secular foundations and situates his work within a broader tradition of theocratic and hierarchical political theory. At the same time, it raises questions about the practical implications of his ideas, particularly in pluralistic societies where appeals to divine legitimacy may lack universal resonance.
While de Maistre’s essay is eloquent and philosophically rigorous, it is not without its limitations. His rejection of reason as a basis for political order risks lapsing into a form of fatalism, where tradition is upheld simply because it exists. This raises questions about how societies should respond to injustice or evolve in response to changing circumstances. De Maistre’s hostility to revolutionary change also leads him to idealize traditional authority, often overlooking the oppressive or exclusionary aspects of historical political systems. Critics may find his reliance on divine providence as an explanatory framework unpersuasive in an increasingly secular intellectual landscape.
Stylistically, The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions is marked by de Maistre’s characteristic rhetorical flair and intellectual confidence. His writing is both polemical and deeply reflective, combining vivid imagery with philosophical depth. However, the brevity of the text leaves some of his arguments underdeveloped, particularly his discussion of how divine providence interacts with human agency in the evolution of political systems. Readers seeking a more comprehensive exposition of his ideas may need to consult his other works, such as Considerations on France or On the Pope.
Despite these limitations, de Maistre’s essay remains a seminal contribution to conservative political thought. Its emphasis on the organic and historical foundations of political order provides a counterpoint to liberal and revolutionary theories, highlighting the importance of tradition, cultural continuity, and humility in the face of political complexity. Moreover, his critique of abstract universalism and his recognition of the limits of human reason continue to resonate in contemporary debates about constitutional design and state-building.
In conclusion, The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions is a thought-provoking and elegantly argued work that challenges readers to reconsider the foundations of political legitimacy and the role of tradition in shaping enduring institutions. While its theological framework and resistance to change may limit its appeal to some modern audiences, its insights into the interplay between history, culture, and politics make it an essential text for students of political philosophy, intellectual history, and conservatism. De Maistre’s essay invites reflection on the tension between continuity and innovation, authority and freedom—questions that remain central to the study of political thought today.
GPT
De Maistre’s central thesis is that political constitutions cannot be artificially constructed through rational design or abstract theorizing. Instead, he argues that constitutions emerge from the unique historical, cultural, and religious circumstances of a people. This “generative principle” is a divine and providential process, beyond the capacity of human ingenuity to fully control or comprehend. For de Maistre, enduring political institutions are rooted in tradition, custom, and the lived experiences of a society, rather than in the speculative philosophies of revolutionaries or reformers.
One of the essay’s strengths is its incisive critique of the revolutionary project, particularly its reliance on abstract universal principles divorced from historical and cultural particularities. De Maistre identifies what he sees as the hubris of Enlightenment rationalism, which assumes that political systems can be imposed through theoretical reasoning, as exemplified by the French Revolution’s attempts to construct a new order from scratch. His critique resonates with subsequent conservative and counter-revolutionary thinkers, who have similarly emphasized the fragility of human institutions and the dangers of radical political experimentation.
De Maistre’s discussion of sovereignty is particularly noteworthy. He insists that legitimate authority derives not from human agreement or social contract theories but from divine providence and the historical evolution of political communities. This theological dimension of his thought underscores his rejection of the Enlightenment’s secular foundations and situates his work within a broader tradition of theocratic and hierarchical political theory. At the same time, it raises questions about the practical implications of his ideas, particularly in pluralistic societies where appeals to divine legitimacy may lack universal resonance.
While de Maistre’s essay is eloquent and philosophically rigorous, it is not without its limitations. His rejection of reason as a basis for political order risks lapsing into a form of fatalism, where tradition is upheld simply because it exists. This raises questions about how societies should respond to injustice or evolve in response to changing circumstances. De Maistre’s hostility to revolutionary change also leads him to idealize traditional authority, often overlooking the oppressive or exclusionary aspects of historical political systems. Critics may find his reliance on divine providence as an explanatory framework unpersuasive in an increasingly secular intellectual landscape.
Stylistically, The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions is marked by de Maistre’s characteristic rhetorical flair and intellectual confidence. His writing is both polemical and deeply reflective, combining vivid imagery with philosophical depth. However, the brevity of the text leaves some of his arguments underdeveloped, particularly his discussion of how divine providence interacts with human agency in the evolution of political systems. Readers seeking a more comprehensive exposition of his ideas may need to consult his other works, such as Considerations on France or On the Pope.
Despite these limitations, de Maistre’s essay remains a seminal contribution to conservative political thought. Its emphasis on the organic and historical foundations of political order provides a counterpoint to liberal and revolutionary theories, highlighting the importance of tradition, cultural continuity, and humility in the face of political complexity. Moreover, his critique of abstract universalism and his recognition of the limits of human reason continue to resonate in contemporary debates about constitutional design and state-building.
In conclusion, The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions is a thought-provoking and elegantly argued work that challenges readers to reconsider the foundations of political legitimacy and the role of tradition in shaping enduring institutions. While its theological framework and resistance to change may limit its appeal to some modern audiences, its insights into the interplay between history, culture, and politics make it an essential text for students of political philosophy, intellectual history, and conservatism. De Maistre’s essay invites reflection on the tension between continuity and innovation, authority and freedom—questions that remain central to the study of political thought today.
GPT
December 1, 2019
more in depth on the political philosophy developed first in Considérations sur la France, though without the same amount of historical contextualization. Shows that for him the most important part of Considérations was chapter 10: constitutions come from nature, not men or laws; writing them down is only to their detriment; all durable things are based on religion; a religion principle is a force that creates and conserves; true names come from natural development and God rather than being pre-planned conscientiously (just like constitutions). Convincing enough and certainly interesting, very clear, though perhaps a bit repetitive if you just finished reading Considérations, as I did. However, your appreciation of Considérations won't be complete without reading this, as it does really feel like a natural development to which Considérations was heading.
November 25, 2020
Must read for everyone interested in politics and who wants to hear something different than the mainstream narrative of today.
September 30, 2023
«C’est que rien de grand n’a de grand commencement. On ne trouvera pas dans l’histoire de tous les siècles une seule exception à cette loi.»
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews