More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre : Views on Political Liberty and Political Economy [1 ed.] 9780773573222, 9780773529762

Citation preview

THE MORE MODERATE SIDE OF JOSEPH DE MAISTRE

MCGILL-QUEEN'S STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS Series Editor: Philip J. Cercone 1 Problems of Cartesianism Edited by Thomas M. Lennon, John M. Nicholas, and John W. Davis 2 The Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity Gerald A. Press 3 Claude Buffier and Thomas Reid Two Common-Sense Philosophers Louise Marcil-Lacoste 4 Schiller, Hegel, and Marx State, Society, and the Aesthetic Ideal of Ancient Greece Philip J. Kain 5 John Case and Aristotelianism in Renaissance England Charles B. Schmitt 6 Beyond Liberty and Property The Process of SelfRecognition in EighteenthCentury Political Thought J.A.W. Gunn 7 John Toland: His Methods, Manners, and Mind Stephen H. Daniel 8 Coleridge and the Inspired Word Anthony John Harding

9 The Jena System, 1804-5: Logic and Metaphysics G.W.F. Hegel Translation edited by John W. Burbidge and George di Giovanni Introduction and notes by H.S. Harris 10 Consent, Coercion, and Limit The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy Arthur P. Monahan 11 Scottish Common Sense in Germany, 1768-1800 A Contribution to the History of Critical Philosophy Manfred Kuehn 12 Paine and Cobbett The Transatlantic Connection David A. Wilson 13 Descartes and the Enlightenment Peter A. Schouls 14 Greek Scepticism Anti-Realist Trends in Ancient Thought Leo Groarke 15 The Irony of Theology and the Nature of Religious Thought Donald Wiebe

16 Form and Transformation A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus Frederic M. Schroeder 17 From Personal Duties towards Personal Rights Late Medieval and Early Modern Political Thought, c.1300-0.1650 Arthur P. Monahan 18 The Main Philosophical Writings and the Novel Allwill Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi Translated and edited by George di Giovanni 19 Kierkegaard as Humanist Discovering My Self Arnold B. Come 20 Durkheim, Morals and Modernity W. Watts Miller 21 The Career of Toleration John Locke, Jonas Proast, and After Richard Vernon 22 Dialectic of Love Platonism in Schiller's Aesthetics David Pugh 23 History and Memory in Ancient Greece Gordon Shrimpton 24 Kierkegaard as Theologian Recovering My Self ArnoldB. Come

25 Enlightenment and Conservatism in Victorian Scotland The Career of Sir Archibald Alison Michael Michie 26 The Road to Egdon Heath The Aesthetics of the Great in Nature Richard Bevis 27 Jena Romanticism and Its Appropriation of Jakob Böhme Theosophy - Hagiography Literature Paolo Mayer 28 Enlightenment and Community Lessing, Abbt, Herder, and the Quest for a German Public Benjamin W. Redekop 29 Jacob Burckhardt and the Crisis of Modernity John R. Hinde 30 The Distant Relation Time and Identity in Spanish American Fiction Eoin S. Thomson 31 Mr Simson's Knotty Case Divinity, Politics, and Due Process in Early EighteenthCentury Scotland Anne Skoczylas

32 Orthodoxy and Enlightenment George Campbell in the Eighteenth Century Jeffrey M. Suderman

38 The Invention of Journalism Ethics The Path to Objectivity and Beyond StephenJ.A. Ward

33 Contemplation and Incarnation The Theology of MarieDominique Chenu Christophe F. Potworowski

39 The Recovery of Wonder The New Freedom and the Asceticism of Power Kenneth L. Schmitz

34 Democratic Legitimacy Plural Values and Political Power Frederick M. Barnard 35 Herder on Nationality, Humanity, and History Frederick M. Barnard 36 Labeling People French Scholars on Society, Race, and Empire, 1815-1848 Martin S. Staum 37 The Subaltern Appeal to Experience Self-Identity, Late Modernity, and the Politics of Immediacy Craig Ireland

40 Reason and Self-Enactment in History and Politics Themes and Voices of Modernity F.M. Barnard 41 The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre Views on Political Liberty and Political Economy Cara Camcastle

THE MORE MODERATE SIDE OF JOSEPH DE MAISTRE Views on Political Liberty and Political Economy

Cara Camcastle

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

© McGill-Queen's University Press 2005 ISBN 0-7735-2976-4

Legal deposit fourth quarter 2005 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free. McGill-Queen's University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Camcastle, Cara, 1973— The more moderate side of Joseph de Maistre: views on political liberty and political economy / Cara Camcastle. (McGill-Queen's studies in the history of ideas; 41) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7735-2976-4

1. Maistre, Joseph, comte de, 1753-1821 Criticism and interpretation. 2. Maistre, Joseph, comte de, 1753-1821 - Political and social views. 3. Economics - Philosophy. 4. Political science Philosophy. 5. International relations - Philosophy. I. Title. II. Series. B233l.M274034 2OO6

194

C2005-904609-0

This book was typeset by Interscript in 10/12 Baskerville.

Contents

Acknowledgments Preface xi

ix

I Maistre's Lodestars: Authority, Equilibrium, and Justice

3

II Maistre on Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes 70 III Maistre on Commerce

129

IV The Balance of Power

168

Conclusion

221

APPENDICES

I Report on the commerce in grain between Carouge and Geneva 229 2 Letter to the King of Piedmont regarding the export of grain 3 Regarding paper money in the state of Piedmont 4 Memoir on the project for a bank

257

5 Letter to Galleani Napione 261 6 Letter on the Pala case 263 Bibliography 265 Index 277

240

238

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

PROFESSOR J.A.W. GUNN, whose books and papers in scholarly journals focus on the political thought of England and France during the period covered by this book, read the manuscript and I thank him for comments that helped me to place Joseph de Maistre in the context in which he worked. My gratitude to the staffs of archives and libraries in North America and Europe; especially those at the Joseph Stauffer Library of Queen's University and at Torino, Italy, and Chambéry, France, who patiently assisted in my search for the writings that made this project possible. On some occasions you shared my joy at the discovery of writings of Joseph de Maistre that had not been studied by a Maistrean scholar. I appreciate that, although our views on some aspects of Maistrean thought may not coincide, the anonymous readers of McGillQueen's University Press and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada approved publication. The comments of Maistrean scholar Professor Richard Lebrun are appreciated. The conversation with Count Jacques de Maistre, who has preserved some of Joseph de Maistre's writings at the Château de Guiry and made them available to scholars, was a pleasure. I also thank the staff of McGillQueen's University Press, always helpful, and Philip J. Cercone, executive director and senior editor, for his valuable support and suggestions.

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

COUNT JOSEPH DE MAISTRE lived during a time that was a rich but turbulent watershed of European history. He wrote in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when the continent, caught in the whirlwind of the Napoleonic wars, was being energized and transformed by the inception of the Industrial Revolution. At the end of the eighteenth century, commerce and industry were undergoing a process of change, while in the political sphere pressures to democratize were being felt. Whereas many counter-revolutionaries demanded drastic changes, Maistre worked for the evolution of existing social arrangements into a stable system that would be an improvement on the one that had recently been destroyed. He was enthusiastic about the prospect that the economic changes would bring prosperity. Maistre presented alternative ways to achieve further political change gradually without the violence and bloodshed that had accompanied the French Revolution. He favoured reform over revolution, further decentralization of power, and representation of aristocracies in government to cleanse the monarchies of Piemonte (Piedmont) and France of corruption and abuse of power. Maistre took an intense interest in French political and social affairs, although he lived outside France's borders. The late eighteenth century was an important period for the history of ideas because it was the climax of the friction that had been building throughout the century between the new ideas of the Enlightenment and those upheld since medieval times. With its large land area and population and its central location in Europe, France had played a pivotal role in European history. It was an important laboratory and battleground for the creation and testing of new political and economic ideas such as popular sovereignty and free trade. Maistre was born in 1753 just outside the southeast border of France at Chambéry, the capital of Savoia (Savoy), which had been part of the ancient Burgundian kingdom. Savoy became a province of Pied-

xii

Preface

mont after one of the illustrious Dukes of Savoy, who had ruled Savoy since the eleventh century, became the King of Piedmont. Because Savoy was French in language and culture and in the rest of Piedmont the language in common use was Italian, Maistre writes in French as well as Italian. The proximity of Savoy to France meant that it was one of the first areas to succumb to France's aggressive new revolutionary army. Maistre suffered a life similar to that of a French royalist emigre after he chose to leave his home and precious library in Chambéry, rather than live under a French revolutionary government of occupation. His Considerations sur la France gained a reputation in Europe as one of the leading counterrevolutionary works. Maistre is also an intriguing figure because he pursued several different careers during his lifetime: Magistrate, Senator, Regent of the Chancellery and Chief of the Supreme Tribunal of the Royal audience (one of the two highest positions in the government of the island of Sardinia; the King's brother held the other as Viceroy), widely-read author, Ambassador, and Minister of Justice. His writings range from treatises to memoranda, and reflect the various positions that he held in the Kingdom of Piedmont. Apart from his works in politics, history, and political economy, his notebooks speak of an interest in the natural, metaphysical, and intellectual world that resembles the mental meanderings of Leonardo: physics, languages, music, and anthropology. A complete list would cover most of the fields of human knowledge. While other interpreters have tended to focus on his philosophical and religious works, this study of Maistre's writings considers as well his numerous unpublished memoirs and the copious commentaries in his notebooks on politics and political economy. The works analysed in this study include several that have never been examined before by Maistrean scholars. Some of these are: the Mémoire sur le commerce des grains entre Carouge et Genéve; commentaries in his notebooks entitled De l'impôt unique and Politique Argent; "Lettre a Galleani Napione, 13 juillet 1787"; "Lettre au roi du Piedmont, 16 juillet 1802"; and a fragment on price changes and devaluation of money in Britain, 1804. Whether previously discussed or not by other translators or writers, all translations of Maistre's writings, from both the French and the Italian, are my own. Maistre pursued a legal career, following in the footsteps of his father, François-Xavier de Maistre, who was a magistrate and the President of the Senate of Savoy. In 1788, Joseph de Maistre was appointed Senator. The debate regarding a bicameral legislature, in which Maistre, Benjamin Constant, and Madame de Staël participated (considered in section 1 of chapter I), provides views that may be useful in our day when similar alternatives are being considered, such as the ongoing discussion about the

Preface

xiii

best composition of the Senate of Canada. When the French revolutionaries invaded Savoy in 1792, Joseph de Maistre went to Lausanne, where he took on the new career of counter-revolutionary pamphleteer and eagerly participated in intellectual discussions in emigre circles. In 1799 he was appointed Regent of Sardinia, the last remaining stronghold of the House of Savoy during the Napoleonic occupation of mainland Piedmont. In 1803 Maistre was asked to travel to St Petersburg to fill the post of Envoyé extraordinaire et ministre plénipotentiaire (Official Special Ambassador and Minister Plenipotentiary) of the Royal House of Savoy to the Czar of Russia. Maistre remained in this official capacity in St Petersburg for fourteen years. It was a very important position for a Savoyard to hold, since the Kingdom of Piedmont and Sardinia could only survive the threatened Napoleonic invasion with the support of Russia. Given Russia's key role in the great-power politics of the Napoleonic period, crucial diplomatic manoeuvres that changed the course of events in Europe occurred at the Russian court. The first chapter sets the stage. It explains the motivation and orientation that led to Maistre's outstanding accomplishment in political economy and important contribution to international relations discussed in the chapters that follow. Maistre firmly believes that the French Revolution had destroyed respect for authority when it abolished hereditary privileges. Section 1 presents the arguments Maistre uses to demonstrate the utility of preserving a hereditary aristocracy. In addition to steadfastly supporting the monarchy, Maistre defends the existence of intermediary institutions with the potential to moderate a king's power over the people, such as the parlements. Section 2 considers the role of these institutions in Maistre's political thought. I present in the form of a geometric diagram Maistre's conception of politics as a system of multiple sources of power that counterbalance one another to achieve a harmonious equilibrium. As a senator of Savoy and a magistrate, Maistre believes that justice must be served but he wants to ensure that it would be carried out equitably. Interpreters such as Samuel Rocheblave have claimed that Maistre was an extremist who preferred absolute authority to individual liberty and frequently glorified blood, sacrifice, and violence in his works, as in the passage on the executioner. Section 3 examines the evidence of these interpreters. It shows that, on the contrary, Maistre despises absolute and arbitrary authority and values liberty, although he conceives it differently from liberals. This study shows that some commentators drew conclusions that cannot be substantiated by a closer reading of Maistre's texts within an eighteenth-century context. The last section of chapter I considers Maistre's well-known passage on the executioner, in the light of Count Cesare di Beccaria's work Dei

xiv

Preface

delitti e delle pene (Of Crimes and Punishments), which had become recognized in Europe as the leading authority on penal reform. I consider Maistre's correspondence with his King on the Pala case. Since Pala had been accused of attempting to foment a revolt that threatened the life of the King and the Government of Piedmont Sardinia, the case serves as an opportunity to examine Maistre's approach to torture and capital punishment. This study of Maistrean thought is the first to do an extensive analysis of Maistre's contributions in political economy. One of the best indicators of Maistre's great ability in the field of political economy is his discussion of paper money. Chapter II discusses Maistre's advice, on how to successfully manage the circulation of notes and the creation of a commercial bank, provided to his King while he is Regent of the Chancellery at Cagliari and head of the Supreme Tribunal of Sardinia. The innovative and forward-looking nature of his proposal of how paper money could be used safely and effectively is highlighted. By the twentieth century all countries in the world were on a system of inconvertible paper money similar to the one he devised. Maistre's political thought provides an explanation of why he recognizes the advantages of paper money when all of the writers of his day hold a negative view. Maistre's views on commerce are positioned relative to those of contemporaries such as Edmund Burke and vicomte Louis de Bonald. Commentaries from Maistre's notebooks form the basis for questioning the view that Maistre shares the same concerns about commerce as other counter-revolutionaries such as Bonald. Chapter III also uses the correspondence of Maistre during his tenure as ambassador to explain how he successfully promotes the lowering of trade barriers between Russia and Piedmont. Maistre, as did Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, wondered whether commercial activity acts to prevent abuses of sovereign power in addition to increasing material wealth. Are the citizens of commercial nations more peaceful towards other nations? Maistre's ideas on political economy, including his general policy on international trade, complement his political concepts, such as the idea of countervailing forces. The last section compares Maistre's position relative to those of his contemporaries in the debate on the commerce in grain. It presents an ideal case study to determine whether Maistre emulates the defence of free trade by the physiocrats. While some commentators have treated Maistre as a political philosopher, few have considered his writings in the light of the more active roles that he had as an ambassador, a political economist, and a magistrate. Chapter IV studies the memoirs and correspondence that Maistre writes while serving in Russia as ambassador. He uses the balance-of-power

Preface

xv

concept to analyse international politics and advises his King as to the best strategies for Piedmont in relation to other European powers. In addition to considering Maistre's practical role as advisor and diplomat, the chapter also contrasts Maistre with his contemporaries to uncover what he contributes to the early nineteenth-century understanding of concepts in international relations theory such as nationalism. The relation between vernacular language, nationalism, and the political process is developed: a mechanism crucial to the political process and relevant to the success or failure of modern supranational institutions such as the European Union. Maistre analyses humankind on three levels. First he notes that men and women suffer from many illnesses and other problems, some of which could be prevented if the maxim of the Stoics, Sustine et Abstine, were followed; that is, practise self-control to be able to support misfortune and satisfy appetites and desires only in moderation.1 Second, he points out that social problems exist within every nation state but good government, in his mind a monarchy counterbalanced by other groups such as the aristocracy, could resolve some of those problems. "Both a monarch and laws ... and the [countervailing and intermediary] activities of the aristocracy ... are needed to achieve a governing power that permanently maintains peace within a nation."2 The third level analyses the relations between nation states. The pessimistic Hobbesian dilemma is described but, unlike Hobbes, after further analysis Maistre is sanguine that the system of a balance of power can prevent wars: "If Russia, England, Sweden, Turkey, and Prussia would come together, they would still give enough trouble to Napoleon, to the point that one single battle lost might defeat him" and the threat to a would-be aggressor, if great enough, could deter him.3 Realist Maistre does caution that it might be difficult to achieve such coalitions: "There are all kinds of unanticipated circumstances that can destabilize the equilibrium."4 Maistre's system of international relations provides lessons to be learned about the important role middle-sized powers such as Canada could play in our cosmopolitan age of regional blocs and giant multinational corporations. Maistre's unpublished writings as an ambassador, political economist, magistrate, and senior advisor to the King of Piedmont force us to revise the image of Maistre previously developed by commentators on his published works. It is not that Maistre's writing is ambiguous or obscure; it is 1 Maistre, Oeuvres complètes, OC, vol. IV, 43.

2 Ibid., vol. VII, 563. 3 Maistre, "Lettre au roi Victor-Emmanuel," 2 février 1812, OC, vol. XII, 82. 4 Maistre, OC, vol. V, 30.

xvi

Preface

straightforward and consistently clear in reasoning and expression. Yet some commentators have been steeped in the caricature of Maistre as a protagonist of blood and pain, potentate, and papacy pencilled by some of his opponents and interpreters during the past two centuries. The thinker that comes alive from every stroke of Maistre's pen in the previously neglected works that are analysed in this study is a political pragmatist, economic liberal, and moderate conservative. Throughout the book, I explain and relate the seemingly two antithetical personae of Maistre; he is not Janus-faced - there is only one Maistre. This study of Maistre's thought provides an improved appreciation of his important contribution to the evolution of ideas and, by contrast, in rethinking the thoughts of a conservative who is a proponent of tempered aristocracy, it provokes a more acute perception of the liberal democratic vision.

THE MORE MODERATE SIDE OF JOSEPH DE MAISTRE

This page intentionally left blank

I Maistre's Lodestars: Authority, Equilibrium, and Justice

WHEN MAISTRE WAS WRITING what was to become his most famous political work, Considerations, in 1796, political power had fallen into the hands of moderate republicans, property-owners, and some constitutional royalists who were interested in political stability and economic prosperity. The emigres were beginning to return to France. Maistre realizes that the new regime of the Directory could promise to be an ideal conjuncture for the restoration of the monarchy. On the other hand, many emigres had suffered enough during the Revolution to make them susceptible to the pleas of republicans such as Benjamin Constant and Madame de Stael that to continue the crusade against the Republic would only lengthen the violence and hardships of the Revolution. In this chapter I consider the arguments that Maistre formulates to show that a new monarchical regime was preferable to the maintenance of the Republic. Maistre claims that the king unifies political interests and transforms ambition from a vice into a virtue. "This general ascending movement that drives all families towards the sovereign ... maintains a salutary emulation, animates the flame of honour, and turns all particular ambitions to the good of the State."1 Honour does not only emanate from a king himself. An important component of the monarchy is its hereditary aristocracy. Maistre goes so far as to say that the monarchy is a "centralized aristocracy" and it is the "pyramidal aristocracy that administers the state in monarchies."2 In the first section of this chapter, I compare Maistre's arguments in defence of preserving a hereditary aristocracy with those of Constant, who claims that property should replace hereditary privilege as 1 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," De la souverainete du peupk: un anti-contrat social, 193.

2 Ibid., 190-1.

4

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

the factor determining the extent of political influence. Maistre argues that the aura of dignity and serenity that surrounds such an august body as the hereditary aristocracy would beneficially influence other sections of society as a model to be emulated. The citizenry will have more respect for governmental authority if it is based on traditional mores and history, not just power and wealth. Maistre uses a biological metaphor to show the lack of a solid foundation for republican institutions. "Do you not see that your republican institutions have no roots, that they are simply lying on your soil, unlike their predecessors which were planted there?"3 Maistre cherishes hereditary privileges because they had developed their unique perfection out of the interplay of historical events and cultural characteristics. In a letter to counter-revolutionary Bonald, Maistre urges that the French should imitate the wolves and practise more civility within and between classes. The relations in the hierarchy of a wolf pack illustrate how civil and cooperative behaviour between the higher- and lower-ranked individuals benefit a whole society. On the other hand, Maistre does not only appeal to tradition. He makes it clear that he stands for the restoration of a reformed monarchy. Maistre does not approve of the monarchy that existed during the ancien regime. The Revolution was the product of a monarchy gangrened with abuses and of government officials who did not act in terms of the public good. "The governments of Europe had grown old and their decrepitude was only too well known ... A thousand abuses accumulated undermined these governments; that of France especially fell into corruption."4 Maistre is not less critical of the Piedmontese monarchy. The Savoyard magistrate associates the despotism of Carlo-Emanuele III with centralized government, an arbitrary ministry with ministers accountable only to the King through whose discretionary power they had been named, and decisions taken in Torino (Turin) to be applied with brutality in Savoy. The Senate of Savoy, of which both Joseph de Maistre and his father Francois-Xavier de Maistre were members, had become only a court of justice with little political power. Maistre is not surprised that revolutionary propaganda had found fertile ground. It would be impossible to return to the old regime. "The project to put all the water of Lake Geneva into bottles is much less crazy than to re-establish things precisely on the same footing where they were before the Revolution."5 3 Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol.1, 127. 4 Maistre, "Premiere lettre d'un royaliste savoisien a ses compatriotes," mai 1793, oc, vol. VII, 83-4. 5 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le baron Vignet des Etoles," 9 december 1793, oc, vol. IX, 58.

Maistre 's Lodestars

5

The regeneration of the Piedmontese monarchy is a necessary part of any counter-revolutionary offensive. Interpretations of Maistrean thought over the past two centuries have recognized the first Maistrean lodestar, authority. Authority only presents a problem in that for some commentators it has become synonymous with all of Maistre's political thought, almost to the exclusion of the other political values that are also of prime importance in his vision, equilibrium and justice. A passage from Emile Faguet illustrates this pitfall of interpretation: "A fierce absolutist, a furious theocrat, an intransigent legitimist, apostle of a monstrous trinity composed of Pope, King, and Hangman, always and everywhere the champion of the hardest, narrowest, the most inflexible dogmatism, a dark figure out of the Middle Ages, part learned doctor, part inquisitor, part executioner."6 The claim is made that Maistre defended a concentration of power in the persons of the monarch, the Pope, and the executioner, to the exclusion of all other elements of society. That Maistre defends a tempered monarchy is ignored. In section 2 I examine the kind of monarchy that Maistre envisions for France and Piedmont. Maistre advocates that some of the powers of the king should be curtailed and that the king must observe the fundamental laws of the French constitution, not simply follow his own will. Louis XIV and his ministers had overturned all the ancient maxims of the state to considerably expand the power of the monarchy. Maistre explains that obedience to the king came with a price. The citizenry relinquished some of their freedom in the hope that peace and order would be more probable, and in exchange required from their rulers that they would be permitted to communicate their grievances and advice to them. Louis XIV had not observed this rule; the aristocracy and the people had little influence on the decisions made by the government, and the Etats-Generaux had been abolished.7 Maistre believes that the aristocracy should have an important role in monarchical government as advisers to the king and as intermediaries between the king and the people. The second section deals with intermediary institutions "under the name of Champs de Mars or Mai, of Parlements, of Etats, of Cortes, of Etablissemens, of Dietes, of Senats, of Conseils, [that] were involved more or less in the administration of the royal empire."8 One group of aristocrats, the magistrates, was particularly significant for Maistre's political system. They would ensure order and justice in society. Maistre is conscious of the fact that his republican opponents such 6 Faguet, Politique et moralistes du dix-neuvieme siecle, i. 7 Chaussinard-Nogaret, From Feudalism to Enlightenment, 14-15.

8 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 200-1.

6

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

as Constant and Stael were using the argument that a return to the monarchy would be a retrograde step because it would impinge upon all the freedom that, according to them, had been achieved from dismantling the ancien regime. Stael declared "this constitution, when it was made, was an immense step ... towards what one would call liberty."9 Maistre's reply to Stael was that the constitution only exists on paper. On another occasion he points out that the three French national assemblies have written more laws than the three French royal houses ever produced, but these laws are useless because they are not being followed.10 For Maistre, freedom comes from abiding by the law. He suggests that what is needed to restore respect for the laws is to reinforce the public reputation of the magistrates. Even the political ceremonies of the parlement preserve the legitimacy of the judiciary. Maistre writes of his experience as a magistrate: "If it is our first duty to be just, our second is to appear such; and whatever the rigour of our principles may be, inasmuch as the public has the right not to believe in them it has the right to despise us."11 Authority receives its legitimacy from habits and beliefs that are inculcated through the practice of customs and traditions passed on from one generation to the next. Religion is one of these sources. Another is the practice of the judgment, punishment, and execution of criminals, which, while preventing crime, also strengthens the authority of the monarch and the magistrates. The executioner is an intermediary between the king and his magistrates and the people. By delegating the administration of the punishment to an executioner, the king and the magistrates retain the purity of legitimate authority. In section 3 I examine the validity of the claim that Maistre's writings were proto-fascist and its corollary that would not permit a place for liberty in the constellation of Maistre's political system. Previous interpretations have emphasized the supposedly authoritarian nature of Maistre ls writings but they have relied on associating Maistre with his reactionary contemporary Louis de Ronald and with self-confessed followers of Maistre and Ronald, such as Charles Maurras. The interpretation by Sir Isaiah Rerlin distanced Maistre from Ronald. Maistre and Ronald were not "leaders of a single movement... Ronald was an orthodox political medievalist... the dull, unimaginative... and relentlessly dogmatic authority of the Reaction ... Maistre was a personality and a thinker of a different cast... his ideas ... were bolder, more interesting, 9 Stael, Reflexions sur la paix interieure, 113. 10 Maistre, "Considerations," vol. I, 77. 11 Maistre, "Discours sur le caractere exterieur du magistral," oc, vol. VII, 11.

Maistre's Lodestars

7

more original, more violent, indeed more sinister than any dreamt of within Bonald's narrow legitimist horizon."12 Section 4 presents a new interpretation of the passage on the executioner that takes into account that Maistre is responding to mounting criticism of capital punishment in his own day. The executioner represents, for some critics, Maistre's obsession with violence and not his search for justice. Maistre's defence of such practices is examined in this section. 1. THE HEREDITARY ARISTOCRACY: A H I E R A R C H Y OF H O N O U R AND D I G N I T Y

From the comments in his diary, we know that Maistre had met Madame de Stael when he visited another acquaintance, Madame Huber, in 1794, one of his years at Lausanne.13 His intent in composing Considerations^^ to counter the campaign that Stael and Benjamin Constant had organized in 1795 to recruit supporters for the Republic among the emigres in Lausanne. Stael had escaped the massacres in Paris in 1792 by fleeing to Coppet, where her father Jacques Necker had retired to his estate. Although Maistre had heard of Stael's Parisian salon in exile, established to attract support among the emigres to le parti constitutionnel, he does not consider that Stael's salon and her writings represent a serious threat for the royalists. It is the publication in 1796 of Constant's pamphlet De la force du gouvernement actuel de la France that changes Maistre's opinion of Stael's actions and shows him the urgency of publishing Considerations.1^ Maistre thinks that it might be possible to convince Stael eventually to support the royalist cause and that her influential position and networks might then play an important role in the restoration of the monarchy.15 Maistre reminisces in a letter to his friend Madame la Marquise de Priero regarding the conversations that he had with Stael. "Not having studied together either theology or politics, in Switzerland we presented scenes that would cause you to die laughing watching us, but we never argued."16 Despite their differing views on religion and politics, Maistre appears to have remained on good terms with Stael. He asks Madame de 12 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 102. 13 Les cornets du Comte Joseph de Maistre, 12 Janvier 1794, 50. 14 Lebrun, Joseph de Maistre, 146; and Darcel, "Introduction" to Considerations sur la France, 42.

15 Darcel, "Introduction" to De la souverainete dupeuple, 51-3. 16 Maistre, "Lettre a Madame la Marquise de Priero," aout 1805, oc, vol. IX, 444-

8

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Priero that if she corresponds with Stael again she should thank Stael for those enjoyable soirees helvetiques that they spent together. In an optimistic note, Maistre reports the news of Stael's arrival in Paris to his friend Vignet des Etoles, who was more skeptical of Stael's potential to do good for the royalist cause. "There is finally Madame de Stael in Paris, in the middle of a whirlwind worthy of her name. I would say that she is going to do an excellent job."17 Both Stael and Maistre had assisted the emigres in their escape from the massacres in France. Maistre at that point possibly had believed that Stael was still a monarchist, but was only temporarily supporting the republic as part of a ploy to obtain the authorization from the French government to enter Paris, where she would then solicit support for the royalist cause.18 Such hope soon evaporates after Maistre read Constant's pamphlet, particularly when Stael herself stated that she had assisted Constant in writing this work.19 In a letter to the comte d'Avaray, adviser to Louis XVIII, we learn of Maistre's negative reaction on reading Constant's pamphlet. He describes the pamphlet as "wicked."20 Constant's work posed a more significant threat for the royalists than the previous political writings of Stael because it had reached a much larger audience; extracts of this pamphlet were even reprinted in the newspaper Moniteur*1 One of Constant's criticisms in this pamphlet was that the counter-revolutionaries were unwilling to accept that a hereditary aristocracy was unnecessary. In this section I explain why, for Maistre, the old aristocratic system is preferable because status is based on the honour of having a title, not simply on wealth or power. Constant, in his text, stated that, instead of defending hereditary privilege through appealing to the divine right, some thinkers were defending it by appealing to its utility.22 He argued that, either way, privileges could not be defended; they must be abandoned. He rejected the claim that the mass of people had more respect for hereditary positions of authority. "The people respect power. "23 Deep veneration for the nobility by the people stems from the fact that the power of the nobility has lasted so long. "It is not to the past, but to the future that this sentiment 17 Maistre, "Lettre a Vignet des Etoles," 21 mai 1795, De la terreur a la restauration, 119. 18 Darcel, "Introduction" to Considerations, 41. 19 Vermale, "Les engines des 'Considerations sur la France'," 524. 20 Maistre, "Lettre au comte d'Avaray," 30 aout 1797, Maistre etBlacas, 9. 21 Darcel, "Introduction" to Considerations, 42. 22 Constant, "Des reactions politiques," 114. 23 Constant, "De la force du gouvernement actuel," 75.

Maistre 's Lodestars

9

was directed ... The proof is that, when the people were convinced that the nobility was forever separated from power, the prestige soon dissipated."24 Stael and Constant perceived hereditary positions differently after the experience of Napoleonic rule. A political system based solely on popular sovereignty might actually run against the treasured principle of political liberty. The actions of the mobilized masses could tend to be violent, excessive, chaotic, and lead to tyranny. The dialogue among Maistre, Stael, and Constant about whether a second not elected house could be a valuable cooperant with an elected house may be of special interest when the same question is being debated again today, such as in the recurring discussion of the appointed Senate in Canada.25 Although the aristocracy created overnight by Napoleon played no useful role, there were some advantages to the maintenance of a traditional French aristocracy that could appeal to history.26 Maistre had earlier remarked "the nobility is a precious seed that the sovereign can create; but his power cannot extend further: time and opinion will make it fruitful."27 An aristocratic body could have a valuable function to perform, even in a political system founded on the principle of representative government. Maistre notes how in England members of the House of Commons who come from noble families buffer "the deleterious acridity of the democratic principle that resides principally there; the Constitution would be consumed without this precious amalgam."28 Stael went further and argued that France should imitate England by establishing its own house of lords. The peerage was, for the rest of the system, "a laboratory of eclat, character-building, and example."29 Even Constant, in his later works written during the Restoration period, allowed that some form of hereditary privilege must remain, perhaps in the form of a monarch and a second non-elected legislative house. His fear of mass tyranny and despotic government forced him to concede the necessity of preserving some aristocratic elements. He accepted ranks and titles as a form of property. Although he had a lower estimation of the French aristocracy than did Maistre and Stael, he was hopeful that aristocrats would mend their ways, and would begin to place the interests of the nation ahead of their privileges. He pointed to ,24 25 26 27 28 29

Ibid. Smith, The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective, 113, 161. de Stael, Considerations sur la revolutionfrancaise,469. Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," oc, vol. VII, 168. Ibid., 172-3. Stael, Considerations, 543.

io

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

the great families of the peerage in England such as the Devonshires, the Portlands, and the Bedfords as an example of how hereditary aristocracy could be put to good use, by functioning as a stabilizing, countervailing force to the democratic tendency in a constitutional monarchy.30 Two elective legislative houses would not present a sufficient counterweight to the power of the monarch. "The king can dissolve one or the other, or can increase one or the other, at will."31 Introducing the hereditary element in one of the houses would protect this body from dissolution, and would render it independent from the influence of the king and the populace. This role of a house of peers for France as a countervailing force is reminiscent of the function of the parkments in Maistre's thought and of the aristocratic second house previously proposed for France by Stael. While Constant perceived that a hereditary body such as the House of Lords could prevent despotic government, he did not agree with the claim of Maistre and Stael that such a body has a certain aura of respectability that could influence the rest of the political system. Hereditary tides were no different from any other kind of property that was an instrument of political power. Property, not hereditary titles, should be the main factor in ranking individuals. Those who have property have an interest in preserving society and in ensuring peace and stability, in addition to freedom. Hereditary positions are too static and clash with the principle of elected representative government. Property is not like hereditary privilege because anyone can acquire it and then be eligible for political rights. Property is a distinction that does not conflict with Constant's theory that humanity is gradually progressing towards the actualization of equality. If hereditary privilege were to remain an important institution, as it had for centuries, one is not marching towards that ideal. Constant shifted the terms of political discourse on inequality, away from the honour and stability of the old noble classes, to one of the property and mobility of the new rising bourgeoisie. Constant, who called himself a democrat, would prefer to allow more people to be directly involved in political affairs, but he feared that they would not have the capacity to fulfill adequately their function as representatives of the people, or as enlightened voters. He believed that "it is desirable that representative functions would be filled, in general, by 30 Constant, "Note II: De 1'heredite a la pairie," from "Additions et notes tirees en partie des principes de politique et autres ouvrages anterieurs," Coursde politique constitutionnelle, tome I, 311. 31 Ibid.

Maistre 's Lodestars

11

men, if not of the opulent class, at least of the leisure class."32 The poor are too busy struggling to survive to have the leisure to acquire sufficient knowledge and to develop their capacity to make sound judgments. "Only property ensures this leisure: only property renders men capable of exercising political rights."33 By possessing property, the wealthy, even if they do not have an ancient noble title, have the resources, in terms of time and money, to be educated. They also have more time to participate in politics and their wealth gives them independence. "Their starting point is more advantageous, their education is of a higher quality, their mind is more open, and their intelligence more prepared to be enlightened."34 One notices in this comment that members of the leisured and opulent class have a better "starting point," but individual initiative will decide whether this potential is actualized. Maistre also associates personal wealth with capacity to participate in politics. However, he values wealth also because the citizenry have more respect for a wealthy political elite. After the French Revolution, "a member of the legislature spoke of his rank in a pamphlet written for public distribution, and was ridiculed by the newspapers because in reality there is no rank in France, only power that is maintained only through force."35 Maistre compares the dignity and respectability of the English member of Parliament, "who is free because of the law and independent by his fortune, coming to London to represent the nation at his expense," with the French legislator, "who costs the nation five or six million tournois... these men, in truth, make little impression on the spirit."36 The French legislator was paid daily eighteen francs during the Revolutionary period. It amounted mainly to a stipend that covered expenses. Aristocrats of the Assembly wanted to abolish this stipend because it would make it more difficult for deputies of the Tiers to remain in office. The aristocratic class would then eventually control the Assembly. Supporters of the stipend argued that it prevented deputies of the Tiers from having to borrow to cover expenses. Without being paid by the state, deputies would become dependent on private interests who provided them with the money.37 Maistre believes that the British legislator gains more respect than his French counterpart because the 32 Constant, "Principes de politique," Cows depolitique constitutionnette, tome I, chapitre V, 51. 33 Ibid., chapitre VI, 54. 34 Ibid., chapitre V, 51. 35 Maistre, "Considerations," 83. 36 Ibid. 3 7 Dodu, Le Parlementarisme et les parlementaires sous la revolution, 1789-99, 91-2.

12

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

former is more independent. His independence stems from possessing wealth. This independence could bring more enlightened judgment because the legislator can then more easily act in the public interest, rather than solely consider the short-run concerns of his constituency. Maistre argues that even hereditary distinctions do not present an insurmountable barrier for the lower and middle class. "The monarchy is really ... a revolving aristocracy (aristocratic tournante) that raises successively all the families of the State: all the honours, all the positions are placed on a list and everyone has the right to compete for all of the positions on the list; this is enough that no one has anything about which to complain."38 The descendants of the middle classes could eventually become aristocratic, if they acquired enough property and wealth, and married a member of the aristocratic class, as Maistre's own ancestors had done. Maistre's antecedents in Nice were of humble origin. The records of the early seventeenth century indicate that a certain Jean Maistre was an illiterate mule driver, and later became a prosperous miller who acquired property. His grandson, Francois (Joseph's greatgrandfather) was a prosperous cloth merchant. The son of Francois, Andre (Joseph's grandfather) received an education and entered the lower ranks of the legal profession. He later became a municipal official.39 Francois-Xavier Maistre left Nice for Chambery in 1706, and acquired the noble title of Count in 1778 for his service to the King of Savoy as Second President of the Senate. Joseph de Maistre is his son.40 Maistre is pleased to see that in the aftermath of the Revolution, "the nobility is even regaining its indestructible influence."41 The French "have everything to gain with the re-establishment of the monarchy" because it "will bring back a multitude of real, lucrative, and even hereditary distinctions, in place of the insecure and undignified jobs that the Republic provides."42 The two key terms implied in this sentence are "secure" and "dignified." They capture the essence of what Maistre finds desirable about the hierarchy established under a monarchy. Since positions under a monarchical regime are more secure than under a republican regime, the social order is also more stable. "Surely it is not at all the same thing, to take away the hereditary dignity of a president a mortier, that was an intrinsic property of the position, as it is to dismiss a temporary judge who 38 39 40 41 42

Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," oc, vol. VII, 226. Lebrun, 4. Ibid., 6. Maistre, "Considerations," 133. Ibid., 133-4.

Maistre 's Lodestars

13

has no dignity."43 The pain and suffering caused by the Revolution was made worse because it "trampled under foot all nobility of opinion ... there is no dignity in France at the moment."44 Hereditary positions do not only bring stability; high rank is often accompanied by dignity. This is what Maistre calls the "hierarchy of honour" because distinctions are not based solely on material wealth. Aristocratic moral values accompany tide and wealth and this is what justifies the existence of distinctions and rank. Individual freedom does not solely depend on the acquisition of property, but is related to the individual's position in the deferential society. Each individual's value is determined by how others relate to him or her through activities of honouring or dishonouring. The Revolution is a retrograde step, in Maistre's opinion. By attempting to operate on principles of freedom and equality as absolutes imprecisely understood, it has encouraged disrespect for authority, the spread of immorality, and a lack of civility. In France after the Revolution "there is no more dread of crime ... People are being demoralized in the most frightening manner."45 The Holy Bible states "Every person should submit to those in authority above him or herself; since all authorities that exist have been [indirectly] instituted by God. Consequently, anyone who opposes authority is acting against the order of things that God has established and shall suffer damnation."46 Then it is explained that the magistrates are servants of God and what they do is for the good of all. Those that do good have nothing to fear from them; it is only the criminals who will be punished for the evil that they have done. This biblical passage is fundamentally the approach and the substance of Maistre's infusion of religion into his political philosophy. He never extends this to propose a "theocratic government" wherein a priestly order would exercise power over humankind's temporal as opposed to its spiritual existence. While he favours the existence of a powerful church, the power is valuable for Maistre in two ways: socially, in the maintenance of moral standards; and politically, in the way that it can function as one of the intermediary powers that, along with the aristocracy, would offset the monarchy. Maistre cautions "The soldier who has the privilege of talking to his officer in a grossly familiar tone is not by that his equal."47 Such behaviour by those in the lower ranks of the social and political hierarchy towards those in the ranks above them is related to two cardinal weaknesses in human 43 44 45 46 47

Ibid., 127-8. Ibid., 128. Ibid., 127. La Sainte Bible, Nouveau Testament, Remains, 13: 2—5. Maistre, "Considerations," 133.

14

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

nature: jealousy and arrogance. One is tempted to call these evils "natural" to humankind, in the sense that they are not a universal characteristic of animals or other organisms. Maistre's case - that the existence of a hierarchy and an accepted standard of behaviour and mutual respect within it are the sine qua non of a successful society - is supported by an examination of the relations within a wolf pack. Maistre writes to Bonald "Wolves enjoy the advantages available from knowing how to unite and act as a group, whereas the solitary guard dog has only the disadvantages of living alone ... as much as possible, we [humankind] need to be cooperative and work together."48 The similarities between the structure of a wolf pack and their own society were apparent even to early hunting cultures throughout the northern hemisphere. Admiration for that animal society has caused many civilizations to pay it tribute: the leading goddess of the Etruscans was called Lupa [she-wolf]; the great Anglo-Saxon hero was named Beowulf; and for the Amerindian tribe the Pawnee, the same symbol in their sign language identified both the wolf pack and the tribe. In a wolf pack, comprising five to fifty highly social adults, a wolf in an inferior position occasionally attempts to assume the position of the one above. However, the order of dominance within the structure of the pack is changed only by virtue of the superior strength or talent for the hunt of the wolf that covets a higher rank in the group. At other times, every individual in the pack gives due respect to those above it in the hierarchy. Also, the dominant male is not overly aggressive towards other members and is constantly fostering a friendly attitude and community feeling among the pack members. The wolf pack exhibits, in a rudimentary form, qualities and organization that parallel human society, and the upper-class animals provide a cohesive function for the pack that is similar to the function of the hereditary aristocratic class that Maistre discusses. A pack usually consists of an upper class comprising the dominant "alpha" males and females, a middle class of other adults, and a lower class of immature animals under two years of age. Because of their highly expressive facial muscles and ability to posture, wolves are capable of communicating quite clearly to each other. There is distinct deference by subordinates to an individual of a higher level. The alpha animals always walk with dignity, tail and ears erect, eyes looking directly and confidently. They are often the centres of attention in the pack as other howling members congregate around them. 48 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le vicomte de Bonald," 4 decembre 1820, oc, vol. XIV, 247.

Maistre 's Lodestars

15

The alpha wolves are just as demonstrative in returning the attention to subordinates; this not only fosters the friendly feeling that normally prevails in the group and between the three classes, but also ensures the integrity of the whole society. It is a sine qua non for the efficient coordination and cooperation essential in the hunt, as the prey, much larger and faster than the wolves, must be carefully and quietly surrounded before it is attacked. The alpha wolves perform a basic role. This is in stark contrast to the equality of all, promoted by the French Revolution, that Maistre ridicules. Because of the efficiency and effectiveness of wolf society, and not because wolves possess physical attributes superior to those of other mammals, Canis lupus is the most widely distributed land mammal in the world.49 Maistre expresses disapproval of those humans with disrespect for authority, with jealousy of the status of those above them, or with arrogance - in the sense of undeserved pride - towards those of lower rank. The illustration above shows how such behaviour may be self-defeating for the individual, detrimental to the well-being of society, and lacking even the rationale of those that attempt to improve their position in the society of a wolf pack. Maistre favours one kind of dynamism within the polity and society advancement in the hierarchy as a reward based on superior talent or as a reward for a contribution that benefits the group. A society is successful to the extent that jealousy and arrogance are controlled and limited, and mutual respect, accommodation, and compromise are practised among its citizens and among the groups within the society. Maistre deplores the overweening ambition of the government officials in Paris that metaphorically suffocated the life of the provinces. The alienated provinces and regions were reduced to a perspective from which they worked to hamper, neutralize, or destroy whatever the central government attempted to accomplish. Maistre points to this illustration of despotism within republican France, a system of supposedly popular rule. He argues that it is not possible to perfect representation to the point that people can retain their sovereignty in their totality merely through it. "The words the whole republic contradict themselves like those of a square circle."50 Most of France has little input into the political decisions taking place in Paris, and "all this thunderous noise about representation means nothing."51 Maistre believes that the institution of representative government is only a pretext for democracy. It is impossible for thirty million French people to give their special mandates to 49 Savage, Wolves, 56. 50 Maistre, "Considerations," 50. 51 Ibid., 49.

16

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

their representatives. The masses have very little influence on elections because "the simple right to vote in a republic does not give any lustre or power."52 Talent, connections, and birth in a particular social class determine the extent of a person's influence on political affairs. "The palpable sovereignty is in the hands of the representatives and the king, that is, the elected representatives and the hereditary representatives."53 There are even deleterious effects when the masses are involved in politics. Decisions taken by the masses are often made too hastily and based on passions rather than reason. "Of all monarchies, the most severe, the most despotic, the most intolerable, is the monarquepeuple."54 In Maistre's day public education was not widespread and, since the press was controlled by the state, the masses had difficulty formulating informed and enlightened opinions. Maistre argues that one is less vulnerable in a monarchy to the influence of public voice that does not come to the level of the enlightened and capable men who often are in the minority. Even if all French citizens could vote, and in fact only some had been given this right, this would not mean that the Republic would be accountable to the citizens, as the people are unable to mobilize on the basis of provincial grievances and interests. "The law carefully severs all relations between representatives and their respective provinces, by warning them that they are not sent by those who sent them, but by the nation."5?1 In Maistre's conception of freedom as social, individuals could have political influence if they were able to represent the interests of a group in society, such as representing the interests of a particular province in France. It is not surprising that Maistre, a member of the Senate of Savoy, would be aware of the situation in the provinces. During the revolutionary period, the parlements had been dissolved. Before the Revolution, the magistrates of the parlements made every effort to resist further centralization of power in the bureaucracy of the French monarch, just as the magistrates of the Senate of Savoy, similar to the provincial parlements of pre-revolutionary France, resisted domination from the monarchy of Piedmont. Maistre suggests that no one gains permanent or long-run advantages, from the self-defeating tendency of those above in the hierarchy to attempt to restrict absolutely the freedom of those below them by monopolizing power; and no real advantage is available to those in a lower level of society who wantonly attempt to bring down those in the levels above 52 53 54 55

Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 223. Ibid., 181. Ibid., 245. Maistre, "Considerations," 48.

Maistre 's Lodestars

17

them. All would do better for themselves and the society as a whole by working, instead, to make their contribution from the station in which they found themselves, using it as a stepping-stone to improve their position, rather than merely to covet the position of others. The alternative would at best keep society in turmoil, and some in the lower levels might temporarily achieve a higher level. In such a society their position in turn would become untenable and constantly under attack; eventually they would suffer the same fate as those that they had recently displaced. Maistre's approach might be criticized by those with a myopic, incomplete view of what he considers to be the ideal state of the polity, as proposing a static society that would vitiate motivation and prevent competition. This is far from true. He recognizes that his own family rose to the aristocracy by force of talent and industry, and wants this avenue to be maintained for those who have the will and the ability. Even in other aspects of society than politics, he is aware of the benefits of competition. Maistre was a student of languages, having taught himself English and Russian, and his writings contain speculation on the subject. One of his conclusions is that a language becomes widespread in use as a corollary of the economic and political success of its speakers, and not from any legislation that pretends to protect and foster it. Maistre accepts that competition kept within reasonable bounds by established institutions is a healthy ingredient in any society. For him the ideal polity is one in which the various parts of government are free to interact, but are kept in a vital balance of countervailing forces that include the constraints consecrated by tradition, the crown, the aristocracy, religion, other intermediaries, and the people. That is why he decries the lack of respect, dignity, and civility that the Revolution had ushered in. Maistre believes that hereditary positions would encourage more tranquility. The feelings of honour, dignity, deference, and respect originating from hereditary distinctions radiate among all of the society's individuals and subgroups. "In this manner, there is emulation without humiliation, and movement without destruction."56 Maistre emphasizes that all societies need a group that is capable of performing leadership in a moral sense to maintain social order, so that it is not necessary for the society to resort frequently to force; a hereditary aristocratic class best performs this essential role. The coarseness of pure political power is attenuated by the practice of civility and dignity surrounding hereditary positions. Maistre does not remain alone in seeing the necessity of some ranking of citizens to preserve the social order. Liberals, such as Constant .56 Ibid., 132.

18

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

and Stael in their writings during the Restoration, expressed an appreciation for the moderating effect of rank on society as a means of preventing the tyranny of the masses. However, Constant still preferred property to be the main criterion for the social hierarchy. Hereditary titles could be conceived as a kind of property. Maistre and Stael argue that hereditary positions offer another beneficial effect: they encourage more virtuous behaviour. The most desirable hierarchy is the hierarchy of honour and dignity. Maistre sees that the actualization of the new political principles, such as the abolition of old privileges and hierarchies, had cost France dearly in terms of lives, property, and political viability. Constant was more optimistic about social change in his attempt to justify the new regime. He, too, wanted to see an end to the Revolution, but he looked forward to "the strengthening of the republic since it seems attached to all that is noble and great in human destiny."57 Maistre thinks the new hierarchy that emerged after the Revolution lacks the dignified character of a monarchical regime. Hereditary aristocracy "keeps riches in second place, and prevents them from becoming the unique object of universal ambition, [without this buffer] all is lost."58 One must preserve some traditional ranks because they temper the influence of the aristocracy of wealth. In the following section I consider the role of the parlements in this hereditary aristocracy. 2. INTERMEDIARY INSTITUTIONS

The rule of the Sun King Louis XIV is often considered to represent the kind of government that was current in Europe before the French Revolution. Political decisions were almost always made by the king or by ministers whom he had appointed to his advisory council. Maistre and Bonald are said to be reactionary counter-revolutionary thinkers, prophets of the past, and traditionalists because they wanted to restore after the Revolution the same kinds of institutions that existed during the regime of Louis XIV.59 They are said to have rejected any type of pluralism in the sense of competing institutions that might threaten political unity. Maistre's steadfast loyalty to his king, despite the sometimes unappreciative treatment he received from the monarchy at Turin, encourages 57 Constant, "Des reactions politiques," 138. 58 Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," oc, vol. VII, 174. 59 Moulinie, De Bonald: La Vie, la carriere politique, la doctrine, 411-13; and d'Aurevilly, Les Prophetes du passe, 52-4.

Maistre's Lodestars

19

such an interpretation. He urges Savoyards to "Stay close to the throne and think only of supporting it."6° However, Maistre is absolutely clear in his dislike for the state of the monarchies before the Revolution. He draws the analogy that as with old trees in the forest, the monarchy is still standing only because of its firm foundation among some of the general population. Otherwise, it would have long been blown down by the first strong wind, since inside its trunk the tree is being consumed by thousands of hideous insects.61 Maistre differs from other royalists such as Bonald in being able to see that the absolute monarchies of France and Piedmont are gangrened with abuses. Commentators such as Jules Barbey D'Aurevilly and Henri Moulinie claimed that Maistre and Bonald were traditionalists because they considered undesirable any political idea or institution that conflicted with what already existed. The reasoning of individuals is inadequate in comparison to the wisdom of the ages. Individuals must maintain their links with the past and continue to defer to established practices. It is true that Bonald's static approach to history did not allow for any reform from classical absolutism. In contrast, Maistre's evolutionary approach to history does include change. He explicitly states that he is not against all change. "Another very grievous error is to be attached too rigidly to ancient monuments ... Every free constitution is by its nature flexible, and flexible in the proportion to which it is free; to want to return it to its rudiments, without sacrificing something, is a foolish enterprise."62 A constitution that ensures freedom for individuals is one that can adapt to change, whether this change originates from new ideas or new developments. To change the constitution does not necessarily entail abolishing all that currently exists and starting afresh. Change might also involve returning part of it to the way it was constructed before corruption and decay had set in. Maistre claims that the ancient constitution of France was sound; it was only the mismanagement of France's political system during the last years of the ancien regime that led some to claim that the French should abolish monarchy. Such change would have to do away with some existing constructions but this is considered an improvement because the final product has been rejuvenated. For Maistre the change that produces the most longlasting freedom is one associated with regeneration. 60 Maistre, "Troisieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," juillet 1793, oc, vol. VII, 156. 61 Ibid., 152. 62 Maistre, "Considerations," 98-9.

2O

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre points out that France would not be ruled well by a monarch in Parliament as in England because England developed through a long evolution the ability to guarantee individual liberty. Liberty is produced, not from a written constitution, but from all the other factors that create a national character. "There has never been a free nation that did not have in its natural constitution seeds of liberty as old as itself, nor has any nation attempted efficaciously to develop, by writing constitutional laws, rights other than those that existed in its natural constitution."63 The degree to which a nation is free cannot be changed in a short time because liberty has distant origins. "One needs to search for English liberty much before the 1688 revolution. Liberty could have slept in this nation; but it always existed there."64 Liberty must exist as a potential forged through generations and periods until a catalyst appears that causes it to become a driving force in the society. The English Bill of Rights does not establish any new principles; it only affirms what are already the true principles of that nation. Maistre only warns that one needs to innovate "always with moderation and trepidation" so that a nation does not lose what it already has.65 He did not criticize the American constitution in the same way as he did the French one because the Americans had based their constitution on the three powers they received from their ancestors and "not at all a tabula rasa, like the French."66 Change must be gradually implemented, preserving what remains useful from the past and without threatening social order. The method used to reform the political system should be circumscribed in reality by history, the realities of constitutional law, and the needs of human beings. Maistre uses the term politique experimentale to signify a method that avoids generalities and emphasizes experience. Members of I 'Action fran^aise popularized their association with the thought of Maistre by also using the term politique experimentale. Charles Maurras, one of their leading lights, found appealing the idea that the study of politics must be based primarily on facts and history, not on a priori reasoning, since the former approach appeared simultaneously scientific and traditionalist. He asserted that one must learn from what already exists and construct the future on these lessons from history. The French state is nurtured and maintained by strong traditions such as hereditary positions.6"7 A disciple of Maurras and member of /'Action 63 Ibid., 71. 64 65 66 67

Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," 127. Ibid., 70. Ibid., 87. Maurras, L 'Ordre et k desordre, 26, 28.

Maistre 's Lodestars

21

franfaise, Louis Dimier, included a chapter on Maistrean thought in a text that he wrote for a course held in the Institut de I'action franfaise. The theme that ran through this entire chapter was that Maistre viewed politics as a science, but that this science was the product of experience and history, not of abstract reasoning.68 The writings of members of the Action Franfaise, self-confessed followers of Maistre and Bonald, reinforced the view that Maistre defended monarchical despotism. Although they wanted to emulate Maistre, they did not completely understand his writings and made some of the same mistakes as some of his worst critics; for example, believing that he wanted an absolute monarchy. Interpreters could draw on the arguments of Lazare de Gerin-Ricard, a member of the Action Franfaise, who had stated that Maistre and Maurras admired the unity in the regime of Louis XIV.69 I intend to show that Maistre is much concerned with limiting the power of the king to ensure that it does not become despotic. Those interpreters who have concluded that Maistre defended the despotic monarchies in France and Piedmont have ignored the important role of intermediary institutions in Maistre's thought. According to Maistre, the opposition to the monarch's power by the parlements and the Pope would contribute to the smooth functioning of the monarchy. The parkments were crucial intermediate institutions in France because they represented one of the few checks on the despotism of the king. The influence of the king and intrigues at the court to the disadvantage of the parlements were limited by the fact that positions in the parlements could be purchased. Even the wealthy of the middle class could become members of this prestigious political institution. "Twenty years of continuous service was enough to propel the owner or his heirs into the privileged ranks of the French nobility."70 It must not be overlooked that the magistrates of the parlements were staunch supporters of the royalist cause. They conceived that their role was to assist communication and mediate conflicts between the people and the king. "Since there was no form of popular representation, the parlements were not merely the major means of expressing the people's needs, but also the instrument for spreading opinions."71 Confrontation between the king and the parkments had become so intense that in 1771 the Chancellor de Maupeou exiled some of the Parisian magistrates. In their place, 68 Dimier, Les Maitres de la contre-revolution au dix-neuvieme siecle, 42. 69 Gerin-Ricard, Les Idees politiques de Joseph de Maistre et la doctrine de Maurras,

44-

70 Swann, Politics and the Parlement of Paris Under Louis XV, 1754-1774, 7. 71 Gunn, Queen of the World, 273.

22

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

conseils were introduced whose members were appointed by the king and forbidden to oppose him. The purchases of offices were no longer permitted between 1771 and 1774. In 1774 when a new king came to power the parlements replaced the conseils.72 Parlementaire resistance has often been interpreted in a negative light, and viewed as an obstacle to the reforms promoted by some of the king's ministers such as Turgot and Maupeou. More recent historians have recognized as legitimate some of the magistrates' grievances. The remonstrances of the parlements reflected a growing uneasiness among the French people regarding the monarchy and a resistance to its insatiable fiscal demands. "In their many remonstrances and protests, the parlements were attempting to articulate broader concerns about the rights of the individual, provincial privileges, and the abuses of the government."73 Maistre believes that relying on religion would not be enough to prevent despotic rule; existing institutional structures, which represented the interests of the noble class, must be strengthened to enable it to offset the power of the king and of his ministers. Maistre anticipated the need for a monarchical system that would operate well, regardless of the character of the incumbent. "The greatest merit of the engine is that a mediocre man can put it into play ... his person, his name suffices."74 In this section I examine Maistre's arguments in defence of the vendibility of offices in the parlements because that practice assisted in the creation of an independent judiciary. He recognized that, in addition to institutions, there should be laws that would limit the power of the king and direct the activities of the intermediary powers. Samuel Rocheblave 's study on Maistre is another example of an interpretation that disregards the important role of intermediary institutions in Maistre's political thought. Rocheblave asserted that Maistre borrowed his ideas primarily from Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, not Montesquieu or Tacitus.75 I argue that Maistre's frequent criticism of absolutist politics more closely resembles not Bossuet but his seventeenth-century contemporary Francois de Salignac Fenelon. Fenelon did not contest Bossuet's principle that revolt is never permitted and that the monarchy is the best kind of regime. Both believed in the doctrine of the divine right of kings. However, he distinguished himself from other theorists of monarchy by his frequent criticism of royal administration.

72 Egret, Louis XVet I'opposition parlementaire, 1715-1774, 183-4.

73 Swarm, 32. 74 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 438. 75 Rocheblave, Etude sur Joseph de Maistre, 7.

Maistre's Lodestars

23

Louis XIV and his ministers had overturned all the ancient maxims of the state to expand considerably the power of the monarch. "We do not speak anymore of the state or the rules; we only speak of the king and his pleasures."76 Fenelon and Maistre stress that the king must obey the law, not simply follow his own will, and that the aristocrac must be permitted to participate in government. Under the reign of Louis XIV the nobility had become merely part of the display put on by the monarchy to celebrate its grandeur and to hide its usurpation merely royal courtiers. The nobility had little influence on the decisions made by the government.77 . In the epic novel Les aventures de Telemaque (1690), Fenelon indirectly warned Louis XIV that a revolution was imminent. Flattery and seeming adoration for the despot evaporates at the slightest revolution and this monstrous power, extended to violent excess, is soon extinguished.78 Fenelon and Maistre agree that this was not the proper relation between the nobility and the king. The nobility should have an important role in the monarchical government as advisers to the king and as intermediaries between the king and the people; they are not to be merely ceremonial adjuncts with no real power in the decision-making process, nor are they merely to be slaves to the king's demands. As does Maistre, Fenelon argued that the shortcomings of the French regime stem from the excesses of absolutism and government by ministers. Fenelon states "the monarchy moderated by the aristocracy is the most ancient and the most natural form of government."79 The nobility derived neither its establishment nor its rights from the monarchy. Maistre states that "Fenelon saw what no one could avoid seeing: people gasping under the weight of taxes, interminable wars, drunkenness of pride, the delirium of power, and the fundamental laws of the monarchy placed under the feet of licence almost crowned."80 Bossuet asserted that the whole state is contained in the person of the king and that the nation is more united as a result, but granted no particular role in government to the nobility. He argued that it is preferable to risk occasional abuse by the sovereign than to risk that limitations on his power might reduce his usefulness to the nation. His greatest fear was 76 Fenelon, "Lettre politiques a Louis XIV," Emits et kttres politiques, 144. 77 Chaussinard-Nogaret, From Feudalism to Enlightenment, 14-15. 78 Fenelon, Les Aventures de Telemaque, liv. x, 349. 79 Fenelon, "Essai philosophique sur le gouvernement civil," Oeuvres Completes de Fenelon, vol. VII, 140. 80 Maistre, "De 1'eglise gallicane," oc, vol. Ill, 226.

24

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

civil disobedience and anarchy, not abuse of power. For Bossuet, the king could be both legislator and judge.81 While he favoured a strongly centralized form of government, he claimed that it would not be an arbitrary one because it would follow the principles of the Holy Scripture, the law, and the duties of the office. The fear of God was an important antidote to the misuse of power. However, no individual could compel a monarch to follow these principles. "Limits on the exercise of sovereignty are inherent in the sovereignty rather than imposed from outside."82 Bossuet claimed the king was answerable to none but himself.83 To the contrary, Fenelon suggested that to reform the monarchy provincial assemblies and Etats-Generaux should be re-established. These assemblies would be composed of nobles of high rank elected by other nobles, and not based on the recommendation of the king. They would vote on the raising of taxes and discuss foreign and economic policy.84 In this section, it has been shown that Maistre, also, conceived of aristocratic bodies where subjects had the right to inform their ruler of their grievances. Comparing the opinions of Maistre and Bonald on the writings of Fenelon and Bossuet reveals important differences in their political thought. Bonald considered Bossuet's ideas on political and theological matters to be profound and enlightening, whereas he thought that Fenelon failed miserably on political issues and deserved to be severely treated by Louis XIV. Fenelon's project that included changing the constitution to allow the Etat-Generaux to assemble every three years and to allow this body to deliberate as long as it thought necessary, when put into practice eighty years later, had ruined France. Bonald also argued that Fenelon should not have searched in the constitution for the causes of the disasters that afflicted the reign of Louis XIV. Instead the causes could be readily found in the way that great states are surrounded by powerful neighbouring enemies and in the wars that agitated Europe.85 On the other hand, Maistre defends Fenelon. "The superb ear of authority still stands in awe at the penetrating softness of the truths pronounced by this Minerva."86 At another point, Maistre charges "in the 81 Bossuet, Politique tiree des propres paroles de I'ecriture sainte, livre quatrieme, article premier, premiere proposition, 93. 82 Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France, 254. 83 Bossuet, 92; and Hobbes, Leviathan, part II, chapter 18, 232. 84 Fenelon, "Plans de gouvernement," Ecrits et lettres politiques, 104. 85 Bonald, "Histoire de J.B. Bossuet, Eveque de Meaux," Melanges litteraires politiques et philosophiques, vol. II, 347-8. 86 Maistre, "De L'eglise gallicane," oc, vol. Ill, 227.

Maistre 's Lodestars

25

courts Fenelon passes for a republican," when in fact his proposed reforms "strictly conformed to the laws of the French monarchy."87 The above has shown that Rocheblave confused Bossuet with Fenelon. The ideas of the latter were much closer to those that Maistre espoused regarding monarchy. Rocheblave's study also ignored the Pope's role as counterweight to the king's power. The Pope is discussed solely in terms of promoting unity and moderating the authority of the monarch. Rocheblave instead claimed that Maistre wanted a theocracy with all the various states of Europe united in a single great Roman Catholic monarchy submitting to the Pope as supreme leader. As evidence for the claim that Maistre was a theocrat, Rocheblave pointed to the fact that the divine had a prominent position in Maistre's political world. Maistre's monarchy was idealistic, abstract, and unrealistic, since he dreamt of "a terrestrial City of God" and wished that "the king would be above all else the executor of divine wills."88 The arguments that Rocheblave uses to support his claim that Maistre is a theocrat are false. Maistre sees the necessity for religion as part of the natural order of society, but such discussion of a religious influence on the political sphere does not justify an inference that Maistre was say ing that the political sphere should be controlled by a priestly order. He does draw parallels between the role of the legislator and that of the priest. He even states that the French monarchy had a certain religious element that, as it stemmed from the association of the rulers of the Gauls with their priestly class, was particular to France. However, Maistre emphasizes that even when France had a priest as prime minister, there was not government by a sacerdotal order in France.89 Although religion was a significant element of the society and culture of the Gauls and it continued to be in France until the Revolution, the political sphere remained separate from the religious sphere and Maistre believes that is the way it should be. Critics claim that Maistre was a reactionary thinker practising religious intolerance. Maistre believes that the state must actively support established religious institutions and practices. They claim that he violently and incessantly attacked Protestantism, denouncing it as not only religiously heretical but also a permanent threat to the civil order, which the state in Roman Catholic countries has an obligation to repress by force if necessary. It is true that Maistre refers to the problems created by the rise of Protestant sects in previously Roman Catholic nations, for 87 Ibid., 229. 88 Rocheblave, 7, 16-18. 89 Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol. I, go.

26

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

example, in his Reflexions sur le Protestantisme. Although writing from the standpoint of a Roman Catholic of eighteenth- and early nineteenthcentury Europe, Maistre does not always condemn Protestantism out of hand. In his major published political work Considerations^ considers it beneficial that Roman Catholic priests and bishops were forced to live in Protestant nations to escape the French revolutionaries because "this coming together has greatly diminished hatreds and prejudices." Even more surprising from someone supposedly intolerant of Protestantism, Maistre contemplates "if ever Christians are to be reconciled, and everything suggests that they should, it seems that the initiative must come from the Church of England." He contemplates the possibility that Christians could come together under a universal church.90 Maistre explains that the Anglican Church could act as the intermediary between Catholics and Protestant sects and he welcomes an increase in friendlier relations. Maistre does not applaud Protestants being killed simply because they are not Roman Catholics; he genuinely believes that such acts may have been perpetrated to maintain civil order and might have prevented more bloodshed in the long run under certain historical circumstances. In 1822, one year after Maistre's death, a manuscript was published entitled Lettres a un gentilhomme Russe sur L'Inquisition Espagnole [Letters to a Russian Gentleman on the Spanish Inquisition; only the sixth (the last) letter is signed and the signature is Philomathe de Civarron, Moscow, 157 27 September 1815. Commentators have assumed that Philomathe de Civarron was a pen name of Joseph de Maistre. This has not been authenticated and no one knows who Philomathe de Civarron was, but Maistre consequently has been criticized for what the book contains. Maistre was in St Petersburg, not in Moscow, when the book is supposed to have been written. Maistre's name does not appear anywhere in the book. This book on the Inquisition and the name Philomathe de Civarron have not been mentioned by Maistre anywhere in his other writings, nor is there any reference to them in his notebooks and correspondence. Maistre expresses the hope in his writings that human beings would find other ways than war, physical violence, and suppression of minorities to settle disputes and attempts to suggest alternative solutions, as I have indicated, although on other occasions he despairs that human beings will ever become so virtuous. In response to Poland having taken control of much of the Ukraine in the early seventeenth century, Ukrainian peasants mobilized as groups of cavalry, and these "cossacks" in the Chmielnicki uprising of 1648 killed an estimated 100,000 Jews. People in Jewish villages, including 90 Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol. I, 23-5.

Maistre 's Lodestars

27

women and children, were massacred because many of those who administered the conquered lands for the Polish nobility were members of that religious ethnic minority. The atrocities and murders reported "would remain unequaled in Jewish history until the twentieth century."91 The Inquisition was not involved in the Chmielnicki uprising. The book by de Civarron points out that fewer deaths were caused by the Inquisition than by religious wars and political repression in various countries. An examination of events in Holland, Germany, England, France, and the Ukraine would probably indicate that this is true, although it does not take into account the many families that were exiled from Spain.92 Any attempt to analyse the Inquisition is akin to attempts by scientific observers to study the treatment of the Huguenots in France or to understand what is happening today in regions where groups of different religious faiths are in conflict, such as Northern Ireland or Kashmir. Religion, politics, and economics collide and are confused and misused by interest groups, emotion holds sway, atrocities are perpetrated, and it would be extremely difficult to produce an appraisal that would be universally acclaimed. Liberals may rightfully disagree with de Civarron's approach that places the benefits to future generations and survival of the nation in terms of stability, order, and diminished violence ahead of guaranteeing individual freedom of religious belief in the short term. Nevertheless, he perceives the true political and economic factors acting beneath the veil of the claims of the King of Roman Catholic Spain, who argued that through the Inquisition he was crusading for Christian ideals.93 This was no more true than the claims of other rulers in other times and places that they were supporting Protestantism or another religion out of moral ideals rather than self-interested political and economic considerations. Maistre's emphasis on social, economic, and political considerations contrasts with the position of Bonald, who deprecated emphasis on material well-being and claimed religion/morality was all important. Maistre's contributions to politics and economics should not be discounted because of disagreement with some of his comments in his writings on religion. The most criticized of Maistre's writings on religion, law, and politics compare favourably with the treatment of other subjects, for example of women, in the writings of other important thinkers such as Aristotle, Locke, and Rousseau. Their ideas on women would be 91 Armstrong, The Battle for God, 25.

92 de Civarron, "Lettres a un gentilhomme russe sur 1'inquisition espagnole," lettre IV, oc, 346-7. 93 Ibid., 294, 307.

28

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

absolutely unacceptable not only to the feminist movement but to most of society in the modern world, but those ideas do not prevent appreciation of the rest of their work at its true worth. Maistre sees the necessity of religion for society, but the Pope would only be the head of the Church, positioned outside the political sphere. How could the Pope provide an effective counterweight to the king if he were involved in governing the monarchy? Maistre considers how occasionally the Pope could use his influence to prevent the king from acting beyond what is acceptable according to the traditions and religion of the country. An idea that "floated in the heads of our ancestors" was that "temporal sovereignty could be influenced by this high spiritual power that had the right, in certain cases to revoke the oath of the subject."94 In contrast to Rocheblave, Charlotte Muret recognized that the Pope may voice some opposition to a king, but she went further to also label Maistre a theocrat because he used the divine origin of sovereignty to legitimize the centralized and undemocratic political system.95 If we follow Muret's use of the term theocracy, every monarchy based on the divine right of kings would be a theocracy. She claimed that Maistre did not allow any right of resistance to sovereign power except by intervention from the supreme spiritual authority. Rocheblave and Muret misinterpreted Maistre's prescriptions and intentions. A purpose of a political system that contains countervailing forces, such as the one designed by Maistre, is to allow more freedom. A highly centralized political system does not contain institutional limitation on the king's power and maximizes authority at the expense of individual liberty. It is unacceptable for Maistre that the king governs exclusively through his ministers. "Interrogate a European ... the most loyal supporter of royalty, and ask him: 'Is it just, is it expedient that the king govern solely through his ministers? That his subjects have no other legal means to communicate as a body with him' ... He will answer you unequivocally: 'No'."96 Maistre promotes the nobility as an intrinsic component of the monarchy when he states, "the nobility that is the blood of the monarchy can then freely circulate in all the veins of the State."97 It is not the king that does most of the governing, but the aristocracy that serves the nation in the name of the king. Maistre's concern is that in a monarchical regime without intermediary institutions the ministers of the king will take most of the decisions since the king himself does little of the 94 95 96 97

Maistre, "Du Pape," oc, vol. II, 180. Muret, French Royalist Doctrines Since the Revolution, 19. Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 202-3. Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," 168.

Maistre 's Lodestars

2g

governing. Maistre remarks, "kings are more often accused of lacking will power than of abusing power. It is always the council of the king that rules." Most of the aristocratic class, like the mass of the common people, are then excluded from the government's decision-making process. Furthermore, Maistre believes that the nobles were not simply servants of the state who only fulfill their duties and carry out their obligations towards society. They exercise rights and enjoy prerogatives. The aristocracy should rule alongside the king and have rights that are not granted by the king. "This privilege of aristocracy is really a natural law."98 Nonetheless, for Maistre, the king is at the centre of this aristocracy. Legislative power should remain with the king and not be transferred to an assembly elected by the people. This claim is true even if one can demonstrate that at the time of Charlemagne the assemblies were colegislators. On the other hand, Maistre thinks that it would be unjust to permit the king to act as supreme judge. Maistre favours a separation of judicial and legislative powers. He realizes the dangers of uniting judicial and executive spheres under the same power. "When the Romans had the imprudence to abolish all their magistratures and to reunite all the powers under the decemvirs, they created sovereigns who lost their heads, as have all impromptu sovereigns, and who abused their power."99 Magistrates drawn from the aristocracy in the judicial bodies called parlements would administer justice. Although a loyal supporter of royalty, Maistre does not approve of unlimited power for the king to rule as he wishes. He recognizes the paradox that a government can be "at the same time hated for its despotism and despised for its weakness."100 Regimes that place limitations on monarchical power are more stable and secure than despotic governments where only religion can act as a feeble brake on the caprices of a ruthless ruler who is feared and despised by all. The king's subordinates will at any opportunity do what they can to exterminate him. The intermediate bodies diffuse power by ensuring that some of the decisions are taken by the aristocracy, rather than by the king himself. As Maistre observes, "It is the pyramidal aristocracy which administers the State," and while "the king is supposed to be doing everything in a monarchy ... it does not serve well to centralize all advice and lumieres." One of the sacred laws is "the right of subjects by the means of certain bodies, councils or assemblies differently composed, to instruct the king of their needs, to denounce abuses, and legally to pass their grievances and their very humble remonstrance to 98 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 191. 99 Ibid., 114, 205, 201. 100 Ibid., 203.

30

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

him."101 Here Maistre acknowledges that groups of citizens, not necessarily noble, should also have the opportunity to advise and petition the king. However, even if all were to have the opportunity, it is unlikely that those of humble birth would find it feasible, except perhaps those otherwise qualified - for example, businessmen or property owners. One way that the modern monarchy differs from an ancient one is that "in antiquity one would not dispute the claim that kings had the right to condemn people to death."102 In contrast, anyone who heard that the king (in Maistre's day), from his private authority, could condemn a man to death would say that it is a crime. The practice of venality and the inheritance of office holding in the parlements limit the influence of the king, ensuring that judicial and executive functions remain for the most part separated. Otherwise, the fate of men and the most respectable families would depend on the craftiness of lackeys and courtiers. Magistrates would be distracted from their functions because of fear or ambition. This system of venality and office holding by inheritance minimizes crime and scandal since it reduces the ability of a despot to distribute numerous offices.103 A criticism of the system of venality is that it distributes positions in the government on the basis of wealth and birth rather than merit but Maistre argues that both sources are better than leaving appointments to the king's decision. Maistre points out that this system, because of the hereditary nature of the offices, produces highly skilled officials such as he. The knowledge accumulated over a lifetime would be wasted if the son of a magistrate were to pursue a career different from his father's. The improvement of character and the accumulation of more knowledge during each generation have created a great number of famous names in the bar of France. Maistre believes that one should not complain about the influence of wealth in this system because wealth is a precondition for the leisure time and the dignity necessary to perform well in politics. In ancient times, the Roman and Athenian ruling elite were from the opulent class, and in England one needs to possess a stipulated income to become a member of parliament.104 In the early work that he wrote on the subject of venality, Maistre shares the views of the political body of which he is a member. Even after he has left Savoy, he continues to uphold these views. In Considerations Maistre reiterates his 101 Ibid., 191, 202. 102 Ibid., 197. 103 Maistre, "De la venalite des charges dans une monarchic," La Politique de Joseph de Maistre d 'apres ses premiers ecrits, 42. 104 Ibid., 38, 41.

Maistre 's Lodestars

31

support for this practice. His comment is that, in enumerating the disadvantages of an institution, one must not overlook what is also good about it.105 Maistre also argues in Considerations that the monarchy must be based on fundamental laws and some of these laws are intended to limit the power of the sovereign. The constitution is a safeguard against abuse of authority. "As soon as the king had abandoned the old constitution, he had only one thing left to say: 'I will do whatever I wish'." Instead, under the ancient constitution the magistrates are irremovable by the king, and have "the constitutional right to warn the monarch, to elucidate his judgment, and to complain of abuses; there is no despotism." Maistre states, "No doubt there are great prerogatives; but notice what the French constitution places on the other side of the balance." One perceives from this statement that he is using the idea of a counterbalance of power. On one side of the balance are the prerogatives of the king and on the other are the examination and application of the laws by the magistrates. Maistre's discussion of the government of Sparta illustrates a central principle of his political system, the principle of counterbalances of power. In Sparta, "Lycergus had placed the senate between the two, so that it was, according to Plato, 'a salutary counterweight' ... and a strong barrier holding the two extremities in equal balance, and giving a firm and assured foundation to the health of the state."106 Strong does not refer, in Maistre's sense of the term, to the outward exhibition of power. Maistre comments in his letter to the baron Vignet des Etoles, "Be persuaded that, to fortify the monarchy, it is necessary to base it on the laws, to avoid the arbitrary, the frequent commissions, the continual changes of employment and the ministerial intrigues."107 The strength of a government as he conceives it is based on a legitimacy that stems from conformity to both natural law and legislation based on empirically proven principles. It refers to the inner power that is derived from the solid construction of the state where there is equilibrium among competing interests and a state administration free from corruption and excesses. "If there is a commonplace in morals, it is that power and greatness corrupt man."108 In Maistre's monarchy tempered by laws, power is shared between the king and the nobility, so that it does not become harmful to the nation's interest. 105 106 107 108

Maistre, "Considerations sur la France," 96. Ibid., 43, 104. "Lettre a baron Vignet des Etoles," 28 octobre 1794, oc, vol. IX, 80. Maistre, "Considerations," 100.

32

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Louis XIV differed from previous French kings in his firmness in rejecting any idea of sharing power with another political body. When Louis XIV was at the apex of his power, he did not permit even the mere discussion of his political actions. The parlements could only fulfill their minor judicial functions and were not allowed to exercise their right of remonstrance. The Etats-Generaux were not permitted to intervene on any matter.109 In his memoir on the parlements, Maistre considers their gradual degeneration over several centuries, and the grave political consequences of the desertion of the barons and prelates in the fourteenth century. Constituting perhaps the most important part of the parlements, they had deserted the role of advisers to the king and participants in law making, to undertake the judicial duties of the Bane du Roi. Their desertion made it easier for the king to confine the noblesse de robe to the judicial sphere. The parlements no longer functioned as a council counterbalancing the king's power, since thereafter they were limited to meeting only at the king's request and also were confined to judicial administrative duties.110 Maistre makes extensive use in chapter 8 of Considerations of Developpement des principes fondamentaux sur la monarchic, a book written by a number of emigres magistrates of the parlements. When this book was submitted to the surviving members of the French royal family in exile, they ordered it to be burned.111 It was seen as justifying the veto power of the parlements on royal legislative authority. Maistre concurs with the magistrates that it is their duty to pronounce their disapproval of a law, if it is contrary to the fundamental laws, even when they know that doing so will displease their king. "The magistrates must not allow themselves to be intimidated by the passing anger of a sovereign, nor by the fear of disgrace, but must always remember their oath to obey the laws, which are the 'king's' true commands."112 It is not surprising that such a statement, supporting the idea that the magistrates could legitimately resist the will of their sovereign, angered the King in exile, Louis XVIII, in the same way that a similar statement in the book of the magistrates had irritated the emigres princes. Maistre's editor, the Genevan journalist and counter-revolutionary Jacques Mallet du Pan, had criticized Maistre's use of Developpement des 109 Hitler, La Doctrine de I'absolutisme, 129-30, 144. no Maistre, "Les parlements de France," La Politique deJoseph de Maistre, 11-12. i n Developpement des principes fondamentaux de la monarchic franfoise, (author unknown). 112 Maistre, "Considerations," 94; Developpement des principes fondamentaux,

345-

Maistre 's Lodestars

33

principes fondamentaux in a preface to the first edition of Considerations.11^ In the second and later editions Maistre added a footnote with reference to Mallet du Pan's preface where he defends the use of this book. "As to the magistrate authors of the Developpement des principes fondamentaux, etc., if I used their work, it is just that I do not care to do what had been done, that the gentlemen cited certain monuments, and this was precisely what I needed."114 Those "certain monuments" were the laws of the ancient constitution of France that recognized the right of the parlements to limit the power of the king. Maistre and the magistrates are both pointing to fundamental laws that even the king cannot transgress, suppress, or modify because they circumscribe his power at its very origin and are superior to the laws that he creates. These fundamental laws include the law that regulates the succession to the crown, the law that prohibits the alienation of the royal domain, the obligation that the king must respect the divine, natural, and positive laws, protect religion, assemble periodically the EtatsGeneraux, and consult with the parlements. Citing from the work of the magistrates for support, Maistre states that the consent of the nation through the unanimous result of the deliberations from the three orders of the Etats-Generaux is necessary for the establishment of taxes. In the magistrates' book it is mentioned that the orders were the clergy, the nobility, and the people or Tiers-Etat.115 This acknowledges a democratic aspect of French government, in the sense that elements from each of the classes, including some that were not noble, participated in influencing the decision. It was democratic in the meaning of the term at the time, since the entire system was not then democratic, but it gave some place to "the people" as one of several interests. Although Maistre's system constitutes a less hospitable environment for revolt, usurpation, injustice, and despotism than one where the king and his ministers completely control the political process, Maistre's theory could still be legitimately criticized for not providing a certain and completely effective resistance to the king's wishes, since it did not contain the right of active resistance. It is true that the magistrates of the parlements could only remind the king of his duties and limitations and make him aware of public opinion. One may doubt that such moral suasion and persuasion could produce immediate or certain results. The simple remonstrance done by firm, honest, and courageous magistrates, 113 Mallet du Pan, "Avertissement des Editeurs," in Considerations sur la France, 62. 114 Maistre, "Considerations," 100. 115 Developpement des principes fondamentaux, 322.

34

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

conversant with the traditions of their class, is for Maistre a feasible and almost as efficacious a practice as the most absolute veto. He states an aquatic analogy to illustrate this idea. One of the means by which the equilibrium is re-established "when a too preponderant power terrifies the universe" is "by a much more inferior power to throw in the path of the first power an obstacle that is imperceptible at first, but that then grows, we do not know how, and becomes insurmountable." Such a catalyst in nature is the slender branch that is caught by a stone in the current, and accumulates sufficient soil to force the river to change its course.116 The parkments directly could only act as a comparatively weak countervailing force to the king, particularly if the king were very powerful and unwilling to heed their advice. Maistre conceives of another check on the power of the king. If the independence of the Church vis-a-vis the state could be retained, the authority of the Pope could be used as another counterweight should a despot be on the throne. In chapter 3 of Du Pape, Maistre faced the important and ancient problem of how to limit the power of the sovereign when it was abusive, without removing the general rule that subjects are obedient towards their sovereign. "A promise of fidelity towards the sovereign without restrictions would expose men to all the horrors of tyranny, and resistance without rules would expose them to the horrors of anarchy."117 The papacy could not directly prevent the abuse of power by the sovereign but, through its influence, being an authority outside the state, it could contain the temporal power without reducing the general respect for its authority. Gallicanism upset this balance when it allowed political institutions to enter into the sphere designated to be the exclusive domain of the ecclesiastical establishment. Maistre, an ultramontane, criticized the Declaration of Gallican Liberties, "the most miserable rag in ecclesiastical history."118 The articles of 1682 declared that the king was absolute, that is, independent, except of God. He is independent of the clergy, particularly the Pope. The declaration reaffirmed the tradition that recognized the right of the King of France to select the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church in France would consequently depend on the French King rather than the Pope. Maistre uses some of the arguments he developed while corresponding with the 116 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 30. 117 Maistre, "Du Pape," oc, vol.11, 177. 118 Maistre et Blacas, Joseph de Maistre et Blacas: lew correspondance inedite et I'histoire de leur amitie 1804-1820, 126.

Maistre's Lodestars

35

Galilean Count of Blacas as a starting point for Du Pape. At one point in his letter to Blacas, Maistre states: "You do not believe, for example, that you could be revolutionary; but you are when you believe that France is the King ... All has become one and indivisible in your mind, like the august French Republic."119 It is clear from this statement that Maistre does not associate all of the power with the person of the King; he should not be seen as empowered to wield all of the power in France. Maistre's ideal is a unity constituted by the entire political system when all of its parts operate to produce harmony and order. "Everything being in its place, there are no jerks or bumps, friction is low ...Just as in physical mechanics when the balance is perfect, equilibrium and symmetry of the parts exact, even the rapidity of movement appears to be at rest."120 The opposition to the monarch's power by the parlements and the Pope would contribute to this smooth functioning of the monarchy. He reminds the French people that, despite the promises of the revolutionaries, it is not possible to create something entirely new that achieves perfect social unity because political institutions are managed by human beings who are imperfect. Maistre uses the analogy of tuning a musical instrument to show what should be the goal of reform: "Tune the fifths rigorously and the octaves will clash, and conversely. Dissonance being thus inevitable, instead of eliminating it, which is impossible, it is necessary to moderate it by distributing it. Thus, in all the parts, imperfection is an element of possible perfection."121 The system of countervailing forces that Maistre envisions would diffuse political power and reduce the impact of any particular human weakness. Some discord would remain, illustrated by the opposition to the monarch's power by the magistrates. Maistre comments that the false notion of liberty, as an abstract and absolute principle that excites people, leads them to be killed in the process of trying to achieve it. He emphasizes the limited and relative nature of freedom. "It is a mistake to speak of liberty as something absolute, as liberty is, on the contrary, something susceptible to more or less." The issue is not whether one should strive for liberty or authority, it is how to know the desirable "mixture of liberty and authority, laws and opinion"; that is required to achieve the most happiness and prosperity. "The art of the legislator is not to make a people free, but free enough."122 The implication here is that freedom is a good, not only of 119 120 121 122

Maistre et Blacas, 157-8. Maistre, "Considerations," 80. Maistre, "Essai sur le principe generateur," oc, vol. I, 74-5. Maistre, "Considerations," 80, 89.

36

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

benefit per se but mainly in terms of the ends that it serves. An illustration of this would be the contrast between the freedoms available to an Athenian citizen as compared to one of Sparta. The goal of the Spartan freedom was to produce an efficient military machine. Consequently, Spartan freedom was limited and more specific. Athenian freedom was more extensive and general because the greatest goal of Athenian society was to produce a milieu that permitted the flowering of the arts and the greatest enjoyment of life. It is quite possible, nevertheless, that Sparta and Athens, although they differed in the kind and magnitude of freedom permitted, both achieved sufficient happiness and prosperity for their citizens relative to the other goals of their society. In the very first paragraph of Considerations, Maistre juxtaposes two antithetical ideas, acting under free will and acting under orders, to show how human beings are not absolutely free, yet at the same time they have some freedom of choice. "We are all attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a supple chain that restrains us without enslaving us ... Freely slaves, we simultaneously act both voluntarily and necessarily: we really do what we will, but without being able to disturb the general plans."123 When Maistre discusses sovereignty, he makes a similar contraposition between unlimited and limited sovereignty. "One can say equally, under two different points of view, that all sovereignty is limited, and that no sovereignty is limited." Even the most powerful part of the political system, the king, cannot do everything because he is constrained to operate within "his circle of legitimacy traced by the fundamental laws of each nation."124 Any group or individual within a group can only act within a specific sphere of activity. "Each of these beings occupies the centre of a sphere of activity whose diameter varies according to the will of the eternal geometer, who can extend, restrict, check, or direct the will, without altering its nature."125 The status of an individual in a group and the position of the group vis-a-vis other groups in society limit individual choices of action. Maistre recognizes that human beings are inclined both towards society and to war. But these tendencies are not mutually exclusive. Sociable individuals are not necessarily also angelic or virtuous. Also, what might be considered virtuous in one context might be the reverse in another. As he points out, soldiers that kill members of their own species are not considered murderers. Human beings are by nature gregarious and 123 Ibid., i. 124 Maistre, "Du Pape," 178. 125 Maistre, "Considerations," i.

Maistre 's Lodestars

37

group loyalties developed through societal training might cause them to participate fraternally intra-group, yet the same individuals might also participate in inter-group conflict because of societal training, other motivation such as self-interest, and emotional involvement in one of the competing groups. Individuals incur obligations or attitudes towards other groups because of their membership in a particular group. Maistre's interest in the social nature of human beings led to this recognition that freedom for the individual is defined through membership in the group. One of his main criticisms of social-contract theory is that it ignores that the sociability of man goes to the very core of human nature. "There was never for man a time previous to when he was in society as before the formation of political societies, man was not quite man."126 Maistre questions Rousseau's perspective of the savage in the state of nature. Humans were never solitary beings roaming the forest. "Wherever man has observed man, he has found him in society: this state is therefore for him the state of nature." The savages appear to exist outside of society because they are living in a different kind of society. The practice of agriculture and a territorial conception of private property were not, as Rousseau had assumed, the only evidence that one was living in a society. The nomadic peoples, such as the Tartars, have as clear an idea of property as the Europeans even when their property consists of mobile objects such as their beds, dogs and hunting tools.127 Maistre discusses human beings as separate groups within the larger society. The groups that Maistre is considering consist of primary or involuntary ones, not voluntary associations or contractual associations. Most individuals are born into them; migration from one group to another is subject to social, economic, and political constraints, and is so very gradual that it is tantamount to a natural process. Individuals indirectly acquire the freedom to participate through their membership in the group. The well-being of individuals depends on the well-being of the group to which they belong. Even individual identity is shaped by membership in the group. For those classes in society that participate in the political process, such as the aristocracy and the magistrature, Maistre recognizes their right to participate as a group right. Each group has a different relation with the monarch, a different set of rights in relation to the monarch, and different power. The magistrates of the parlements have the right to remonstrate, while the people can present their grievances mainly indirectly to the king through an aristocrat or

126 Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," chapitre II, 99. 127 Maistre, "Examen d'un ecritdeJJ. Rousseau," oc, vol. VII, 549, 511.

38

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

other intermediary. As discussed in the preceding section, Maistre criticizes the republican ideal of a whole republic because the diversity of groups is ignored. The republicans considered the nation as a single whole rather than composed of different parts. The particular class or group is more than a mere aggregation of individual particular interests. It has an identity that can be distinguished from the identity of its individual members and from other groups or classes. While Maistre does not endorse individual rights as such, he recognizes that individuals must enjoy rights through their membership in various groups. He does value the utilitarian doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be a social goal, but modifies its application in that he includes other forms of satisfaction, such as the satisfaction to be derived from pride of accomplishment as in service to the monarch, and the mere achievement of a state of happiness that a peasant might attain by having his wants in nourishment met. Maistre endorses a measure of liberty for the individual but these rights and utility for the individual must vary according to the level achieved by his/her class and the individual's position within the class. The political system envisioned by Maistre is depicted in Figure I.i. Centrifugal forces are emitted from the king at the centre and centripetal forces converge towards the king. Each circle designates a source of power. The nobles, the people (public opinion), the Pope, and the king are all sources of power, although the king remains the focal point for the whole system. As their centripetal forces counterbalance the centrifugal force radiating from the main circle, that of the king, the other circles are only partly covered by the circle of the king's power. While the strongest player, the king, influences other groups in society, they are not completely subordinate. Part of the circles for the nobles and the Pope remain outside of the circle of the king, since they have an independent influence that makes possible their countervailing force on the king, rendering his power less than completely dominant. The circumference of the circle representing the people is depicted as a broken line to illustrate that their influence - usually public opinion, a force converging towards the king - is mainly indirectly applied through their intermediaries such as the nobles. Each group within society is free to a certain extent when it is not completely dominated by any other group in that society. As depicted in Figure 1.1, in the Maistrean political system each sphere of power only partly overlaps the others. The amount of pressure that other groups exert on a given group determines the extent, as a residual, to which the subject group is free. Each group that constitutes the society enjoys

Maistre's Lodestars

39

Figure 1.1 Maistre's Socio-Political System

Not drawn to scale. PEO= people, public opinion, society P= pope N= nobles K= king E= executioner

liberty to the extent that the group's freedom is not limited by its relations with other groups within a society, and the individuals within a particular group participate in the freedom enjoyed by their group vis-a-vis other groups within the society. Since the executioner is an outcast, he is positioned outside all groups. As soon as people learn of his occupation, they despise him and ensure that they move out of contact with him. "It is in the middle of this solitude and of this kind of empty space around him that he lives alone with his wife and children, who make known to him the voice of man: without them, he would only know of groaning."128 As needed, the executioner is called in by the minister of justice to carry out his function in front of an excited crowd. When he finishes "from afar, justice throws him a few pieces of gold" to pay for his service while onlookers gaze in shock and amazement. Modern readers are still amazed by the graphic detail of the passage on the executioner. For some critics 128 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. IV, 34.

4O

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

this passage became synonymous with the character of much of Maistrean thought. The passage has been used as evidence of the extremism and radicalness of Maistre's thought. The validity of such claims is one of the subjects examined in the next section. 3. MAISTRE ON LIBERTY

In books that attempt to survey the Western tradition of political thought, Maistre has been relegated to a brief mention, because he has been considered too extreme to represent the conservative tradition. For example, in one book that examines in detail Hume, Burke, Oakeshott, and Maurras as representatives of conservatism and of the limitations of the Enlightenment, Maistre is mentioned only once, briefly, in a discussion of St Augustine's idea that the state's laws and punishments are a consequence of original sin. "The nineteenth-century French Catholic reactionary de Maistre got the spirit of Augustine's view of law exactly right when he said that God allows the executioner into the temple and permits him to pray just after he has broken a man on the wheel."129 It is interesting that even Maistre's citizenship is inaccurate; he was a very high official of the Italian-speaking state of Piedmont, not of France. Berlin used the same passage on the executioner to support his case that Maistre painted a dark world where society can only be prevented from descending into anarchy when there is bloodshed, pain, and punishment. The executioner is the guardian of the mass of mankind and the "keystone arch on which the whole of society" depends, because he has the power to inflict suffering by torture.130 Society is not founded on the Enlightenment's reason, discussion of rights, and the social contract, but on the irrationality of humankind, its blind obedience to rules ruthlessly imposed, and the fear of individuals that if they were to be apprehended after breaking the rules of society their punishment would be harsh. For Berlin, Maistre defended the most ruthless despotisms in the belief that this would prevent an otherwise unavoidable worse evil, the disintegration of society. Since human nature was for Maistre naturally weak and wicked, the threat of bloodshed, pain, and punishment must always be lurking in the background. It is claimed that these deeply pessimistic assumptions are at the foundation of Maistre's political authoritarianism. 129 McClelland, A History of Western Political Thought, 111.

130 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 105, 108, 115.

Maistre 's Lodestars

41

The passage on the executioner has "an affinity with the paranoiac world of modern Fascism."131 Maistre refused to accept the position of Enlightenment philosophers that government should be minimized to maximize individual freedom. Were Maistre forced to choose between liberty and death, he would select death.132 It has also been suggested that Maistre's experience as a young man in a lay order, the penitents noirs, may explain the vividness of the passage on an execution. The function of this confraternity was to perform charitable activities, such as comforting condemned criminals.133 As Owen Bradley indicates, no one has produced evidence that Maistre's intent in the passage on the executioner was to glorify this practice.134 A person who is fascinated with violence would not, as Maistre does, proudly proclaim that in his native Savoy punishments are more moderate than in France.135 There, unlike in other countries, the convicted criminal condemned to capital punishment and torture on the wheel is killed before his lifeless body is submitted to the horrible procedure, thus saving the criminal from extreme suffering. In this section I assess whether Maistre merits being labelled a precursor of fascism and a thinker willing to sacrifice all individual liberty. Muret and Rocheblave were two other interpreters who claimed that Maistre sacrificed individual freedom to achieve national unity.136 He is said to have rejected any rights for individuals or for particular classes in society. Maistre does believe that society rests on self-sacrifice and is not merely a means to satisfy the needs and desires of individuals, although he adds that the optimum satisfaction of the wants and needs of all individuals is also a desirable aim. This was in contradiction to one of the assumptions of eighteenth-century philosophy that human conduct is driven primarily by self-interest and pleasure. Hereditary monarchy is the most stable of all human institutions because it is not based on rational interest. Its citizens must worship the state; citizens must not feel that they are merely entering a commercial transaction as in the Lockean theory of social contract. 131 Ibid., 113, 148, 170. 132 Berlin, Introduction to Considerations on France, xxxiv. 133 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 103. 134 Bradley, A Modern Maistre, 68. 135 Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," 20 aout 1793, oc, vol. VII, 218-19. 136 Muret, 33; and Rocheblave, 18.

42

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre's supposed obsession with the irrational bases of society has been used to distance him from his contemporaries. Berlin claims that Maistre shared with the nineteenth-century German Romantics this "violent emphasis on irrational goals, romantic conduct unrelated to selfinterest or pleasure, acts springing from the passion for self-surrender and self-annihilation." For support to his argument, he points to a passage from Des origines de la souverainete where Maistre discusses how the government must be perceived by its citizens as truly a religion.137 To submit the government to the scrutiny of each individual would lead to anarchy. "The first need of man is that his awakening reason be stifled under this double yoke, it needs to be annihilated, it needs to become a small part of the national reason, in order that it transforms its individual existence into another common existence."138 Maistre is describing patriotism. When Maistre uses the term "blind obedience" he does not mean that citizens should never question authority, but if that authority is not being abused and is exercised as constituted by the fundamental laws of the society, then in his view citizens are not being constructive if they needlessly question authority, creating recurring upheaval that is destructive to the society. This has a parallel in theology and the modern sciences, including the social sciences, where a basic law, dogma, or canon is made the accepted fact or theory, and is permitted only gradually and with adequate evidence to be modified or replaced by members of a discipline. This holds in order that a philosopher or scientific researcher can use a basic body of "truths" from which to launch speculation even though science nearly always recognizes truth to be relative and approximate.139 Maistre describes patriotism as a miracle-worker because it unifies people, thus minimizing the harm to society from differences of opinion and self-interest. This self-abnegation is amazing too because it makes individuals willing to sacrifice their lives to defend their country. "What is patriotism? It is this national reason of which I speak, it is individual abnegation."140 Patriotism makes them immolate themselves when the basic desires for happiness and self-preservation would deter them from such acts. The senator in Soirees remarks that the most compassionate people are willing to go to war. "Yesterday he would find it wrong to have by accident killed his sister's canary: tomorrow you will see him climb on a pile of cadavers to see further ... he will eventually 137 138 139 140

Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and The Origins of Fascism," 123, 125-6. Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," 148. Capra, Matus, and Steindl, Belonging to the Universe,i§o. Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," 148.

Maistre 's Lodestars

43

come to be enthusiastic about carnage."141 Berlin claimed that such passages show how far Maistre had distanced himself from the traditional "authoritarianism of Bossuet and Bonald and was fast approaching the worlds of German ultra-nationalists, of the enemies of the Enlightenment, of Nietzsche ... The facade of Maistre's system may be classical but behind it there is something terrifyingly modern."142 One cannot logically colour a writer as a fascist sympathizer on the basis of his description of patriotism. Patriotism is characteristic not only of the soldiers of totalitarian countries; the defenders of liberal and conservative democracies have also gone to war and performed deeds of patriotism that made them heroes in their respective nations. Berlin also stated that in the face of diminishing justice and freedom, in contrast to the ascetic self-denial and withdrawal that occurred in countries such as the German states after the Thirty Years War, it is preferable to behave as patriots. "Those who are wedded to the 'negative' concept of freedom ... think that self-abnegation is not the only method of overcoming obstacles, that it is also possible to do so by removing them ... in the case of human resistance, by force or persuasion, as when I ... conquer a country which threatens the interests of my own. Such acts may be unjust, they may involve violence, cruelty, and the enslavement of others."143 He is here advising that war and patriotism, the same means for which he castigated Maistre, are a better alternative than surrender if they will accomplish "an enlargement of freedom." In the passage from Des origines de la souverainete Maistre warns "if every person were to be a judge of the principles of government, suddenly you would see the birth of civil anarchy or the annihilation of political sovereignty ... To annihilate or to submit it [the government] to the discussion of every individual, that is the same thing."144 He is willing to sacrifice some of an individual's freedom of expression to achieve social unity. A nineteenth-century commentator, Emile Faguet, has argued that Maistre distrusted the individual will; it is for him synonymous with caprice. Maistre said that a regime that relies on individual wills is unstable because power is too dispersed and out of control. Faguet misinterpreted this to mean that Maistre would have the power of government focused in one individual. Coincident with the conclusion of Muret and Rocheblave, Faguet emphasized that Maistre was scornful of liberty.145 141 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 17-18. 142 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 126. 143 Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," 25. 144 Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," 148. 145 Faguet, Politiques et moralistes du dix-neuvieme siecle, 8, 20-1.

44

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Berlin's essay on two concepts of liberty helps to clarify that Maistre's political thought, contrary to what these commentators have argued, is not devoid of its own conception of liberty. The theory developed by Benjamin Constant that distinguishes between two kinds of freedom "individual" and "political" is intrinsic to Berlin's political theory.146 Constant and Maistre expressed their particular position regarding liberty, as spokesmen for the republican and monarchist causes, respectively. Towards the end of his life Constant had come closer to Maistre's view that both political and individual liberty are important. When there is less political liberty, political power is diminished, and political power is a prerequisite to individual liberty. Maistre believes that in Europe in the early nineteenth century individuals could best maximize their political power through participation in groups, while Constant supported representative government. To understand Berlin's fear of the diabolical use that he supposed could be made of Maistre's writings, if they were to be combined with an arbitrary use of political (positive) freedom by a totalitarian government, it is necessary to define Berlin's understanding of individual and political liberty, which he renamed "negative" and "positive" liberty. Berlin used "freedom" and "liberty" interchangeably. Negative and positive freedoms are differentiated mainly by the importance of the area of application in the former and by whom it is applied in the latter. As expressed by him, negative freedom refers to "being one's own master, to be or do as I wish." Around a specific limited area of the personal life of any member of a society that guarantees negative freedom, a line is drawn that separates that area from his or her public life. Within the area of negative freedom, the individual is free to choose and no one can interfere with his or her choices. The definition of positive freedom begins with "not being prevented from choosing as I do, by other men."147 To understand positive freedom, one must begin by recognizing the personal kind of positive freedom. Each of us is practising positive freedom when our higher true self, or soul, restrains our mind or body from falling prey to our wants in a way that would not contribute to our wellbeing. For example, although an individual might emotionally want to do something, the higher self considers the action rationally and decides that the long-run effect would be undesirable; so the individual chooses not to do it. Since this curtailment of an action was made by an individual's own spirit or higher self, it would illustrate personal positive 146 Constant, "Liberte des anciens comparee a celle des modernes," Cours de politique constitutionnelle, tome II, 552, 555. 147 Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," 16-17.

Maistre's Lodestars

45

liberty. The danger that Berlin correctly anticipates is that the definition of that higher self can be extended to include "the social whole of which the individual is an element or aspect: a tribe, a race, a church, a state ... This entity is then identified as being the 'true' higher self which, by imposing its collective, or 'organic', single will upon its 'members' achieves its own, and, therefore, their 'higher' freedom."148 When a group or a national government usurps the individual's positive freedom and makes choices for him or her instead of the individual making them under his or her own initiative, the leaders of the group in effect assume part or all of personal positive freedom as a public positive freedom. This may be followed by the member losing his or her negative freedom too, as the group begins to encroach upon and diminish the area within which individual members may choose without interference. Maistre and Berlin are attempting to come to grips with nationalism. A comparison of the two statements by Berlin quoted below indicates that the expressions of his views on nationalism were not always consistent. In the first he describes German nationalism as an example of the romanticism that could divide Europe into conflicting states that would seek to dominate each other. "Independence - capacity to determine one's own course - becomes as great a virtue as interdependence once was ... If I am a German, I seek German virtues ... I cultivate everything within me which makes me as rich, as expressive, as many-sided, as full a German as it is possible for me to be ... That is the romantic ideal at its fullest."149 In another paper, Berlin states that despite his enthusiasm for individual liberty, he could not agree with those, such as the philosophers of the shallow internationalism of the Enlightenment, who do not accept that individuals need to belong, to have "adherence to a particular nation, community, culture, tradition, language ... To be understood is to share a common past, common feelings and language, common assumptions, the possibility of intimate communication - in short, to share common forms of life. This is an essential human need ... this almost instinctive sense of one's own roots."150 In the latter statement Berlin describes and justifies national or group consciousness. His description in this second statement does not differ significantly from Maistre's descriptions of patriotism. Relating nationalism and freedom of choice presents a difficult problem in political theory. Maistre wrote about the value of national groups; for example, those of Liguria and Lombardy are discussed in 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid. 150 Berlin, "The Three Strands in My Life," 258-9.

46

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

section 3 of chapter IV. The feeling for belonging is inevitable and the wealth of cultural values and creativity that a variety of cultures produces is desirable, although a diversity of national cultures has sometimes been funnelled by political leaders towards fomenting ethnic conflict, discrimination, and persecution. Nationalism is a nursery for creative power, invention, and innovation, while cosmopolitanism and empires tend to homogenize and are parasitic culturally. It is difficult to resolve the problem of nationalism and preserve negative freedom by an appeal to pluralism. That may lead to circular arguments, since one cannot support liberty as the absolute sine qua non and also profess that pluralistic freedom of choice is being maintained. Regarding this theoretical problem John Gray states: "What does follow from the truth of pluralism is that liberal institutions can have no universal authority ... there can be if pluralism is true - no argument according universal priority to liberal values.151 "Once again, the link between pluralism and liberalism - in this case through negative liberty- is broken."152 Towards the end of his life Berlin wrote a paper titled "The Pursuit of the Ideal" that made it clear the ideal is seldom achievable. "Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals ... but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs ... We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss." He was not being pessimistic; he was only asserting as Maistre does that complete freedom is not compatible with order and other desirable goals. Liberals have insisted that government should be minimized and private choice maximized; but the inevitable compromises are difficult. In support Berlin quoted from Immanuel Kant: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." As did Maistre, he recognized the imperfection of human nature and the constant need for powerful intervention: "extreme measures may in desperate situations be required ... [to] preserve an uneasy equilibrium, which is constantly threatened and in constant need of repair."153 Maistre has been labelled a pessimist by some commentators for holding similar views, but all three - Maistre, Kant, and Berlin - are quite optimistic that the means are available for society to counteract adequately the undesirable tendencies in human nature. Michael Ignatieff, Director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University (he wrote a biography of Berlin with the latter's cooperation), has put new light on at least one of the aspects intrinsic to the controversial issue of human violence and conflict. He 151 Gray, Berlin, 155. 152 Ibid, 157. 153 Berlin, "The Pursuit of the Ideal," 12, 13, 17, 18-19.

Maistre 's Lodestars

47

states that human rights arguments "are not clear because they confuse what we wish men and women to be with what we empirically know them to be ... Because these ideas about dignity, worth, and human sacredness appear to confuse what is with what ought to be, they are controversial, and because they are controversial, they are likely to fragment commitment to the practical responsibilities entailed by human rights instead of strengthening them." This is the kind of error that interpreters have made in the interpretation of Maistre's realistic descriptions of mankind and appraisal of the world in which he found himself. Ignatieff argues, for example, that because people who believe in God see the problem differently (to them man is sacred) from those who approach it from a secular orientation, discussion and compromise is impossible, and it is better to "seek to build support for human rights on the basis of what such rights actually do for human beings."154 Maistre prefers to seek to create a polity consisting of groups in counterpoise that would result in improvement of the well-being of individuals indirectly as members of those groups, rather than attempting to guarantee rights to individuals through ideal but often ineffective statements (especially in the political context of the eighteenth century) regarding negative freedom. Positive liberty is an individual's freedom from having the group of which he or she is a member decide what she or he should think or do. Maistre tends to prefer that individuals attain their political aims and express their political choices through their groups and, in this indirect way, to the extent of the freedom that each group enjoys, share in freedom of choice. This social approach to individual liberty need not endanger liberty, as long as the individual retains the freedom to choose whether or not he or she should act or think as the group does. Fascism is a modern form of despotism. Evidence in Maistre's writings, discussed in the previous section on intermediary institutions, shows beyond doubt that he is an opponent of all forms of despotism. As has already been indicated, Maistre was accused by critics of his published works of having produced material that potentially might be used by a totalitarian government. This conjectural claim that may be true or false could refer to two kinds of action to justify what a despotic government is doing: i. shifting from the individual to the group the responsibility for making moral choices; and 2. using violence to enforce authority. Berlin's misinterpretation of a statement by Maistre regarding authority illustrates how Maistre might have undeservedly been declared responsible in the second aspect. One reads in Maistre's correspondence that he disapproves of increases in military expenditures and research on weapons. 154 Ignatieff, "Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry," 54.

48

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

More perfect weaponry does not represent progress. "Military art is the only one where the perfecting serves only to harm humanity."155 Maistre prefers advances in other fields such as economics and manufacturing for peaceful purposes because he believes that those lead to more economic growth, peace, and prosperity. Berlin understands Maistre's philosophy regarding the use of violence - it should be minimized in every way possible. "Maistre condemns naked militarism, again and again. 'Every time something is perfected in the sphere of the art of war, that is a misfortune pure and simple.'" But then Berlin veers to deplore Maistre's choice in a hypothetical case when authority is the only alternative to anarchy. "Yet there are moments when chaos threatens: the worst government is preferable to anarchy; indeed only the most ruthless despotism can check the disintegration of society.' In this he is at one with Machiavelli and Hobbes and all the defenders of authority as such."156 Here, whereas Maistre is simply saying that ceteris paribus any government is better than no government because with anarchy everyone suffers, his statement was interpreted as a glorification of raw power, violence, and authority. Maistre is merely making the point that no person who has two alternatives, comparing for emphasis the extreme cases of anarchy or a totalitarian government, would choose the former. Who would choose to live in the absolute anarchy of a region such as Sierra Leone in 2001? Maistre is not alone in anticipating no advantage in anarchy; on a different occasion Berlin wrote "Locke says 'Where there is no law there is no freedom' ... Burke proclaims the individual's right to be restrained in his own interest." Berlin adds that it is only "In the ideal society, composed of wholly responsible beings, laws ... would gradually wither away." Maistre shows that human nature is such that anarchy means relinquishing political life to licence and the irrational. Berlin was aware of this relative nature of liberty: "The extent of a man's or a people's, liberty to choose to live as they desire must be weighed against the claims of many other values, of which equality, or justice, or happiness, or security, or public order are perhaps the most obvious examples. For this reason, it cannot be unlimited."157 Maistre, like Berlin, was not promoting authority per se. Berlin declared in his paper "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism" that he had set himself the task of proving "Maistre understood ... that the old world was dying, and he perceived ... the terrifying contours of the new order which was coming in its place ... judgements which 155 Maistre, "Lettre aM. le comte de Vallaise," 27 Janvier 1817, oc, vol. XIV,

23156 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 146-8. 157 Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," 32, 33, 55.

Maistre's Lodestars

49

seemed perversely paradoxical in his day ... [Maistre] seemed to be gazing calmly into the classical and feudal past, but what he saw even more clearly proved to be a blood-freezing vision of the future."158 The paper consists of two separate themes. One is a selection of the most extreme, violent, and metaphysical passages Maistre had written to present his view of the world, and the other is a description by Berlin of the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian regimes. No evidence is given for the existence of any historical lineage or influence between the two subjects. Yet Berlin went further here than accusing Maistre of a fascination with violence; he wrote that Maistre's vision is worse than "the most violent and hysterical voices [of the eighteenth century] ... its highest point of revolt - like Sade ... Maistre's deeply pessimistic vision is the heart of the totalitarianisms, of both left and right, of our terrible century."159 Berlin closes this paper on Maistre and on fascism with the following statement. "His vision may be detestable to those who truly value human freedom ... Maistre boldly, more than once, and often for the first time, revealed ... central truths, unpalatable to his contemporaries, indignantly denied by his successors, and recognized only in our own day ... totalitarian society, which Maistre ... had visualised, became actual and ... has vindicated the depth and brilliance of a remarkable, and terrifying, prophet of our day."l6° A Maistrean scholar may be tempted to applaud this seemingly laudatory appraisal, especially since Berlin also stated that Maistre compares very favourably in ability and accomplishment to other thinkers such as Voltaire and Alexis Clerel de Tocqueville.161 Because Maistre is called a "terrifying prophet," and his vision is described as "detestable" it has been assumed by some that he must somehow be responsible for the twentieth-century manifestation of his prophecy. The Oxford dictionary indicates that the word prophet can be interpreted as i. one who foretells what is going to happen, or 2. the accredited spokesman for some movement. Many readers of Berlin's paper have come away believing that Maistre was a prophet in both senses, whereas only the first definition is accurate. Because of ambiguity and omissions, the paper could provide the impression that Maistre is a spokesman for totalitarianism. For example, the paper contains a page on Maistre's belief in elites, but never refers to Maistre's effort to construct a system of government that would involve countervailing forces 158 159 160 161

Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 102. Ibid., 126-27. Ibid., 174. Ibid., 155, 159-60.

50

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

to prevent despotic government. Instead of a consideration of Maistre's abundant writings on the development of a balance of power to prevent international conflict, the paper states that Maistre preaches the necessity for war.162 Berlin's effort to set the record straight - "Keen as his eye was, even he could scarcely have foreseen that a day would come when ... liberalism would be faced with two enemies instead of one the despotism of rational scientific organization on one side, and the forces of anti-rational mystical bigotry on the other" - is obscured in a flood of other material. Maistre does everything in his power to contribute to political and economic thought what would help to prevent the actualization of the horrific vision that he had imagined from the conclusions of his analyses. His writings endeavoured to preserve and improve European civilization. Hitler came to power over a century after Maistre wrote his works and to attribute fascism (Nazism and Soviet Communism in Berlin's vocabulary) to him would be a classic example of a simple fallacy known to philosophy as the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, that if event F follows event M, then the occurrence of event F must be due to event M. It is attributing causative power to Maistre's writing in 1809 because it preceded Hitler's coming to power in 1934. On this basis a multitude of European writers who lived in the two thousand years that preceded Hitler's Nazi state, including some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world, could also be declared guilty. Maistre's writings have been compared to those of Friedrich Nietzsche, but Maistre's goals and writings present a brilliant contrast to the darkness of those of Nietzsche.163 Nietzsche wrote that he was preparing for Europe a catastrophe that would occur inevitably as a result of the widespread influence of his writings after his death: "One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful - of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite."164 He glorified power and domination in inter personal as in international relations and was probably referring to his mission to distort the moral and political system of Western Europe by inverting vice to virtue. When, although receiving growing fame and royalties, Friedrich Nietzsche was progressively paralysed by illness, his sister Elisabeth Forster Nietzsche became his guardian. In the Nietzsche Archiv, containing his works and 162 Ibid., 109, 173. 163 Ibid., 126. 164 Nietzsche, "Ecce Homo: Why I am a Destiny," 24.

Maistre 's Lodestars

51

correspondence, which she founded and administered at her home, she received Adolf Hitler in February 1933, shortly after he became the Chancellor of Germany. Nietzsche's personal conception of Authenticity "was the chief tenet of fascism and [Hitler's] National Socialism. No man came closer to the full realization of his [Nietzsche's] 'self-created value' than A. Hitler."165 In Hitler's view, as in Nietzsche's, the best ruling class was one in which the members were self-conscious and self-determining. Such "noble" specimens of mankind would strive to be and to accomplish whatever they happened to wish, using all available means; there would be no consideration of moral restraint and everything would be permissible. The goal having been decided by the basic desire for more power, the will would then focus to produce the means for its attainment and all obstacles in its path would be summarily destroyed.166 Mussolini said that before he came to power he had read all of Nietzsche's available works. Hitler believed as Nietzsche did that reason and morals must be subordinated to the Will. "By the time he wrote Mein Kampf[ 1924-25, before he became fuhrer of the German people in 1933-34] ne [Hitler] had fully recognized the personal and political value of this vocabulary of 'the Will' and had decided to make it his own."167 An imposing Nietzschean memorial building was constructed at Weimar in 1938 under the direction of Hitler, to honour the leading philosopher of the Nazi German state. Financed by the German state, it included a central hall for receptions, a research institute, and a library to house Nietzsche's works. It is questionable whether Nietzsche would be pleased if he had lived to see the use of his philosophy to support the policies and activities of the Third Reich. However, there is intellectual and concrete evidence to indicate that his writings were utilized by Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany, whereas no evidence has come to light of any connection between a fascist government and the writings of Maistre. While Berlin suggested that Maistre had no appreciation for liberty, passages such as the following, with reference to the Vendemiaire uprising of 3 October 1795 against the Republican government, indicate that Maistre appreciates the value of positive liberty and how it may be distorted from a personal to a social good by a despotic government that then proceeds to confiscate as well the negative liberty of each individual. Maistre deplores the loss of liberty by individuals. He states that, despite the promises of access to much greater liberty, the post-revolutionary 165 Stern, A Study of Nietzsche, 33, 117. 166 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 151-3. 167 Stern, Hitler: The Fuhrer and the People, 56-7.

52

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

governments have not increased freedom of choice for the masses: "their masters have gone so far as to strike them by mocking them. They told the people, 'You believe that you do not want this law, but you can be sure that you do. If you dare to refuse it, we shall shoot you down with grapeshot to punish you for not wanting what you want - and the threat was carried out."168 Berlin, too, described this transfer of positive liberty from the private to the public form, from the individual to a despotic government: "coercing others for their own sake in their, not my, interest, I am then claiming that I know what they truly need better than they know it themselves ... to bully, oppress, torture them in the name, and on behalf, of their 'real' selves."169 Berlin did not name the Vendemiaire uprising but only used the general argument as a hypothetical example of positive freedom gone awry. It is clear, however, that Berlin's views coincide with those expressed by Maistre on positive liberty, and even the language used is strikingly similar. The descriptions of positive liberty by Maistre and Berlin in the quotations compared above are identical. Maistre believes that as the only form of freedom attainable by a large part of the population in the eighteenth century it was a practical choice despite its potential perils. Berlin, living in the twentieth century, feared positive freedom and labelled it the enemy of freedom, but towards the end of his life he despairs that complete negative freedom for all individuals would ever be practicable. He said, in discussing the connection between value-pluralism, liberalism, and freedom of choice: "Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate; liberty - without some modicum of which there is no choice ... may have to be curtailed ... to leave room for the liberty of others, to allow justice, or fairness to be exercised."170 Frank Hartung also claimed that Maistre has no appreciation for liberty. He based his conclusion on the participation of Maistre in what he considered a retrograde movement that rejected the individualistic ideas of the Enlightenment such as the principles of equality and sovereignty of the people.171 Such commentators ignored that Maistre is as critical of a despotic monarch as he is of democracy. According to Maistre, two kinds of approaches must be avoided if one would like to maintain a moderate monarchy: the view "all kings are great criminals ... Democracy is the only just form of government"; and the view "sovereignty consists of the degradation of the nobility, of the magistrature, in one word of all intermediate 168 169 170 171

Maistre, "Considerations," 107. Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty," 18. Berlin, "The Pursuit of the Ideal," 12-13. Hartung, "The Social Function of Positivism," 124.

Maistre 's Lodestars

53

authorities."172 A monarch who wants to remain in power must sacrifice a portion of his power.173 Rocheblave also propagated the belief that Maistre disliked liberty to such a great extent that "for him the rebel and enemy was the parliamentarian and anyone who dared to question in a general way the accepted rule."174 On the contrary, Maistre despises a regime where the people are prevented from placing their grievances and suggestions before the king, through their representatives in the aristocratic class. He decries the fact that the way the monarchy functions indicates to superior bodies that the king does not like remonstrances. He states in a letter to his friend Vignet des Etoles that this is an excess of power that could lead to the overthrow of the throne; for example, "Lettres patentes destined to turn upside down the State are brought at midday, and to ensure that there is not time to read them, are registered during the same day."175 Commentators on Maistre's published works overlook the consideration that he criticizes individualism because he fears that such ideas as popular sovereignty and individual equality could be used as a pretext for authoritarianism and mass tyranny, as in the experience of the Terror during the most radical phase of the French Revolution. He did not have the benefit of the hindsight of his critics who lived in the twentieth century during and after the Soviet and Nazi dictatorships, but he suffered the French Revolution and his twentieth century critics should have considered all aspects of the regime that followed it, and not have been blinded by the words liberty and equality. Cioran claimed that Maistre became like his ruthless and extreme enemies the Jacobins; his books are not boring to read because they are penetrated by an invigorating rage.176 The spirit of the Revolution and the Terror that he relentlessly attacked has penetrated, and been assimilated into, his own thought. This statement is as constructive as saying that a physician who is caring for the sick during an epidemic should be treated as a persona non grata since he may have become as virulent and dangerous to human beings as the illness he is combating because he has come to understand the illness too well. The Jacobin political discourse could have been the precursor to fascism and totalitarianism. The conception of sovereignty as a unitary and indivisible political will during the ancien regime was maintained in the revolutionary period, 172 173 174 175 176

Maistre, "Lettre a Vignet des Etoles," 26 aout 1795, oc, vol. IX, 87. "Lettre a baron Vignet des Etoles," 22 aout 1794, oc, vol. IX, 74. Rocheblave, 45. Maistre, "Lettre a Vignet des Etoles," 26 aout 1795, oc, vol. IX, 87. Cioran, Essai sur lapensee reactionnaire apropos deJoseph de Maistre, 12, 72.

54

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

despite the apparently new emphasis on individual rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Man vested sovereignty in the nation and asserted that laws formulated by the Constituent Assembly must be the expression of the general will. Allegorical figures, symbols, and architectural projects of the period conveyed a monolithic conception of the citizenry, in complete contradiction to the conception of a pluralistic liberal democracy. The fasces, which throughout Western history had been used to signify state power, was drawn as rods that were tightly bound together and became the dominant symbol of the united republic on engravings, flags, and monuments during the Revolutionary period. "For the revolutionaries the fasces took on some of the meaning it had for the Fascists in our own [twentieth] century, as a symbol of the corporate unity of the state."177 When the Jacobin dictatorship created a more centralized bureaucracy, it further concentrated power in Paris. This exacerbated a problem already in existence during the ancien regime, when the provinces were governed by intendants, appointed by ministers of the King, who often disregarded the needs of the people in the provinces. Maistre's decentralised monarchy would have preserved the distinctiveness of each province and allowed the elite of each region to have more input into the way the region was governed. One argument Maistre uses, to counter Constant's claim that republican government is the best form of government because it is representative government, is that the republic is in fact Paris and the rest of France is subject to this republic.178 An individualistic society might be more vulnerable to despotism than one that contains a variety of intermediary institutions and groups between the state and the individual. Maistre defends a conception of society that consists of groups and associations, with collective rights and duties, against the new enthusiasm for individualism and a unitary state. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political philosophy, for the most part, did not consider rights for smaller groups within society. Philosophers of the French Enlightenment, such as Turgot and Jean-Antoine Nicolas Caritat marquis de Condorcet, argued that the patriarchal family, the guilds, estates, and the Church should be eliminated, because they were irrational restrictions on the liberty of the individual and obstacles to the implementation of state policy. These philosophers did not perceive that citizens were capable of having multiple allegiances, and social groups, even the family, were considered a threat to a nation 177 Leith, "The French Revolution: The Origins of a Modern Liberal Political Culture?" 189. 178 Maistre, "Considerations sur la France," oc, vol. I, 47.

Maistre's Lodestars

55

because they defended the individual against arbitrary state power and seemed to weaken an individual's sense of solidarity with the citizens of the nation as a whole. Hannah Arendt's research into the causes of the rise to power of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism has shown that the inception and long-term totalitarian rule of Hitler and Stalin depended mainly on an indifferent and inarticulate part of the population: "an atomized and individualized mass." A totalitarian regime that permitted no rival parties or loyalties was not a phenomenon of the twentieth century only; it occurred in the past when the preconditions existed and it was what Maistre had seen after the French Revolution. Germany and Austria were nationstates organized under competitive individualism, and economic activity was the prime measuring stick of social and political worth. Their World War I military defeat and subsequent unemployment and inflation created a mass society. Stalin, unlike Hitler, did not find a mass society and had to create one from the revolutionary Russia of Lenin's day. He used the cumulative effect of many purges to accomplish the liquidation of groups and the creation of an atomized society. "The chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships." The "mass man's feeling of superfluousness, frustration, and anger" is manipulated by potential leaders of totalitarian governments to establish their regime, to maintain it, and to carry out with impunity brutal crimes such as the Holocaust. Unwavering loyalty that submits to complete domination by party bosses "can be expected only from the completely isolated human being who, without any other social ties to family, friends, comrades, or even mere acquaintances, derives his sense of having a place in the world only from his belonging to a movement, his membership in the party." Arendt's conclusion is similar to that of Maistre: most individuals have to participate in a group to satisfy their need for belonging and interaction with the other members of a group, even if it is only the basic family grouping. If this need is not met, the individual may more easily fall prey to authoritarian government. For the individual, satisfaction of this need is as important as the provision of negative liberty. Through the groups to which they belong a larger number of individuals can obtain more control over their political lives. "Democratic freedoms may be based on the equality of all citizens before the law, yet they acquire their meaning and function organically only where the citizens belong to and are represented by groups, or form a social and political hierarchy."179 This 179 Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 312-23.

56

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

echoes the writings of Maistre on the ancien regime. "If one examines carefully this intervention by groups within the nation, one finds less than a co-legislative power, and more than a regular mere acceptance of what is done by the monarch."180 In France it included the Etats-Generaux having the right to intervene in important matters, functioning as a council counterbalancing the king's power and it empowered the parlementswtfh the veto over royal legislation.181 As a conservative of the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century Maistre would not expect an individual of the lower class to actively participate in government and Maistre's approach did not include government elected democratically by the whole people. He aimed to have as many individuals as possible satisfy their political needs through the advising and petitioning of the king via the group of which they were members. Maistre knows that his republican opponents such as Constant and Stael are using the argument that a return to the monarchy would be a retrograde step because it would impinge on freedom of the individual, which according to them had been achieved from dismantling the ancien regime. Stael declared "this constitution, when it was made, was an immense step ... towards what one would call liberty."182 Maistre's reply is that the constitution exists only on paper. "When we say that the constitution is working, we are mistaking the constitution for the government. The latter, which is a highly advanced despotism, works only too well."183 The three French national assemblies wrote more laws than the three French royal houses ever produced, but these laws were useless because they were not being followed. A multitude of written laws suggests the fragility of the regime and the precariousness of freedom in that nation. Maistre notes that the bodies of the French Revolutionary Government had created a total of 15,479 ^aws from July 1789 to October 1791. He selects the constitution to consider because he wants to discuss a typical dead-letter law that had promised the French people so much more liberty. Another law passed by the National Assembly but not followed in practice was the law that guaranteed freedom of the press. In the minds of Enlightenment philosophers and their disciples during the French Revolution, individuals truly experience freedom when they are free to express their opinion. Freedom of expression is also important for the whole society. If the most enlightened men were to be too timid to 180 181 182 183

Maistre, "Considerations," 93. Ibid., 92-5. Stael, Reflexions sur lapaix interieure, 113. Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol. I, 82.

Maistre 's Lodestars

57

speak their mind, the whole society may lose, since important arguments and ideas would not be shared with others. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens is at a higher level of importance than even a constitution, as it sets the boundary and forms the basis of any other laws. Article Seven of this Declaration recognized the inalienable and sacred right of every citizen to manifest his thoughts and opinions through the press or in any other manner.184 This law was not followed in practice after 1792, during the revolutionary republic, or under the Napoleonic regime. Journalists who did not agree to mouth the views of the party in power during the Reign of Terror were persecuted and sometimes executed. Later, Napoleon's police prevented the circulation of sixty out of seventy-three newspapers in France, to avoid the spread of opposition to Bonaparte's regime. In Paris, the number of newspapers was reduced to four, from thirteen before Napoleon came to power, and for each of these four the government decided who was to be the director.185 While a press free from government interference would encourage discussion of political issues among the general public, the press of the Jacobin and Napoleonic years functioned more as an instrument of propaganda for the ruling elite. Freedom of the press in France after the Revolution existed only between 1789 and 1792. Counter-revolutionaries and revolutionaries confronted one another and freely disseminated their ideas through similar media: discussions in clubs and cafes and billposting, in addition to writing in their own newspapers.186 In 1792, with the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of the Convention nationale, the revolutionary government decided to no longer observe the principle of freedom of the press that had been proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Journalists who supported the royalist cause were imprisoned or executed and royalist newspapers were suppressed.187 The French revolutionaries came to the conclusion that the presence of a free press posed a considerable threat to the precious unity and indivisibility of the republic, which was recognized in article 25 of the Declaration.188 Some of their most outspoken critics, the counter-revolutionaries, had free rein to find fault with the actions of government officials and to mobilize dissent among the population. The republican government that came to power 184 185 186 187 188

Hulshoff, Peace-Republicans' Manual, 2. Bourquin, La liberte de la presse, 73-4. Lambrichs, La liberte de la presse en Van IV, 14. Le Poittevin, La liberte de la presse depuis la revolution, ijSq-iSi1), 30-1. Hulshoff, 4.

58

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

in 1792 repeated what had occurred under the monarchy. Before 1789 newspapers were suppressed if they criticized the monarchy, the official newspapers were controlled by the monarchy, and those who were opposed to absolute monarchy struggled against the monopoly in the flow of information. Maistre had considerable difficulty disseminating his Lettres d 'un royaliste savoisien in Savoy, Switzerland, and France because government authorities in all three countries prevented the distribution of his work. He corresponded frequently with Vignet des Etoles during this time. Vignet des Etoles had been intendant general of Savoy under the previous King, Carlo-Emanuele III. In 1785 he resigned his post when he became discouraged with the failure to implement reforms during the rule of the new King Vittorio-Amedeo III. Despite their common dislike of the King's actions, Maistre and Vignet des Etoles sent reports to the King in an attempt to enlighten him. Their loyalty to their King remained steadfast although the latter showed little appreciation for their efforts. In a letter to Vignet des Etoles, Maistre questions how the King of Piedmont expects the people to be instructed and come to change their minds about the monarchy if counter-revolutionary pamphlets, such as the one that Maistre had produced, are not allowed to be sold freely in Turin.189 Maistre remarks that he "sometimes laughs when he sees that distribution of his work is stopped in Turin (apparently because it is considered anti-royalist) and at the same time suppressed in Geneva on the formal request of the agents of the Convention nationale" (apparently because it is considered counter-revolutionary).190 Maistre experienced first hand that the freedom of the press was a misnomer in revolutionary France, as in other parts of Europe. Political writings were banned and people would be arrested when caught reading such works if they contained arguments that conflicted with the views permitted by the regime in power. It should be made clear that the freedom of the press discussed here referred to France, Piedmont, and Switzerland during the ancien regime and the Revolutionary period, and Europe under the rule of Napoleon. It is discussed later why Maistre does not believe that freedom of the press is desirable in the situation that existed in Russia when he lived there. Constant claimed that Louis XVIII disliked any other form of government than the ancient monarchy. To argue this point, Constant used 189 "Lettre a Vignet des Etoles," 24 juillet 1793, De la terreur a la restauration: correspondances inedites, 37. 190 "Lettre a Vignet des Etoles," 9 juillet 1793, De la terreur a la restauration, 36.

Maistre 's Lodestars

59

the terms "absolute" and "ancient" interchangeably. In discussing the ancient constitution, Maistre shows that there is a difference in the position of those royalists who supported the idea of the ancient constitution and those who wanted to bring back all aspects of the absolutist ancien regime. There could be "liberty by the constitution" because the sovereign himself must observe its fundamental laws [or he could be described as a despot].191 This is true although liberty is produced in the first place not from a written constitution, but from all the other factors that create the national character. "There has never been a free nation that did not have in its natural constitution seeds of liberty as old as itself, nor has any nation attempted efficaciously to develop, by writing constitutional laws, rights other than those that existed in its natural constitution."192 The degree to which a nation is free cannot be changed in a short time because liberty has distant origins. "One needs to search for English liberty much before the 1688 revolution. Liberty could have slept in this nation; but it always existed there."193 Liberty must exist as a potential forged through generations and periods until a catalyst appears that causes it to become a driving force in the society. The English Bill of Rights does not establish any new principles; it only affirms what are already the true principles of that nation. In their desire to make political thought relevant to the contemporary era and interesting to a modern reader, interpreters such as Berlin, Cioran, and Hartung have associated parts of a work written in one period with events or ideology current in another time. They have also provided an oversimplified view of the development of political ideas during late eighteenth-century France. Thinkers are placed in two camps: those who supported the changes to the society, polity, and economy that accompanied the Revolution, and those who opposed such transformations. A study by McGovern illustrates this method of categorizing thinkers. In 1941, when the Fascists were in power in Italy and the Nazis in Germany, McGovern argued that, to combat the enemy more effectively, proponents of American liberal democracy must improve their knowledge of the background to Fascist and Nazi ideologies. His book covered a large number of thinkers in Western political thought. It divided the whole tradition into two camps, those who defended liberal political thought and those who were critical of the liberal tradition. He claimed that the Fascist and Nazi doctrines were based on the political 191 Maistre, "Considerations," 102. 192 Ibid., 71. 193 Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," 127.

60

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

philosophy of opponents of the liberal tradition. Since Maistre supposedly defended the absolutist regimes that existed during his lifetime, McGovern alleged that he paved the way for later totalitarianism.194 I have shown that on the contrary, whether despotic governments are monarchy or republic Maistre is consistently their enemy. While he refers to the divine cord by which individuals are tied to the will of Providence, Maistre cautions that the cord has elasticity and he does not promote unnecessary restriction of that limited freedom of thought and action. While Maistre indicates that God or Providence may on occasion interfere in the affairs of human beings, he does not accept the idea of universal predetermination. Not a liberal, Maistre gives little attention to negative liberty but, on the other hand, he is a consummate defender of positive liberty. Neither in his published works nor in those that my study introduces can one find a basis for accusing him of not showing interest in liberty in his ideal polity. I have shown that Maistre discusses liberty as a phenomenon that exists and should be cultivated, although it must be carefully and judiciously used. Generalizations such as that made by McGovern risk the misreading of thinkers, since the thinker is forced into an artificial category, and important nuances between various thinkers within a camp are ignored, as they were between Bonald and Maistre. A purely textual approach to the history of political thought might lead the interpreter to claim that the author is representative of a given doctrine, when in fact the author has expressed conflicts with that doctrine. The commentator could relate the work to its political and historical context to avoid this common pitfall of interpretation. A real understanding of what the author intended would require more attention to the accepted meanings of political ideas during the period in which the author lived. The final section of this chapter develops an explication, never mentioned in previous interpretations, that returns Maistre's thought, even the most apparently unaccountable and misinterpreted aspect of it, to its eighteenth-century context.

4. B E C C A R I A ' S OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS Maistre had in his library a copy of Dei delitti e delkpene (Of Crimes and Punishments) translated from the Italian into French, although he read both languages and he does not refer directly to Beccaria in his writings that have survived.195 Cesare Marchese di Beccaria had travelled to Paris 194 McGovern, From Luther to Hitler, 8, 100.

195 Darcel, "Les Bibliotheques de Joseph de Maistre," 68.

Maistre 's Lodestars

61

where he was honoured as an author who had been acclaimed throughout Europe. He stayed in Chambery on 8 October 1766 en route to Paris.196 The presence of such an international celebrity and magistrate in the town would probably have come to the attention of Maistre, at that time a young man and son of the president of the senate of Savoy in Chambery. No commentator on Maistrean thought has previously drawn the link that we are going to trace here, between Maistre's passage on the executioner and Beccaria's discussion of torture and capital punishment. Maistre's view, for his time, is not particularly bloodthirsty or extreme. Along with other conservatives he defends the accepted mode of punishment. His Roman Catholicism and traditionalist outlook as a member of the nobility in the eighteenth century explain his position on capital punishment and torture. The evidence supports this position. For example, many members of the older feudal aristocracy in the Duchy of Milan, where Beccaria was a magistrate, also supported the practice of torture and capital punishment. In 1768 Beccaria was appointed to the chair of public economy and commerce at the institution of higher education Scuole Palatine, which became the University of Milan. In this section I compare the writings of Beccaria and Maistre, and draw parallels between Maistre's writing and the writings of Beccaria's critics, such as Ferdinando Facchinei and Pierre-Francois Muyart de Vouglans. The chapter on capital punishment in Dei delitti e delle pene contains a reference to the executioner that resembles Maistre's introduction of this subject in Soirees. Beccaria comments on the contradiction that "We can learn the feelings of ordinary citizens regarding the death penalty from the fact that most people despise the executioner. Yet, he is innocently merely executing the public will for internal security, just as soldiers kill to protect society from external danger."197 Maistre, also, notes that citizens have difficulty in considering the executioner as part of society: "He is made like us on the exterior ... [yet, he is looked upon as though he] is an extraordinary being, and in order that he may exist within the human family, a particular decree, a fiat of the divine power is required."198 While Beccaria uses the citizenry's dislike for the executioner to show that capital punishment is unreasonable, Maistre argues that the executioner is indispensable. "He is the terror and the bond of human association. Remove this mysterious agent from the world, and in an instant, order yields to chaos: thrones fall, society vanishes."1" 196 Vianello, La Vita e L 'Opera di Cesare Beccaria, 41.

197 Beccaria, "Dei delitti e delle pene," 94. 198 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 33. 199 Ibid.

62

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre adheres to the traditional view that torture and threat of death must be present for authority to be enforced. Executions compensate for the imbalance created by the breaking of the social covenant by criminal acts. "Woe to the nation that would abolish torture! Since the debt of each guilty person is continuing to fall upon the nation, the nation would be forced to pay without mercy, and might in the end find itself in the position of having no recourse, according to the full rigour of the law."200 Despite the marginality of the executioner and his alien character, he is an integral part of a well-functioning society because he has the power to inflict torture and suffering. To prevent the state of war in society, individuals need to fear that if they were apprehended after breaking the rules of society, their punishment would be harsh. This is because, according to Maistre, human nature is naturally weak and wicked and, therefore, to maintain order and avoid anarchy, the threat of blood, pain, and punishment must always be lurking in the background. Daniel Jousse, a famous French jurist, would concur. In the introduction to his Treatise on French Criminal Justice of 1771 he included Beccaria's book in his review of the principal books on legal subjects with the following remark, "This book instead of throwing some light on the matter of crimes and punishments, tends on the contrary ... to introduce new ideas which, if they were adopted, would simply overthrow the laws accepted up to now by the best governed states, and would endanger religion, morality, and the most sacred rules of government."201 Beccaria, in the same vein as much of the philosophy of the Enlightenment, argued that history is not our best guide: "The history of mankind is an immense ocean of errors, on whose surface float at great intervals a few obscure truths."202 Both Maistre and Muyart de Vouglans, a wellknown jurist and lawyer of the parlement of Paris, defended the existing penal system by showing how torture and executions were practised in many nations. The "Comte" in Soirees is the first to introduce the topic of punishments and illustrates that sovereigns have the prerogative granted by God to punish crimes, by describing the laws of Manou, the great legislator of India.203 Vouglans points out in his Letter of Refutation to Beccaria's work that "if two or three countries have discarded the use of torture, they are the exception which confirms the general rule."204 200 Ibid., 159 note. 201 202 203 204

Quoted in Maestro, Cesare Beccaria and the Origins of Penal Reform, 38. Beccaria, 95. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 28. Maestro, 38.

Maistre's Lodestars

63

One of the aims of Maistre's Edaircissement sur les sacrifices is to show how human sacrifice is present in all societies. "It [sacrifice] was always the basis of every variety of cult, without distinction of place, time, opinions or circumstances."205 Public executions are the modern equivalent of the ancient rituals in which humans were sacrificed. Maistre's rhetorical question suggests that he is drawing the parallel between executions and ancient sacrificial rituals: "The priests of antiquity, who jugulated their own kind with a sacred iron, were they less executioners than the modern judges who send them to death in virtue of a law?"206 Even the Revolution was for Maistre not a completely negative phenomenon. It had a useful purpose; its violent acts on guilty and innocent alike had a purging, redemptive force. Through his discussion of ritual violence and sacrifice, Maistre attempts to explain the suffering of innocent victims. Once individuals or groups expiate through sacrifice, they begin afresh completely regenerated. This shows that there is still an order to the universe, despite all the blood, chaos, suffering, and violence. It appears contradictory that Maistre's theory of sacrifice would be linked to the execution of criminals. One would think that the killing of criminals as a penalty for their past sins or misdeeds would be described in terms of retribution or revenge. The idea of sacrifice would seem to be better associated with innocent victims. However, Maistre refers to criminals with such terms as "human victims." When Maistre describes the act of torturing on the rack, he remarks that "tout supplice supplie" using both meanings of the root word. "Supplice" could refer to corporal punishment ordered by justice such as the "supplice de la roue." It could also be used to mean the corporal suffering of the victim. When Maistre details the torture on the wheel, he refers to the victim's "bellowing"; the sound that a sacrificial domestic animal might make.207 In ancient religions, specific animals, chosen for rituals, were believed to expiate human culpability. "One always chose those animals most precious for their utility, the most gentle, the most innocent, the most related to man by their instincts and habitudes."208 Such would be the pure white domestic cattle and poultry utilized by the Etruscans from which today's gigantic Chianina cattle and prolific Leghorn poultry are probably descended. Through the suffering of corporal punishment of the torture on the wheel, a criminal is absolved of his crimes and made into an innocent victim. 205 206 207 208

Maistre, "Edaircissement sur les sacrifices," oc, vol. V, note i, 284-5. Ibid., 333. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 33. Maistre, "Edaircissement sur les sacrifices," 301-2.

64

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

It is interesting to note that Beccaria's reply to the counterargument that capital punishment should be continued because it has been practised by all nations uses the example of human sacrifices. "Human sacrifices were common in almost all nations, and who would want to defend that? That a few societies, and for brief periods, refrained from using capital punishment actually supports my argument, as this conforms to the fate of great truths, the existence of which is like a flash of lightning compared to the long dark night that envelops mankind."209 In this passage, Beccaria also uses the idea of light, as did Maistre for his treatment of the subject. Bradley points out that the opposition of the terms "enlightenment" and "sacrifice" in the title of Maistre's work creates the impression of an oxymoron. With its juxtaposition of reason and ritual slaughter, the title was probably meant to challenge the philosophy of the Enlightenment.210 I believe that Maistre's intention when he wrote Eclaircissement was to reply to Beccaria's work, considering that Dei delitti e delle pene was, and continues to be, closely linked with the Enlightenment and was well accepted in France among philosophers of the Enlightenment. For Maistre, as for Beccaria's critics, torture and capital punishment are divinely sanctioned because they have been in use since time immemorial. "God, who has created sovereignty, has also made punishment; he has fixed the earth upon these two poles."211 The king and his executioner act as intermediaries between God and the guilty because they put into practice the physical pain sent by God to punish. "God is the author of the evil that punishes, that is the physical ills or suffering, as the sovereign is the author of torture that is imposed under the law."212 This is a necessary evil that sovereigns must enforce to preserve the social order, but they do it quite unwillingly. In one of the first polemics written against Beccaria's work, Ferdinando Facchinei, Benedictine monk of Vallombroso, considered Beccaria's ideas not simply erroneous but blasphemous. "It was to take away the sacred aura surrounding the work of the judge."213 As we saw earlier in this section, Maistre draws the parallel between the role of the priests of antiquity and the modern judges. He also draws analogies of the relation between father and son and the relation between citizen and government. For example, he uses such an analogy when he discusses how members of political bodies such as the 2og 210 211 212 213

Beccaria, 95. Bradley, A Modern Maistre, 37. Maistre "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 33. Ibid., 23 Venturi, Introduction to Des delits et des peines, xvii.

Maistre's Lodestars

65

parlements can inform the monarch of the concerns of the people. "These bodies vary in terms of the number, quality, and extent of their power but their general character is the same, that is, chosen people bring legally to the father the complaints and wishes of the family."214 Facchinei used a similar parallel when he "justified judicial torture ... because it was necessary that a criminal, like a disobedient child, confess his guilt before the magistrate, his father."215 Beccaria rejected the paternalistic analogy. The family could not act as a model for understanding society. It would be reducing all other members of the family, except the head, to slavery. A father's authority should terminate as soon as children become adults.216 Antonio Silla, a philosopher and a member of the Royal Academy in Naples, in his criticism of Beccaria's work, also appealed to traditional religion to defend the ancient judicial system.217 As did Maistre, he argued that God himself gave men the faculty to institute capital punishment.218 Beccaria anticipated such criticism when he explained why he thinks that punishment on the wheel is less effective as a deterrent for a potential thief or murderer than is imprisonment. While forced labour threatens a seemingly endless existence of drudgery, the penalty of death on the wheel entails only transient although excruciating pain followed by what religion promises "after an easy repentance an almost certain prospect of eternal felicity."219 The spectacle offeree made by the executioner would not be as effective a deterrent, according to Beccaria, because human beings are more influenced by something that is repeated continuously than by something that while intense, only occurs once. "It is not the terrible but transient spectacle of a criminal's execution, but the long sustained example of a man who has lost his liberty, become a beast of burden, and repaying society by hard labour that is the most powerful prevention of crime."220 Beccaria's other critics, as well as Maistre, on the other hand, claimed that the public executions would instil fear into people and make them unconditionally obey the authority of the sovereign. 214 215 216 217 218 xviii. 219 220

Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 202. Young, "Alternative Ideologies of Law," 272. Ibid., 273. Desplaces, Biographic Universelle Michaud, tome 39, 343. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 33; for Silla, see Venturi, Beccaria, 94. Ibid, 91.

66

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Voltaire, who greatly admired Des delits et des peines, first became interested in penal reform when he defended Jean Galas in the famous trial of 1762. Jean Galas was convicted of murdering his son and was broken on the wheel. It was later discovered that his son had committed suicide. Voltaire's success in revising the decision of the trial and his enormous reputation in Europe assisted those scholars and legal experts who were intent on reforming the European legal system. Beccaria's book would act as a catalyst for this reform.221 Maistre mentions the Galas case shortly after the famous passage on the executioner. He questions whether there is sufficient proof of Galas's innocence. "There are a thousand reasons to doubt it, and even to believe the contrary."222 He argues that even if an innocent is killed or a guilty one escapes punishment, the general rule that there is a universal order for the temporal punishment of crimes is not refuted. These comments were perhaps influenced by Maistre's strong dislike of Voltaire and they may also have the broader implication of placing Maistre on the side of the magistrates against the philosophes such as Voltaire. The philosophes were advocates of enlightened despotism and were intent on further concentrating political power in the monarchy. They regarded the corps intermediaires as their enemies because these bodies would impinge on the power of the king. Montesquieu, a philosophe, is much admired by Maistre, which might indicate that the latter has a foot in the Enlightenement or it could be only that he respects Montesquieu despite dislike for his associations. Montesquieu supported the death penalty only for very serious crimes such as murder, was against torture, and was friendly to the concept of a corps intermediaires.2^ Translated into French by the abbe Andre Morellet, Beccaria's work was utilised by the philosophes during the reign of Louis XV in their struggle against the parlements. While the philosophes were earlier at odds with the king, they eventually sided with the king against the magistrates in the parlements, as they expected that the monarchy might be reformed more easily than the intransigent magistrates of the parlements. Morellet freely modified the structure of Beccaria's work in its French translation and stressed the juridical and utilitarian aspects better to attack the parlements.224 Des delits et des peines makes an ideal vehicle for the attacks of the philosophes on the magistrates because Beccaria himself criticized the magistrates in the book, "seeing the wise magistrates ... who with indifferent 221 222 223 224

Maestro, 18-9. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 35. Montesquieu, De I'esprit des lots, livre XII, chapitre 4. Venturi, xxvii.

Maistre 's Lodestars

67

calm, have a criminal dragged with slow ceremony to his death, and while a miserable wretch spasms in agony, awaiting the final blow, the judge passes by with unfeeling coldness, and perhaps even in secret selfsatisfaction with his own power."225 Beccaria then suggested that the claim that judges are ensuring justice and order is false and conceals a hidden despotism. Humankind would be more prosperous and happy if citizens were freed from that "intermediary despotism" and the authority of the monarchs were increased.226 This attack on magistrates would surely invite a riposte from Maistre, magistrate himself, as it would from Vouglans, especially since a magistrate wrote it. As indicated in the preceding section, Maistre explains, in the Discours sur le caractere exterieur du magistrat, why magistrates must appear tranquil and indifferent while they pass judgments. The appearance of a magistrate is calculated to maintain the sanctity and legitimacy of the judicial institution. In contrast, Beccaria claims that such behaviour would lead people to question the legitimacy of the laws. "These laws are only the pretexts for power."227 The excesses of punishments would only lead to a hardening of the human spirit and the atrocious spectacle of public executions would lead more people to feel compassion for the criminal. The Senate of Milan and the Senate of Savoy operated in much the same way as the French parlements. They not only passed judgments on cases but also on new legislation created by the Crown. As did the philosophes in France, Beccaria defended the interests of the Austrian monarchy against these judicial institutions that were strongholds of local privileges and ancient practices. He was among the younger generation of Milanese who could see that limiting the power of these institutions would open greater opportunities for young Milanese like themselves to take high positions in the centralized and reforming bureaucracy of Austrian-ruled Lombardy. Like others on the Italian peninsula he had had a surfeit of the internecine wars, which had often been encouraged by the Papal presence in Italy, and he was ready to accept even a foreign monarchy to create a hegemony of peace. The Habsburgs would encourage Milanese industry and commerce. When Beccaria argued that judges should not be given much latitude in interpreting the laws and that they should simply apply the laws created by the crown, he was intent on shifting power from the magistrates in these high courts to crown servants in the Habsburg-ruled bureaucracy. 225 Beccaria, 95. 226 Ibid., 96. 227 Ibid., 95.

68

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre, on the other hand, defends such punishments as torture on the wheel, but only in cases where the criminal was beyond a doubt proven guilty of what the state considered a very serious crime. Maistre does not enjoy the thought of another human being suffering. He cites William Jones's translation of the laws of the great Indian legislator Manou to support his claim that such horrible retribution is justifiable only in the interest of justice and the public good. "When an indolent monarch no longer punishes, the strongest will roast [torture or incinerate] the weakest... It is the fear of punishment that permits the universe to enjoy the happiness that it was destined to enjoy."228 His experience during the French Revolution would encourage him to conclude that the fear of harsh punishment might prevent a worse scenario, such as where social anarchy prevails, than the torturing of criminals as part of their sentence after they are proven guilty. He remarks that the national assemblies had passed an enormous number of laws, more than the several kings had previously legislated, but "the most vile crimes had multiplied everywhere."229 Probably Maistre accepted the role of the executioner because he wanted to counter the promises of individual liberty by Enlightenment philosophers and French revolutionaries. He wanted to stress in the passage on the executioner that "civil order depends upon achieving a balance between freedom and constraint" and to show "liberty as a natural growth of discipline."230 In this age of liberty, respect for laws is no longer valued, he says, while "even crime carries the imprint of grandeur" because too much emphasis is placed on individualism and liberty, and not enough on the needs of society.231 However, his behaviour in the Pala case demonstrates that he was sympathetic to the rights of the individual. In 1799 a Sardinian called Pala was accused by paid informers and spies of the King of Piedmont of conspiring to foment a revolt to capture the castle, assassinate the king, kill the administrators of the capital city of Sardinia, Cagliari, release political prisoners, and take over the government. Maistre had been one of the judges, and had protested to the king that the evidence against Pala was all oral, by individuals not to be trusted, there was nothing in writing or proof that the accused had acted in any way, and it did not satisfy him (Maistre) at all. Studying further the records of the military tribunal at which the accused Pala had been convicted in absentia since he had not yet been found, Maistre 228 229 230 231

Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," 30. Maistre, "Considerations," 127. Jamieson, "Conservatism's Metaphysical Vision," 30. Ibid.

Maistre 's Lodestars

69

came to the conclusion that the evidence did not prove Pala to be guilty, but that his having been seen in a questionable situation staged by his enemies had probably incriminated him. Maistre wrote a letter to the king in 1802 before Pala's scheduled execution after he was captured, cautioning that in time new light may be put on the case and there may be possible regrets if the execution were to go forward now, asking the king to use his royal prerogative to reduce the sentence to imprisonment for life, since the evidence did not prove that the man is guilty. "Life imprisonment after having already been tortured [to obtain admission of guilt, although he persisted throughout in pleading his innocence], and the horrors of being also continually threatened with the death penalty while incarcerated ... are a punishment in themselves, satisfying the rigors of the laws of this monarchy."232 The Maistre we perceive in the Pala case is conscientious, but a man of justice who is aware of and very sensitive to the physical and mental anguish being inflicted on the accused of a crime that, he admits, if there were any proof would be "enormous." This Maistre is not the person who would enjoy discussing or even watching the spectacle of torture and execution that some of the interpreters of his writings describe. Maistre does what one would expect from Beccaria and Voltaire: he does the best that he can in face of the king's adamant insistence on capital punishment. Maistre recommends life imprisonment instead of more torture and death. Despite Maistre's eloquent plea the king had more torture and the death penalty executed, perhaps because this occurred in the decade after the French Revolution when all monarchies feared the spread of revolutionary ideas. Maistre's position is consistent with the views of his class and the practices of his time in the controversy on torture and capital punishment that was spreading throughout Europe, fomented in large part by Beccaria's bestseller Dei delitti e delle pene. Towards Pala, a tragic fellow human being, Maistre is beneficent.

232 Maistre, "Letter to the King of Piedmont," 16 July 1802, Twelve letters conserved in the Biblioteca Civica Centrale, Torino.

II Maistre on Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

MAISTRE HAD ONE OF THE LARGEST PRIVATE LIBRARIES in the prOV-

ince of Savoy. Thirty libraries maintained by the representatives of the socio-economic elite of Savoy, including the aristocracy, the merchant class, and magistrates, were examined in one study. Maistre's library was distinguished from them all by a better balance between different areas of knowledge and was much larger than those of other magistrates.1 A catalogue of the books in his library reveals that he read many of the well-known works on public finance, banking, and political economy. Fortunately, since some of his notebooks have been preserved, we also have an idea of his viewpoint on the books that he read. The first two sections of this chapter place his commentaries in relation to the arguments by contemporary French, English, and Italian political economists on the subjects of taxation and the quantity theory of money. Other interpreters of his writings have not discussed these commentaries. The commentaries were not merely intellectual diversions. Maistre includes serious analyses of three political and economic problems that European governments faced in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. That the tax system of monarchical governments was clearly ineffective in the provision of revenue is the first of these. For example, the French government under Louis XV was running a deficit almost every year.2 Inflation, the second economic problem, was imputed to the influx of large quantities of precious metals into European countries from the Americas (although by the eighteenth century other factors and gold from mines in other areas became important). Devaluation of coins, by clipping or minting with reduced content of precious metals to reduce their real value, and the excessive creation of 1 Nicolas, La Savoie au i8e siecle, tome II, 1001. 2 Wellington, "French Paper Money, 1790-1797," 625.

71

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

credit to cover government projects such as military expenditures also contributed to the inflationary pressure. The third problem was the mismanagement of paper money. In this chapter I compare the proposed solutions to these three problems as discussed by Maistre and other thinkers. Budget deficits in Piedmont had regularly been covered by a new issue of paper money called biglietto di banca throughout the last half of the eighteenth century. The most recent was to cover expenditures, between 1792 and 1796, related to the attempt to repel the invasion by the French revolutionary army. Whereas, with the previous issues since the first issue of paper money in 1746, the government had always managed to maintain convertibility by retiring old issues before issuing new ones, in this wartime over-issue it found itself with insufficient revenue.3 Another form of paper money, the assignat, was introduced into Piedmont by the French army of occupation to replace the depreciating biglietto, and by 1800 circulation of the biglietto was declared illegal. The assignat was developed in France to provide revenue for the revolutionary government. Similar to most other paper money of the time, it bore interest and could be used as legal tender, until it might finally be used by the public to pay for some of the immense ecclesiastical properties that had been confiscated by the government. As Maistre recognizes, the assignat was a form of discreet, veiled, and unjust taxation because it soon depreciated to less than one-third of its nominal value at issue. Many citizens lost their entire fortunes when the assignat depreciated.4 Despite his observation about the harmful effects of over-abundant paper money on the economies of Savoy and France, Maistre does not reject paper money in favour of the security of coins. This was contrary to Bonald who, having noted the experience of France with the assignat, stated that paper money destroys society. Its use was a sign that the economy was in trouble and the morality of society would also soon be affected negatively because when the quantity of money increased in a nation greed would become more prevalent.5 Maistre claims instead that the problems with paper money were caused by lack of public confidence in the medium, which better management could correct. In the two memoirs examined in section three, Maistre advises his King on how to direct the monetary expansion so that it would stimulate commerce without social and political disruption. 3 Felloni, // Mercato monetario in Piemonte nel secolo XVIII,

4 Maistre, Fragments 1793, Fonds de Maistre, 13. 5 Bonald, Theorie du pouvoir, vol. i, 397-9.

4-8.

72

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre 1. A M U L T I P L E TAX S Y S T E M

The marquis de Mirabeau suggested in 1760 that the solution to deficiency of state revenue was to impose I'impdt territorial unique, a single tax on net revenue from the produce of land. Pompeo Neri, the head of tax reform in Lombardy under the Austrian occupation, had already established a land tax in Milan. The French controller-general Bertin had received a copy of Neri's progress report produced for the Habsburg leaders.6 In his discussion of the single land tax, Maistre refers to the writings of Gianrinaldo Carli, who was the chief administrator of this tax in Milan between 1765 and 1780 and who was continuing the work of Neri. In this section I first consider the arguments in favour of implementing the land tax articulated by the Milanese administrators and the physiocrats. Maistre believes that, of the pros and cons on the land tax that resurfaced in the debates on fiscal reform in the National Assembly under the French revolutionary government, the deputy Toussaint Guiraudet presented the most logical argument. Guiraudet also considered the negative effect on the money supply that Maistre believes was one of the most significant shortcomings of the single land tax. Maistre comments that, although many thinkers have attacked the idea of a land tax, "There is something equitable, but only in appearance, in the tax that seduced even its adversaries."7 In this section I consider why the tax is not as equitable as it initially appears. Francois Veron de Forbonnais had included in one of his works a study of the Milanese experience and admired such a reform, yet he believed that even if the tax were to be implemented in France it should not become the sole tax. Consumption taxes would also be necessary. Maistre read works by Forbonnais and approved his analysis. Another writer on public finance who opposed the single tax on land was Jacques Necker. He was not from an aristocratic family, but had accumulated much wealth from his speculation in the grain market and was twice minister of finance during the ancien regime. Necker and Maistre could agree on what they disliked about the tax. Eighteenth-century political economists categorized taxes as either direct or indirect. With the land tax proposed by Neri and the physiocrats, the citizen would pay the tax directly to the government. A tax on wine would be indirect because it was included in the price that the consumer would pay to the merchant who would then pass on the value of 6 Klang, Tax Reform in Eighteenth-Century Lombardy, 84. 7 Maistre, "De 1'impot unique," Melanges, notes et extraits de lecture, 1780, Fonds de Maistre, 169.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

73

the tax to the government.8 The large government deficits that accumulated before the Revolution can partly be attributed to the tax system. The nobles and the merchant classes could provide the government with the needed revenue since they had the most wealth, but they were taxed very little. People who were of noble birth or who lived in urban areas were exempt from paying the direct tax, la taille. Nobles did have to pay the vingtieme, another direct and proportional tax on income, that amounted to a twentieth of their total declared income. It was difficult to collect a sufficient amount of even this tax from the nobles because the seigneur usually had more power than the tax collector, who was from the roturier class. The noblemen would also frequently receive a dispensation from the king not to pay taxes until some future date, if they would agree to finance the king's immediate needs such as military expenditures by paying the present value of future taxes. That would increase current revenue but might contribute to a shortfall later. The manner in which the vingtieme was administered also explains why it did not bring much revenue to the state. Actual statistics of how much each person earned did not exist. The estimate of what each person had to pay was often arbitrary because it was based on how much tax had been paid and how easily it had been collected in previous years. The tax collector avoided difficult cases.9 Neri pointed out that one of the main advantages of the land tax was its impersonal character.10 Noble or not, all landowners had to pay the tax. It would be based on the measurements of the land recorded in the cadastre (a land register showing the size of land and its owners) and it was not founded on the social position of the contributor. The land tax was part of the reforms of the 17505 in Lombardy to weaken the landed aristocracy who had previously paid very little tax. The tax was intended to acquire more revenue for the Austrian empire, and to strengthen the influence of the bureaucracy that acted for Empress Maria Theresa. Although the Austrians ruled Lombardy, the administration of Milan had been in the hands of the patricians because this class controlled the independent magistracies. Neri was at the head of a new fiscal organ, the Tribunale del Censo, established in 1749 to bypass the power of the nobles. Membership in the local councils that administered the tax was increased to include all landowners, not only the nobility.11 8 Guiraudet, Erreurs des economistes surl'impot, 13. 9 Hincker, Les Francois devant I'impot sous I'ancien regime, 20-1, 26-7. 10 Neri, Relazione dello stato in cui si trova del censimento universale, parte seconda, capitolo VII, 206-7. 11 Roberts, "Lombardy," The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century, 75-9.

74

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Mirabeau was also one of those who noted that the new tax would target the property of the noble class. He claimed that it was legitimate to also tax this class because with that revenue the state could better defend all property owners from foreign attack by financing an army. The government could also enforce the rule of law within the state by hiring more magistrates and police officers.12 A single tax on property would be preferable to the customary dependence on indirect taxes. Under a single land tax the fermiers generaux, private companies that were granted by the government the right to collect taxes on consumption items in return for keeping some of it for themselves, would no longer be needed. Using the companies to collect for the government was not very effective. Much of the government's share of what had been collected, apart from the commission that was rightfully due to the companies as payment for collecting the taxes, was never turned over to the government.13 The fermiers generaux also recruited the army of officers who would enforce tariffs and contain smuggling between different provinces within France and across the external borders of France.14 Without indirect taxes and tariffs, commercial and industrial activities would multiply, the agricultural net product would be enhanced, and revenue from taxes on it would also increase. It was not necessary to tax members of what the physiocrats called the sterile class, that is, industrialists, merchants, and professionals, because with free trade these groups in society would no longer make exorbitant profits. The value paid to them in return for the goods that they provided would only be the equivalent of the value of primary resources consumed to produce the manufactured products plus the amount of resources needed to feed and provide shelter to the artisans that were employed.15 As indicated above, Carli continued administration of the land tax when he replaced Neri as controller of taxation. However, Maistre remarks that, in a letter that Carli wrote to Pompeo Neri in 1771, Carli had attacked with great force la imposta unica.lQ It is surprising that Carli would criticize the tax, given that in 1756 he had joined the group of young reformers, headed by Neri, Pietro Verri, and Cesare di Beccaria, who had defended such reforms in Lombardy. His critical comments on the land tax in Del libero commercio de 'grani (On the Free Trade in Grain) are

12 13 14 15 16

de Mirabeau, Theorie de I'impot avec supplement, 6-7. Wellington, 626. Ripert, Le Marquis de Mirabeau, 287. Mirabeau, Theorie de I'impot, VI entretien, 155, and III entretien, 55. Maistre, "De I'impot unique," 169.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

75

explained by his outlook, which was more conservative and more moderate than that of his peers.17 Carli considered unlimited free trade and total prohibition equally dangerous; he was as opposed to extremes as was Maistre. One of his arguments against la imposta unica was that it placed the tax burden mainly on the shoulders of one part of society, those who owned land. Instead, the tax system should divide the burden into as many small parts as possible, multiplying the points of contact, so that the weight is less felt. Carli also feared the effects that the tax would have on the economy. The tax would force agriculturalists to price their product higher to at least partially cover the tax, and manufacturers and merchants would attempt to pass on this increase in price in offering the product to the consumer. Consequently, depending on the relative elasticities of demand and supply, foreign and domestic sales would be reduced and the consumer might accept part of the burden of the tax.18 In his book De I 'administration des finances Necker had also criticized the impracticality of the impot unique territorial. Maistre comments on De I 'administration des finances in a letter to his friend, the lieutenant of the bailiwick of Belley, Monsieur de Rubat. Maistre approves Necker's observation that the good administrator is always aware of public opinion. It serves as his guiding light, indicating when his policies are desirable and when they are not.19 One must consider the effect on opinion of a change in the taxation system. For example, if the tax on tobacco were replaced with an increase in the rate of the taille or vingtieme, the total amount of tax could remain the same, but the landowning class and the farmers would strongly oppose such a change.20 Maistre made less favourable comments about Necker's own administration. Maistre criticizes it for not directly addressing the issue of when one should tax rather than borrow to resolve the problems of public debt. Necker had increased government debt by 800 million francs but had not introduced any new taxes. Maistre remembers having read an excellent work by Forbonnais, who declared himself for taxation rather than borrowing.21 In 1759 Forbonnais became the principal adviser of the controller-general Silhouette. France's fiscal policy during the four years when Silhouette was in office reflected some of the proposals that Forbonnais had made in his writings on taxation. The imposition of 17 18 19 20 21

Venturi, "Note introduttiva a Gianrinaldo Carli," 428-9. Carli, "Del libero commercio de'grani lettera di Gian-Rinaldo Carli," 381. Descostes, Necker, ecrivain et financier juge par le Comte de Maistre, 10, 20-4. Necker, De I'administration desfinances,vol. i, 263. Descostes, 30.

76

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

taxes on consumption items that are not essential for subsistence shifted some of the tax burden on to the wealthy and those living in the cities.22 Forbonnais was not completely opposed to the idea of a tax on the revenue coming from what is produced on the land. He perceived that the land tax in Lombardy, based on the cadastre of the duchy of Milan, was an improvement over the faille, for the latter was arbitrary and overburdened the poor peasant and proprietor. However, he anticipated difficulties in implementing this tax in France, because of great opposition by the noble rural class, who under the existing system paid very little tax.23 In France the power of the monarchy was limited by the parlements and the prerogatives of the seigneurs. It was much easier in Milan for the reformers such as Neri to oppose the nobles, because the power of the landed aristocracy had been weakened substantially by the Austrian conquest of the duchy. Necker warned that economic policies should not be assumed to apply elsewhere merely because they happened to work well in one country.24 The physiocrats were prone to such generalizations. Forbonnais offered practical advice to remedy the situation based on the current socioeconomic setting. Maistre admires this more practical approach. Forbonnais claimed that the ideal taxation system for France would include a land tax and consumption taxes. A tax solely on the products from the land would not be desirable in a large state because it would be impossible to establish accurately the value of salaries and production to make the incidence of the tax on each socio-economic group the same.25 Small landowners have very little revenue after expenses. In a period of abundant harvests prices for their goods are low, and when harvests are not plentiful there is little to sell and, consequently, a very small surplus of income after expenses. This tax falls harder on small property owners than on great landowners. Maistre also remarks on this shortcoming of the land tax. "This tax is proportionate to the production of the land being considered in its mass and not at all related to the wealth or income of the taxpayer." For example, one person who earns 120 lire from his three pieces of land pays 24 lire of this revenue to the king. His lord who possesses 800 pieces of land pays 6,400 lirebut he has 32,000 lire in revenue. The former would pay a fifth of his necessary revenue but with the latter the excess revenue would barely be touched.26 22 23 24 25 26

Morrisson and Goffin, Questions finanderes aux XVIIF et XIXe siecles, 2-3. Forbonnais, Principes et observations economiques, vol. 2, 270—4. Necker, De I'administration des finances, 264-5. Forbonnais, 91, 97. Maistre, "De I'impot unique," 169.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

77

What Maistre is saying about the tax is tantamount to labelling it "regressive" and his solution is what would be called today a "progressive" tax. To make it so, a different rate would have to be applied on each level of revenue: a rate of tax progressively higher as the distribution of revenue that is being taxed becomes progressively greater in absolute terms. A given individual farmer would have to pay the rate of tax that is applicable to the level of income that corresponds to his earnings, regardless of the size of the land he has used to produce that income. A progressive direct tax on personal income is a modern version of this Maistrean alternative, but it was difficult to apply in eighteenth-century France or Piedmont, as the state did not have the means to calculate individual annual income accurately. Forbonnais recommended that when applying the land tax in France one should periodically ensure that the tax does not fall on what a family needs to earn to survive.27 Maistre shares Forbonnais' desire to exempt essential commodities. "If we impose it on the products of first necessity it is atrocious; since the poor pay as much tax as the rich, but the labourer needs more bread and salt than the gentleman."28 Since a larger part of the labourer's income than that of a wealthier person's income is spent to purchase essential commodities, a tax on essential commodities places a greater burden on the poor than on the rich. Including both indirect and direct taxes in the tax system, as proposed by Maistre, Forbonnais, and Necker, would ensure that all citizens, both those in rural and those in urban areas, would be more fairly taxed. If the land tax were carefully managed so as to prevent it from imposing too great a burden on the smaller property owners, and indirect taxes were placed on luxury items while essential items were exempt from such taxes, such a fiscal system would diminish the excessive burden on the peasants, labourers, and artisans. Consumption taxes, since they would target creditors and employees in the cities, would generate a more stable source of revenue for the government than a single tax on the revenue from the land, which depends on the success of the harvest. Referring to Guiraudet, Maistre comments in his notebooks that it is true that too much effort has been spent on discussing whether one should apply direct or indirect taxes.29 When effective they are both useful. In 1790 Guiraudet was named deputy of the Assemblee constituante for the city of Ales.30 During the same year, he published Erreurs des economistes 27 Forbonnais, 85-6, 94. 28 Maistre, "De I'impot unique," 170. 29 Maistre, Fascicules et fragments 1802-1819. 30 Dictionnaire de Biographie Franfaise, tome 17, 316.

78

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

sur I'lmpot, a work that attacked the physiocrats for asserting that the best way to resolve French finances was to institute a single direct tax.31 Maistre and Guiraudet both consider it a serious shortcoming of a land tax that it demands a considerable sum of money and consequently diminishes the amount of money that circulates, possibly dampening the economy. To ensure that he would have enough money to pay the tax when it was due, each landowner would set aside some money long before. By contrast, consumption taxes do not require as much planning and premature withdrawal from circulation, since the tax is paid in much smaller amounts, and taxpayers can choose simply to forgo the purchase unless it is a necessary item.32 Necker had commented on how a tax only made an impression on the human mind when one wanted to buy a taxed item. The rest of the time one would feel free to plan expenses as one would wish. This cannot be said of taxes on revenue. Such a tax is never hidden and is always present to our minds.33 Guiraudet had proposed a way to circumvent the problem of a reduction in the money supply due to the imposition of a direct tax. The payment of the direct tax would be divided into between forty-eight and no less than twelve equal payments. Therefore, at his option, a citizen could pay every week the forty-eighth part of the total amount or the twentyfourth part every fifteen days or the twelfth each month; thus the effect of the tax on the money supply would more closely approximate the effect of a consumption tax. To make it easier for citizens to contribute these smaller amounts, the government could mint a quantity of coins of smaller denominations. A beneficial side-effect from this new money in the system would be that circulation would be greater and there would be more gold and silver that could be used to purchase goods or invest in industry rather than to pay taxes,34 Maistre is well read on the subject of taxes and has also taken into account the less commonly discussed but important criticism of the land tax that considered its influence on the money supply. He understands that most opposition is directed to the claim of the physiocrats that this tax would replace all other taxes. Maistre concurs with the critics that this would be undesirable even in the long run, since a variety of fiscal tools is required in a diversified economy such as that of France. The quantity of money in circulation, important to Maistre's understanding of the economy, is again highlighted in the next section. 31 32 33 34

Guiraudet, 12. Maistre, "De 1'impot unique," 170. Necker, De Vadministration desfinances,vol. i, 264. Guiraudet, 80, 86.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

79

2. THE EQUATION OF E X C H A N G E

Frequent preoccupations in the discussions on monetary policy during the eighteenth century were the inflationary spirals and the economic downturns that accompanied the process of creation or acquisition of currency by governments. The very large influx of gold and silver into Europe from the Americas during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and later the increased production of precious metals all over the world, not only from new discoveries in other parts of the world but also from lower quality ores in Europe and elsewhere through improved technology, created destabilizing cyclical movements in world economies. The frequent wars that distorted expenditures while reducing the production of commodities had also resulted in frequent inflationary periods and shortages of goods. The mercantilists had claimed that a nation would become prosperous if it could accumulate more gold or silver through an expansion of its exports or from the discovery of mines in South America and Africa. Some political economists, such as John Locke, had attributed the fall in the rate of interest to those causes alone. Other political economists such as Etienne Bonnot de Condillac and Gabriel Bonnot de Mably criticized the writings of the mercantilists and argued that to expand the supply of money was not desirable. It was sometimes somewhat useful because it facilitated the exchange of goods, but it did not directly add wealth to the economy. Commercial and industrial activities would develop at a sufficiently rapid rate and remain stable without monetary expansion. David Hume further established that, although an expansion of money was useful in the short run as a catalyst, prosperity and stability would always eventually depend on industry and commerce. Hume shed new light on the subject of money. Since "provisions and labour should become dear by the increase of trade and money" it would create "an inconvenience." He could see "no reason for increasing that inconvenience [created by an inflow of gold and silver] by a counterfeit money [that is, by issuing paper money]."35 It would be "inconvenient" in the sense that it would become difficult to compete internationally when the wage of domestic labour rose due to growth in the money supply. The growth in money may come from any of several sources: success at exporting; gold and silver from new mines; loans based on bank deposits; or the issue of paper money. However, responding to those who had attributed a decrease in interest rates in Europe and the concomitant growth of industry or inflationary pressures in 35 Hume, "Of Money," 283-4.

80

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

large part to the import of gold and silver from new mines in the Americas, Hume showed that "low interest... proceeds from ... the increase of industry and commerce, not of gold and silver."36 Many other writers approved of Hume's analysis, among them David Ricardo, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, and Henry Thornton. Maistre analyses this type of adjustment in the economy that neutralizes an overabundance of paper money. As shown later in this section, Maistre concluded, in discussing the optimum supply of inconvertible paper money based on his understanding of the equation of exchange, that only the supply of paper money in excess of the value needed to counterbalance the value of transactions in an economy would cause inflation. When the value of transactions was rising, more money, not less, would be desirable in the economy to avoid inflation. Developing Hume's analysis further, in 1898 Knut Wicksell showed that only an uncompensated expansion of lending based on the monetary increase would lead to inflation. Wicksell concluded that if private and public voluntary savings were to equal bank loans and paper money, the inflationary process would be restrained. A. R. Turgot and Adam Smith had anticipated this equilibrium theorem in their theory of saving and investment, and it was one of the springboards from which, in the 19305, John Maynard Keynes developed his theory that revitalized worldwide the policy on full employment and price stability. Henry Thornton, a banker and member of parliament, produced one of the most skilful analyses of the money supply in Britain when the industrial revolution was being launched. He stated that it was the great increase in the available quantity of any commodity that lowered its value. Without doubt the large influx of bullion from American mines had drastically reduced the value of money in Europe. "And why was paper, the substitute for gold, to be exempted from this universal law? ... an augmentation of paper had a tendency to reduce its value, or raise that of commodities."37 He was convinced that the advantage of a plentiful supply of paper money in stimulating industry and commerce was short-lived; in the long run it was inflationary and disruptive. When Thornton participated in the controversy as to whether the banks were capable of inflating currency beyond what was desirable, he stated that except for the system of convertibility of paper money, a requirement that deposits of gold were maintained in reserves that withdrew gold out of the system, and operations of limited bank-credit, there was nothing to prevent the banks from inflating the supply of 36 Hume, "Of Interest," 322. 37 Thornton, "Two Speeches of Henry Thornton, Esq. On the Bullion Report, May 1811," 328.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

81

money well past a level that would precipitate an inflationary rise in prices.38 The "currency principle" implied here is met repeatedly in the discussion of money by supporters of convertibility: that the issue of paper should not be greater than the specie reserves. Monetary "convertibility" can refer to: (i) the convertibility (in American usage, redeemability), within the one country, of paper money, usually issued by a government authority or a bank, into a precious metal, coins, or credit value, such as bonds; (2) the international convertibility of one national currency into its equivalent in gold or another national currency. Maistre's writings on money discuss both but usually analyse mainly the first, although he recognizes that national and international convertibility are interrelated, and we shall see that his advice in the domestic sphere also influenced the international. It will be stated explicitly when the second, international convertibility, is being discussed. Maistre shows that there is no particular virtue in the currency principle requiring specie reserves to cover completely all issues of paper within a domestic economy, as it merely diverts banking systems from meeting the monetary needs of the economy. In 1797, when Napoleon was threatening to invade Britain, the aborted landing of French soldiers from a ship on the British coast led to a run on the Bank of England that forced the government to stop for a time the convertibility of paper to specie. David Ricardo saw at first hand this panic, the subsequent fall of the reserves of the Bank of England to one-tenth of their value, and the depreciation of bank notes by about i o per cent. While suspension of convertibility was intended to be temporary, paper continued to depreciate by as much as 80 per cent during the Napoleonic wars, and the reaction was to "temporarily" have English bank notes remain inconvertible until 1821. Ricardo concluded that there was only one cause for the depreciation: too many bank notes had been outstanding when the emergency arose. Despite this conclusion he still preferred paper to metallic money, as Maistre did. However, Ricardo's proposal to make paper money viable was different from Maistre's recommendation, which will be considered later. Ricardo suggested that first the supply of paper should be gradually decreased until its value equalled that of coins. Then it would be time to hold "the Bank to the delivery of uncoined gold or silver at the Mint standard and price, in exchange for its notes, instead of the delivery of Guineas; by which means paper would never fall below the value of bullion." Since the 38 Thornton, An Enquiry Into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Greai Britain, 111, 286; and "Two Speeches of Henry Thornton, Esq. On the Bullion Report, May 1811," 358.

82

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Bank would retain its power to control its outstanding issue of paper, this would be satisfactory. To ensure that paper notes would remain at par with coins, the former would be convertible to gold bars, not coins, as he feared the latter might drive out paper. With this ingot plan, bankers and moneylenders would cash their paper notes for gold bullion if the paper were to fall below the value of coins, the monetary authorities would have to maintain just enough paper to prevent its depreciation.39 Contrary to Hume, and similar to Smidi, Ricardo appreciated the advantages of paper over coins, but unlike Maistre he nevertheless retained convertibility. Ricardo faced the opposition of a vested interest in the continuance of specie convertibility in Great Britain. The Bank of England could not directly, through pure power of logic, prevent Ricardo's ingot plan of convertibility from being favoured in the debate in the Houses of Commons and Lords, and it was made law in 1819. However, after only 13 bars had been exchanged for paper notes, the directors of the Bank returned to the fray and in 1821 had a substitute plan authorized by Parliament that permitted resumption of convertibility in coin. Ricardo's reasoning, that exchanging only ingots rather than coins would require less gold to be held in reserve by the bank had not been refuted; victory for specie convertibility can only be attributed to fear by the Bank and Parliament of weakening the link to the anchor of custom.40 After the passing in 1844 of Peel's Act on banking, which fuelled the continuing controversy on the management of money in Britain and on the continent, two schools of thought on monetary theory arose: the banking group and the currency group. Although the two schools disagreed on many aspects of the theory and management of money and banking, both agreed that convertibility of paper money was desirable: "the con vertibility of notes was enough to secure all the monetary stability of which a capitalist system is capable" [banking school]; "(i) convertibility of notes cannot be asserted without special restrictions upon their issue; and (2) the notes of the Bank of England were actually, or should be treated as, mere gold certificates ... ultimate reserve money just like the coin or gold bullion which they represented" [currency school].41 These statements, typical of proponents in Europe (including Britain) of the two schools, failed to perceive the fallacy of convertibility that Maistre's works on money had made transparent a half century before. Hume had clearly shown that monetary expansion per se was a nuisance but created neither long-term economic prosperity nor calamity, 39 Ricardo, The Works of David Ricardo, 287, 405. 40 Fetter, Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy, 7797-1^75,97-9. 41 Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, 723-8.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

83

and Thornton attributed the run of 1793 on the Bank of England to much too sudden and close a contraction of its bank notes, not simply to the existence of a large issue. However, Hume and Thornton did not venture to consider inconvertibility as a solution to some of the monetary problems of the time. Maistre comes to some of the same conclusions as they, and goes further to propose inconvertibility. He does not hold as critical a view of monetary expansion. While others perceived the rise in the price level as an indication of an overabundance of money relative to goods in the economies of Europe, he interprets the rise in prices as the result of a scarcity of money relative to goods. This section will explain how he arrives at this conclusion from a different understanding from his contemporaries, shown by the equation of exchange, mv = pt. It represents the relation among the quantity of money (M), the velocity of money (V), the level of prices (P), and the volume of transactions (T). The basic idea of the quantity theorem of money was first published in Paris by a lawyer, Jean Bodin, in Reponse aux paradoxes de M. de Malestroit touchant lefait des monnaies et I'enrichessement de toutes choses [Reply to the Paradoxes of Mr Malestroit Regarding the Fact of Money and the Enrichment of All Things.] (1568). Bernardo Davanzati, a merchant of Florence, formulated the quantity theorem of money in a much more useful form in his Lezione delle moneta [Lesson on Money] (1588). By the eighteenth century the theorem had become known as the equation of exchange and was common knowledge in political economy.42 The sole surviving work of a Paris banker, Richard Cantillon, written in 1730, recognized that the velocity of money is not constant and that this rapidity in circulation of money plays a part in explaining variations of the price level: "An acceleration or greater rapidity in circulation of money in exchange is equivalent to an increase of actual money up to a point."43 Periodicity of payments is one of the factors that influence the rapidity of circulation. The first section of this chapter dealt with Guiraudet's suggestion to reduce the amount of money removed from circulation through the imposition of a land tax by requiring that payments to the government be made in small instalments on a weekly rather than a yearly basis. Following the same principle, Cantillon used the example of an increase in the circulation of money when farmers were required to pay their landlords every six months rather than once every year. Farmers would have more money left to spend on other items since only half as much money would have to be saved at any given 42 Schumpeter, 292, 311-14. 43 Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en general, 161.

84

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

time for the payment of the rent. Another factor that affects the velocity of money is the level of uncertainty present in the system. If people feel confident about the economy, they will save less and spend more, with the result that money will circulate faster.44 Condillac and Mably admired Cantillon's book. Although trained to be priests, they had abandoned theology for the study of philosophy, history, and political economy. Maistre had in his library a copy of Condillac's Le Commerce et le gouvemement and a copy of Mably's Droit pitblic de I'Europe. In opposition to the mercantilists, Condillac emphasised that one can have a vibrant economy without having to follow policies that accumulate bullion, since what commercial activities need is a small amount of money that freely circulates throughout all parts of the economy. The same money circulates between the cities and the countryside several times during the course of a single year. Even this estimate is too large because not all of this money is needed during the course of a year.45 In a footnote to the section on the circulation of money, Condillac referred to a calculation made by Cantillon "that the actual money necessary for the circulation of the state corresponds nearly to the value of a third of all annual rents of the landlords."46 Maistre also wrote down this estimate but cites a secondary source, Droit publique de I'Europe, the work of Condillac's brother MaWy.4"7 Maistre notes Mably's comment that if this ratio of revenue from land to quantity of money is not maintained it is the fault of the government, because it has the means to influence the velocity of money. Mably stated that this ratio would only become insufficient if the government were not to maintain the people's confidence in the economy.48 Cantillon claimed that an able minister can always make the economy recover from its downturn. Mably argued that nations that acquired great monetary wealth did not find durable prosperity for themselves. They always fell promptly into poverty. This is because all objects of consumption became very expensive as commerce and the money supply expanded. Maistre copies into his notebook the passage from Mably's work that describes how the mass of gold and silver entering Europe from Africa and America has caused inflation in addition to an increase in commerce. "In our father's time 44 Ibid., 127, 147. 45 Condillac, Le Commerce et le gouvemement considered relativement I'un a I'autre, 107-12. 46 Cantillon, 149; Condillac, 109-10. 47 Maistre, "Politique Argent," Melanges, notes et extraits de lecture 1780, Fonds de Maistre, 134. 48 Mably, "Le Droit publique de I'Europe, fonde sur les traites II," 533.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

85

you could buy a given quantity of goods for 20 marks whereas today you have to spend 30 marks to buy the same quantity of goods, so the overabundance of money has actually impoverished us."49 Mably continues that the government must remove money from the system to reduce the prices of goods. This measure has only a temporary effect, as money will again become too abundant, the people will become corrupt with luxuries, and finally fall into poverty as everything becomes too dear. Maistre does not agree with this; as elaborated in the next chapter, commerce makes possible continuously higher levels of wealth and prosperity. Mably associated commerce with the endless and futile alternation between wealth and poverty. Any wealth and prosperity gained in one phase of this cycle are destroyed in the next. He exclaimed that if the great men at the head of the most celebrated peoples of antiquity could hear the pronouncements of some modern thinkers, who insist that the state can flourish only by the means of its commerce, they would take them for madmen.50 Mably's thought represents the French variant of the classical republican tradition. Here the republican is the reactionary while Maistre, sometimes labelled an absolutist, regards things as they really are. Mably admired the political institutions and economic policies of the Spartan citystate. In the Greek polis, political power was in the hands of an assembly consisting of a whole body of citizens rather than in the exclusive control of a monarch. Maistre would counter that the people who ruled the Greek polis were the aristocrats. Mably advised that modern governments should follow the example of the Spartan republic. Governments ought to reduce their economic dependence on other countries and keep commercial activities to a minimum. A more closed economy would avoid the problems of inflation and poverty that accompanies an increase in commercial activity. Maistre writes a comment below Mably's statement about the rise in prices of necessities with the increase in the money supply and commerce, declaring it to be a sophism. Maistre is indicating that, although Mably claims to be knowledgeable and provides an answer of sorts, he misunderstands the problem. Mably's theory is an elaboration of Hume's, which was stated earlier in this section. Mably was complaining that there was inflation because "goods have not kept their old ratio with money" or, in other words, there is too much money relative to the quantity of goods in the economy.51 Contrary to Mably's claim, Maistre holds that there is a shortage of money relative to the quantity of goods in the economy. The scarcity of money has dampened economic development. The following 49 Maistre, "Politique Argent," 135; and Mably, 513. 50 Mably, 510, 515. 51 Ibid., 513.

86

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

note written by Maistre in September 1804 and not previously discussed in the literature will further explain the basis for his argument. The "mark," which has also been used as the name of various coins on the continent of Europe, was the official monetary unit of account in England denoting a value equivalent to 2/3 of a pound sterling (£2/3). Since originally in England, one pound in weight of silver was sufficient to mint 20 coins worth i shilling (is), [or 240 pence (24od)], the mark was worth [20 x 2/3 = 13-335] 135 4d. From 1353 to 1421 a pound weight of pure silver was minted by adulteration with less valuable metals to yield 25 coins with the nominal value of is. In 1503 Henry VII, the first English Tudor King, had the first is coins minted. Beginning in 1603 the same quantity of silver, one pound, was coined into 62 shillings. Maistre observes that from 1603 then, more than twice as many coins were produced from the same quantity of silver. That is, adulteration left only 1/3 of the silver worth [20 x 1/3 = 6.66s] half of the 13.335 intrinsic value of the weight of silver that originally had produced 20 coins each worth is. He points out that, if during the period 1353-1421 one had received a mark (valued then at 135 4d) in payment, it would contain actually enough silver to produce 335 [62/25 x 13.33 = 32-9^] in terms of the present (September 1804, when Maistre wrote his note) shillings minted. That is, by 1603 the £ sterling equivalent of the mark had changed from 13.33 to 33 shillings. This ratio is based only on the intrinsic silver value of a shilling. The ratio of the intrinsic value of the shilling, 1353-1421 to the present is 2.48:1 [62/25]. Tne multiple of what had to be paid in shillings for a mark originally was 2 Vz. Maistre writes that, according to William Godwin, the prices of necessities also rose, [the actual purchasing power of the shilling in the market depreciated relative to commodities] by a multiple of 18, from Chaucer's time to the late eighteenth century. Maistre shows how Godwin arrived at this conclusion. In Chaucer's day, circa 1350 AD, the price of a given basket of necessities was 775, and remained about the same until the turn of the fourteenth century. In 1798, when Godwin made his comparison regarding the change in the value of money and the cost of necessities, the same basket of goods would cost 5625. The ratio of the price of necessities in 1350 and in 1798 is 77:562 [562/77=7.298], and multiplying the increase in prices as a ratio by the devaluation in the value of money as a ratio: 7.298 x 2.48 yields 18. This measures the change in the cost of necessities in pounds sterling when comparing the two periods, and the result is the ratio stated by Godwin, i: 18.52 52 Maistre, Melanges, notes et extraits de lecture, 1804, Fonds de Maistre, 222.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

87

Maistre is referring above to British monetary history beginning before 1323 and continuing up to the time of his writing in the nineteenth century; he is aware that the mark ceased to be used in England later in this period. Research directed by Roger Towner and Richard Roberts has shown "that the term mark was in common usage" as late as 1642.53 Maistre's analysis shows how much the mark had been devalued over the centuries by the activities of the English monarchs and depreciated by inflationary forces; he calculates what a mark would have been worth at the time of his writing in September 1804, although then the mark was no longer in use in England as a monetary unit of account. Maistre comments that he thinks that Godwin has produced a more accurate estimate of the ratio of the price of necessities in Chaucer's day and in Maistre's day than Hume, who estimated it to be 100:1 (100 to i) instead of 18:1 (18 to i). Godwin is picturing the situation as it was when he points out that there was less population and industry then than in Godwin's and Maistre's day [they were contemporaries].54 In Chaucer's day, money had greater real value or less money could buy the same amount of goods, not only because it contained more precious metal but also because of the smaller population and industry. With an increase in production of goods and consumer demand for them one needs to increase the money supply for a balance to be maintained between money supplied and demanded. Thinkers such as Mably were deceived because the same effect, a rise in prices of goods, could result from a scarcity of money as well as from an overabundance of money in the economy. Goods are priced too high in Maistre's day because there is not enough money to pay for them. As discussed in the next section of this chapter, Maistre intends to have more money created through the printing of paper money. If properly managed, the increase in the money supply will cause the prices of goods to fall, and industry will expand further as people can afford to consume more goods. Some people were complaining that there was too much in the form of specie (gold, silver, and copper coins), but as Maistre points out, they were in fact complaining of the lubrication that permits the economic engine to produce greater prosperity. He perceives that it was not necessarily the over-supply of paper money per se that caused problems; mistrust of paper money or its simple reduction in value led to its limited use, as an aftermath when the bank or government guarantees regarding note convertibility were not fulfilled. Then the value of paper would depreciate 53 http//www.portsdown.demon.co.uk/Information available for the parish of Rowner near Portsmouth, southern England, in 1642. 54 Ibid., 223.

88

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

and the level of prices of commodities and services would increase indefinitely. This is evident from the equation of exchange. The value of the money side of the equation can increase because M and V are being inflated by the temporary overabundance of paper, but it can also increase because T, which represents the sum of the quantities of goods being exchanged, is diminishing. The latter will be the result when the public refuses to use paper. Then MV rises in value as the T in the denominator of MV/PT continues to be reduced. As long as the quantity of money only rises at the same rate as prices, no one would be poorer because there would be the extra money to pay the higher prices. In 1911 the respected American monetary theorist Irving Fisher at Yale University noted this process, but used it, in contrast to Maistre, to discredit inconvertible paper money.55 He concluded: "It is true that the level of prices might be kept almost absolutely stable ... by the issue of inconvertible paper money ... If the confidence of citizens were preserved, and this relation were kept, the problem would need no further solution." He explained that this would operate on the basis that the paper outstanding would be maintained proportional to the value of business being transacted. However, he then proceeded to caution that no government could be trusted not to abuse this system and recommended, instead of inconvertibility, a combination of a tabular standard with gold-exchange principles.56 Expressed in terms of the equation of exchange, Maistre is saying that if MV increases at the same rate as PT, then there really has been no change in the economy in absolute terms. He emphasizes that the circulation of money is a movement, not just a quantity, and in a movement two things must be considered to get the total value, that is, both the quantity and the velocity. These two elements compensate for each other; he is referring to the MV in the equation of exchange, and if M were reduced by the same value that V is increased then there would be no net change. He adds that, since all of the elements in the market are interrelated, it is normal that the market forces offset each other to maintain equilibrium. Then if we know that the value of specie in circulation has risen and we notice that the price level has increased by a third, this should not lead us to fear that the relative proportions have been destroyed. It is probable that the increase of one third in prices may have been just what was needed to apply the correct re-equalizing.57 55 Fisher, The Purchasing Power of Money, 250-1. 56 Ibid., 329. 57 Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta-moneta," 1798-1799, Fonds de Maistre, 8-11.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

8g

Some political economists, such as Hume, Mably, Cantillon, and Condillac, had a more sophisticated understanding of monetary policy than the mercantilists because they recognized that an abundance of money does not guarantee a more prosperous economy. However, Maistre's commentary shows that even their understanding of monetary political economy was incomplete. While the mercantilists exaggerated the importance of one side of the equation of exchange, the quantity of money or M, those who were fearful of an abundance of money, such as Mably, ignored the other side of the equation, the number of transactions in the economy or T. When production and trade were increasing there was need for more, not less, money. Not only the quantity but also the velocity of circulation would be enhanced if private banks would circulate paper money that had been stamped with the seal of approval of the monarchy. Confidence in the economy would grow among the citizenry and money in the form of paper rather than coins would circulate faster and more easily throughout the economy. The next section examines two reports that Maistre writes to advise the King of Piedmont on how to manage this monetary expansion so that it would revitalize commercial activity and lower the general price level. 3.

I N C O N V E R T I B L E PAPER MONEY

Paper money had been an important part of the money supply for approximately a half century in Piedmont when Maistre writes his thirtynine-page analysis on paper money: Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta moneta; agiunteui alcune riflesione generali sovra quel punto di economia politica (Regarding Paper Money in the State of Piedmont; Including Some General Reflections on that Area of Political Economy). It advises the King as to how best to utilize fiat inconvertible paper money. The term "fiat" refers to legislation that enforces the acceptance of currency as legal tender. The final draft of the report was begun in Turin in 1798 and completed in Venice 13 March 1799. As discussed later, Maistre met with King Carlo Emanuele IV of Piedmont in Florence on 20 October 1799. Maistre states in his diary on 7 June 1797 that he has given Ottavio Falletti Marchese di Barolo a copy [of a first draft] of this report on inconvertible notes. One of the wealthiest landowners in Piedmont, the Marchese di Barolo is known to have had an interest in political economy and to have held a variety of political positions, including chamberlain to King Vittorio-Amedeo III and member of the city council of Turin. The Barolo family had extended and diversified their holdings by providing credit to communities in Piedmont. His son, Carlo Tancredi Barolo, the mayor of Turin, was instrumental in the creation in 1829 °f the ^rst commercial

go

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

bank in Piedmont.58 The Maistre and Barolo families were close friends, and when Maistre was employed as Minister of Justice in Turin after his recall from the position of ambassador to Russia, he was a frequent guest at the soirees in the Barolo palace that were attended by other persons of high rank, distinction, or importance.59 It is possible that the memoir on paper money was distributed in the financial community of Piedmont through the Marchese di Barolo. As explained later in this section, the Bank of Italy, with origins in Piedmont, would be the only bank in the world, until the twentieth century, to operate dejure deliberately for a considerable time on a general policy of inconvertibility. When this was interrupted by the political or economic conjuncture, it continued as long as possible de facto on fiat money that was inconvertible. Maistre, in both of his two memoirs (addressed to the King of Piedmont and given to his friend Barolo) that are analysed in this section, devises and proposes the practice of inconvertibility. Maistre leaves family, friends, and his precious library in Turin in 1798 after the invasion of Piedmont by Napoleon's army, and he meets King Carlo Emanuele IV of Piedmont in Florence on 20 October 1799, where the latter was also awaiting the result of the Austro-Russian campaign against Napoleonic France. Maistre is asked on that occasion by his King to find a way to ensure that a very important document would be surely delivered to the head of the Russian forces, Marshall Souvarov. Maistre arranges for its safe delivery by his brother Nicolas, who was an officer in a Piedmontese regiment that was participating in the campaign. Subsequently, on 27 October 1799, his King honoured Joseph de Maistre for distinguished service to the state with the Cross of Saint Maurice: Knight of the order Royal and military of St Maurice and St Lazare.60 He would have had ample opportunity at this time in Florence to discuss directly with the King the paper on money that he had addressed to the King two years earlier. Orthodox monetary theory in Maistre's day was in considerable part a reaction to the mismanagement and resultant problems experienced repeatedly during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The aim was to obtain revenue for the government and provide sufficient media of exchange for the economy, without extending the value of credit to such a degree that if the public were to clamour for it there would not be sufficient coins, gold, and silver to enable rapid conversion of the credit value issued. While paper money was a ready source that could 58 Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 6, 431, 433.

59 Lavau, "Extrait d'une conversation," oc, vol. XIV, 285. 60 Maistre, Les Garnets du ComteJoseph de Maistre, 123, 141.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

91

satisfy both the government's needs and those of the private sector, the collapse of numerous banks and of the monetary systems of many countries was attributed to its use. When the paper money was based on the public debt, the potential existed for infinite extension of the quantity of money. Alternatively, linking the paper either partially or completely with convertibility in coin, gold, or silver could lead to an eventual loss of confidence in both the issuer and the medium. Often, the promised conversion could not be carried out, unless 100 per cent metallic reserves had been maintained. The monetary authorities did not want to keep i oo per cent of the value of paper dormant in their vaults in specie or bullion, and anything less would be inadequate in an emergency. Maistre shows that a fractional reserve is worse than none; it is just a fiction that supports paper only until it is challenged. All monetary systems based on convertible paper currencies are not inevitably prone to crises. If paper money is backed by 100 per cent metallic reserves for as long as the paper currency remains in circulation, and if the paper currency does not appreciate in the market, or the government does not revalue it higher so that the total paper outstanding rises above the originally established metallic reserves, or if the latter are increased to match the total value outstanding in paper currency at every point, then there is no problem if the public claims its right to exchange paper for metal and the convertible paper need not lead to crises. However, backing may be partly with securities held by the monetary authority, such as go-day commercial paper, which often takes longer than the nominal 90 days to get paid after pay-out is requested. Then, as happened with the Bank of France under Napoleon's administration, if the public wants its specie exchange and is unwilling to wait 90 or more days, a crisis is probable. Maistre had lost faith in convertible paper currency because of its history; one would be hard-pressed to find a nation in the world where there has not been at one time or another a crisis caused by the inability of the monetary authorities to satisfy the public when they demanded what the convertible system had promised. This danger associated with convertibility is relative to other factors and it is prevented by inconvertibility. Maistre argues that the suspension of a promised convertibility creates mistrust that is difficult to reverse. While the value of money depreciated, the prices of commodities appreciated. This occurred continuously throughout the last half of the seventeenth century, when poor harvests and supplying the needs of armies caused inflationary pressures that made matters worse. The circulation of paper money per head in mainland Piedmont changed from approximately 13 lire to only 22 lire from 1750 to 1790, whereas by 1792, just before the invasion

gs

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

from France, it had risen to 100 lire per head. While the former increase can mostly be attributed to greater economic activity, the latter was due to war finance. The paper money was acceptable to the population, since although it had amounted to 14 million lire during the 17808 it was still negotiable at par, sometimes even achieving a premium over metallic money. The majority of experts of the time estimated that as long as the total of convertible paper notes did not surpass 18 million lire the equilibrium of the money market would be maintained.61 As Maistre comments, it was when the monetary authorities saturated the market with a meteoric oversupply of notes that devaluation occurred, but even that would have been absorbed and equilibrium would have been achieved again without permanent damage, if the government had operated consistently to create the necessary conditions. In his memoir on paper money, Maistre declares that the paper money as issued thus far by the state of Piedmont is merely a draft payable on sight drawn on the public treasury. The unfortunate consequence of this had been a virtual bankruptcy of the state on each occasion that the Treasury was not in a position to honour its promise to pay, that is, to exchange the paper money for metallic money. After pointing out that at law there is no bankruptcy until one has been declared, Maistre asks: why not simply let public opinion support the purchasing power of paper money? All that is needed is trust that the government is preparing to do whatever needs to be done to preserve credit standing generally in the economy in the long run. Difficulties such as the expenses of war and poor harvests should not be dealt with in such a way that there is a subsequent deterioration towards questioning the state's ability to convert the currency into metallic value. After they are in the possession of the people, the biglietti should not be thought of as a debt of the state. Biglietti earned interest for the holder and bore a promise that the state treasury would convert them to metal coins on demand. Maistre contrasts this with England where Englishmen no longer imagine that there is ready in metallic money more than the one-thousandth part to support the nominal values of bank notes that circulate in the kingdom.62 This is accurate when Maistre writes his report on inconvertible paper in 1797. However, it is well documented that except for periods under temporary conditions of emergency such as 1797 to 1821, the policy of the government of England and of the Bank of England remained what it had been since the inception of the 61 Felloni, 14, 177. 62 Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte respetto alia carta moneta," 1798-1799, Fonds de Maistre, 2.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

93

Bank in the seventeenth century. Well into the twentieth century, paper money was normally issued on the basis of the promise of guaranteed convertibility to another form of monetary or credit value. The issue of the paper, however, was through the intermediary of a private corporation, the Bank of England, whereas Piedmont continued to issue the biglietti directly through its Treasury. The Bank of England was authorized by Parliament in 1694 as a private corporation, having some of the wealthiest people in England as its shareholders. Its capital stock was immediately turned over to King William III to pay for his war with Louis XIV of France, because the bank's constitution authorized it to print paper money up to the value of that capital stock and made the bank's power to issue bank notes in England an exclusive monopoly. By 1695 the notes of the bank had gone to a discount of 20 per cent. In accordance with the analysis in Maistre's memoir, these depreciations are attributable to the fact that the Bank of England's constitution required it to convert paper to metal money on demand. When smaller bankers that were its enemies and jealous of its monopoly arranged for some of the public who held the bank's notes to ask the bank for conversion, it did not possess sufficient specie. Convertibility had to be temporarily suspended. The general public then began to lose their confidence in the notes. The government and the bank were assisted in their prolonged efforts to escape this threatening event by a booming economy that was building up to the industrial revolution. Soon they were even able to free the bank of the existing limitation and authorize it to issue notes over the value of its capital, which it had turned over to the government for its use. As soon as economic prosperity returned fully and the public was no longer attempting to break down its doors, the Bank of England returned to the posture of a promise to convert on demand its paper currency to metal.63 It would require more than another century for bankers and intellectuals to perceive and remedy the fallacy of convertibility of which Maistre speaks. As indicated above, Maistre addresses a report to his King in 1798 (a copy of a first draft had been given to his friend Barolo in 1797) on how a government could and should deliberately institute and consistently maintain a system of inconvertible paper money. Two other European thinkers, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Adam Heinrich Muller von Nittersdorf, also proposed that governments should abandon convertibility and turn to inconvertible paper money, albeit with inconvertible paper of a very different kind from Maistre's and designed to achieve different 63 Macleod, "A History of Banking in Great Britain," vol. II, 3, 7, 209.

94

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

goals. Fichte's Die Geschlossene Handelstaat (The Closed Commercial State) 1800, referred to inconvertible paper money as a part of his Utopian state and was impracticable. Its characteristics were the opposite of those of Maistre's paper money; for example, the value of the paper was fixed in an economy where all prices were controlled by government "the government will tell them it [a unit of the new paper money] is worth so much and the public will have no choice but to believe it and act accordingly ... The government will guarantee forever the value of the [paper] money that it issues" and will make all adjustments necessary, such as to the prices of commodities, to accomplish this.64 The value of Maistre's paper money, in contrast, is dynamic and operates in a free market. Maistre shows that attempts by governments to guarantee the value of paper money were an important cause of problems. Fichte believed that with autarky and without a standing army his closed state would be safe from invasion by its European neighbours, while Maistre looks to the balance of power and fosters international trade. Miiller critically reviewed Fichte's economic system. Fichte had written that he would not use a system similar to the existing paper monies that were part of the weltgeld money related to gold and silver; he was creating something new: a landesgeld, a national paper money that would foster nationalism. Miiller proposed instead that the state he conjured would adopt Austria's system of inconvertible paper money because it was the kind of monetary system that promoted national cohesion, unlike metal money and international trade, which made citizens unpatriotic.65 Muller was unaware that, as I show below, the Austrian government's policy entailed a convertible system backed by gold and silver, and whenever the exigencies of a situation had temporarily necessitated inconvertibility, Austrian monetary authorities consistently made every effort to return as soon as possible to convertible paper. Muller's extreme religious views coloured much of his economic and political thought; unlike Fichte, he believed recurring war was inevitable and, like him, he expected absolute obedience to the state from citizens. While Fichte and Muller wanted inconvertibility to help enforce their closed economies, Maistre appreciates that the combination of an inconvertible currency domestically and a floating exchange rate internationally would provide more flexibility for policy. He explains why he believes that the state could, from that base, facilitate a movement of goods and capital that would suit any given economic and political conjuncture. The monetary systems of Fichte and Muller were very different 64 Fichte, Die Geschlossene Handelstaat, 155-6. 65 Muller von Nittersdorf, Vom Geiste der Gemeinschaft, 154, 195.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

95

from what Maistre proposed, and they were impractical. On the other hand, the monetary system that prevailed in Canada for many years after World War II was similar to Maistre's system. With internal inconvertibility and a de facto floating exchange rate, even throughout much of the Bretton Woods Agreement period from 1948 into the 19705, Canadian monetary authorities maximized free trade and international commerce before this monetary policy was officially entirely acceptable to international monetary authorities. While the paper currency of Austria, which Miiller admired, was inconvertible for short periods, even during some of those years it was partially convertible. "On May 1848 ... the exchange of notes for coins was restricted but not wholly intermitted."66 There is no indication of planned inconvertibility; going off convertibility was resisted for as long as possible by the Bank of Austria, just as it was by the Russian central bank, as will be shown later. The main difference between the two sets of monetary experience was the overwhelming control of banking functions by the government of Russia, whereas the Austro-Hungarian central bank was more independent but bowed to the Austrian government's needs for revenue to finance its army. "The Austrian National Bank was repeatedly compelled to suspend payments in coin ... the Imperial Government... made abnormal draughts on the Bank in critical emergencies, [e.g., the revolution of 1848 and the Crimean War] ... and so rendered it impossible for the Bank to fulfill prescribed requirements [in the founding Bank Act of 1816] in the matter of redeeming notes in coin."67 The economic establishment and monetary administrators of Austria were more expert than those of Russia, but when crises occurred despite desperate efforts to remain convertible, they turned to making the paper notes inconvertible to prevent loss of metallic reserves. Since its foundation in 1810 the Austrian National Bank had a more complete monopoly over the issue of paper currency than even the central banks of England, France, and Italy, where several banks were involved; consequently it possessed more potential control, but it preferred convertibility. "Fundamental features of the Bank's operations during the first two decades [1878-98] of the dual Government [Austro-Hungarian Bank were] ... the manifold efforts of the Bank to restore specie payments. After the outbreak of war in 1859, though specie payments had been undertaken from September 1858 until the end of April 1859, they were again suspended." This is another of the 66 Wirth, "A History of Banking in Germany and Austria-Hungary," 78. 67 Ibid., 69-70.

96

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

many illustrations of the basic convertibility policy and the myriad fluctuations on and off convertibility occasioned by emergencies. "The Bank declared its policy unchanged, in a memorial of the First Secretary for 1876, affirming that, first and last, the National Bank would devote its fullest attention to the necessity of resuming specie payments." When world overproduction of silver caused a marked decline in the price of silver, "the Austro-Hungarian Government... by the Law of 1892, a return to specie payments and the ultimate introduction of a gold standard [instead of its previous silver standard] ... [The Bank] is now obliged to redeem notes in legal gold coins as well, or in gold bullion, at their full nominal value."68 One cannot accurately point to the intermittent collapses into inconvertibility, despite their steadfast long-term policy of convertibility, of Austria-Hungary in the nineteenth century, as a long-term planned policy of inconvertibility. In contrast, the policy recommended by Maistre is deliberately planned long-term inconvertibility. In his paper, he reminds the King that every creditor of the state has an interest in the maintenance of the excellent credit standing of the government. Similarly the holder of paper money constantly works at deceiving himself regarding the illusion, that should normally be borne out in practice, of the paper being the carrier of value although he knows that it is not intrinsically valuable. Few people are in a position to understand either the strength of the government or the probability that the paper money will or will not be honoured at nominal value when it is presented to pay for a purchase.69 They would not be attempting such analysis if they were not being led into such thinking by the wrong approach, poor presentation, and mismanagement by the government in the planning, production, and distribution of the paper money. Maistre then considers why and how the par value of paper money to metallic money changes over time, either depreciating or appreciating from its nominal value. When paper money was losing its value, it usually happened gradually. A good example of this is the French assignat, which began as a very strong paper, yet even the French conquest of Holland of 1794-95 could not maintain its value after it began to fall. Soon after its issue, the assignat was being used as legal tender throughout the French economy and the government was able to suppress the interest on it and to temporarily make it inconvertible. However, the revolutionary government proceeded to issue the assignat in such overwhelming quantities that by 1794 this strong paper money had lost most of its value compared to 68 Ibid., 70-1,76, 83, 91, 108. 69 Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta moneta," i, 2, 4.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

97

specie, and prices of commodities were soaring to such heights that it became impossible for the working classes to earn enough to purchase necessities. To reduce the financial disorders and continue to obtain revenue, the government then issued a new paper money called the "mandat," for which it offered to convert the assignat. The mandat was given priority in the purchase of ecclesiastical properties that were being put on the market by the state. This served as a stopgap measure, but the mandat met the same fate as the assignat: it also was issued in astronomical numbers. Making the situation worse, too much of the expropriated property was suddenly put on the market; as a consequence its prices dropped, and the National Assembly voted to stop the sales. This angered the public, which then refused to use the mandat, and when its value fell to about one per cent of its nominal value by 1796, the mandat was annulled.70 The same sequence of events was inflicted on Piedmont under the French occupation. As discussed by Maistre, the assignat and mandat are an excellent illustration of several evils that have by association implicated the use of paper money in general. Unlike his contemporaries, Maistre does not fear paper money per se as he recognizes that it is how it was used that created the problems.71 The assignat and mandatwere performing their function very well until the French government rapidly dumped an oversupply of them on the market. If they had not been made convertible into coin and made to pay interest - on nominal value no less, when their current holders had only paid par value - the government could not have been put into the position of appearing bankrupt when it was asked to pay out. Maistre points out that commercial bills of exchange are used in whatever quantity is necessary for transactions and no one ever complains that there are too many of them or that they are causing problems with prices. This indicates that it is not that the quantity of paper money cannot be controlled so that it does not cause problems, since it is similar to bills of exchange. The weakness must lie in the way paper money has been manipulated and forced to operate in unnatural ways. The confidence everyone has in commercial bills is absent regarding state bills. The sovereign has in himself the means to maintain confidence by working with the psychology of the citizens. When the state requires revenue, it may issue paper money, but it should declare unequivocally that there would be no discussion thereafter of false values. The market, not the sovereign, decides the value of the paper and the par value is the true 70 Essars, "A History of Banking in the Latin Nations," 42-6. 71 Denizet, "Joseph de Maistre economiste," 22.

g8

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

value. The sovereign's role is to enforce by law that the paper money must be accepted at par value as legal tender. Hypothetical concrete illustrations clarify Maistre's use of the term par value and the participation of the market and the sovereign in establishing and maintaining it. Maistre is expressing the par value of paper currency in terms of commodities; that is, if a dozen eggs were offered on the market at a price of six lire, then the par value of a one lira paper note issued at that time would be two eggs and the nominal value would be at par, two eggs. Inflation might raise the price of eggs so that the price a month later is twelve lire for a dozen eggs. Then the nominal value of a lira would still be two eggs but its par value of exchange has depreciated to one egg. When Maistre says "if 100,000 lire were to become worth 50,000 lire' he means if 100,000 lire were to depreciate by 50 per cent from time A to time B. This would be the same as saying that if a given house on a lot could be purchased for 50,000 lire at time A and one had to pay 100,000 lire at time B, then 100,000 lire had become worth 50,000 lire in buying power or par of exchange. The sovereign must permit the free market to decide the par value. The sovereign enforces by law the par value by penalizing anyone who offers a commodity or service at a price such as i oo lire and then will not accept the number of paper lire that he has requested, but instead insists, for example, on 125 paper lire or wants to be paid in specie the equivalent of 100 lire, which if permitted to continue without penalty would tend to depreciate the paper lira. The sovereign also maintains the par value by not issuing too many or too few paper lire relative to the capacity of the economy to absorb and use them. Maistre suggests various ways for the government to learn to measure how much paper money must be issued or withdrawn in order not to interfere with the making of the par value by the market. Maistre acknowledges that the sovereign has a central role in influencing the par value, but adds that it is normally best for the sovereign not to directly interfere with the market determining the par value. He applies the equation of exchange and explains that not just the value of the money symbol M but also the other parts of the equation must be taken into account in estimating how much money the particular economy needs at a given time. He is adamant that the nominal value written on the face of the paper, the value it has when issued, is not the decisive value in exchange and the government must not interfere directly by fixing a value by law, or guarantee convertibility with specie, bullion, securities, or real property. Maistre continues with his recommendations to the King: there should be no discussion about the state retiring these bills; they are absolutely not a debt of the state. He says that it is written on the biglietti

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

gg

"payable by the royal treasury" whereas in fact they represent "credit by the nation to the nation." Citizens should no longer be encouraged, or even be permitted, as they have in the past, to convert money into a debt of the sovereign — that can end by discrediting and depreciating paper money vis-a-vis metallic money. The transition has to be made to leaving the money market to its own devices. Then, if changes were to occur to the value of money, they would be absorbed in the market. For example, if 100,000 lire were to become worth 50,000 lire and the purchaser were to want to buy a property worth 100,000 lire, the difference of 50,000 lire would probably be divided by negotiation between the purchaser and the vendor. Were the paper put into circulation in the proper form and manner, the people would not be given reason to blame the sovereign for any changes in its relative par value that might occur.72 Maistre believes that it is ridiculous for the state to promise to repay at a certain date the nominal value or even the par value of the paper money that it issues. After paper money is used by the state to purchase what it needs or to pay its debts, paper circulates in the economy. Each individual citizen, making his or her own decisions, will take whatever action is necessary with that money, and it will either appreciate or depreciate in the hands of individual citizens. Even if the state were the debtor, it would be impossible to decide who should be the creditor. If paper money depreciates, the person who holds the paper in his hand at the recall date is not necessarily the one who has incurred the loss (the difference between the nominal value and the current par value). The market and the society would have already absorbed the changes that occurred by the time that the current holders of the paper would be attempting to convert. Maistre is proposing in 1797-99 what would become universally accepted all over the world in the twentieth century. Bank notes or government paper currency would then no longer operate on the premise that they are officially convertible to precious metals. The logic for this improved system is represented by Maistre's application of an experiment made by a student of Newton, the famous British physicist of Huguenot origins, Jean-Theophilius Desaguliers, who covered the body of a man from head to feet with bandages to which he attached small weights. By gradually augmenting the weights in proportion all over the body beginning with the hair, Desaguliers managed to have the man carry a surprisingly large total weight. The total weight carried in this way is distributed so well that even the smallest muscle is participating in 72 Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta moneta," 12, 14, 17, 18, 20.

i oo

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

lifting some of the weight; not only the leg, back, and arm muscles are doing the work. According to Maistre that is synonymous with the appreciation or depreciation of the value of paper money, which by means of its circulation is distributed among all parts of the economic system so that it is easier to absorb. On the other hand, when the state has declared itself in advance to be the debtor of the value of the paper money, devaluation, not depreciation, eventually occurs. It is similar to hanging all of those weights not onto the man's body but onto his head in one pile causing his head to fall forward and the man to collapse. Similarly, the sovereign is the head of the body politic and he must not weigh himself down with the huge debt of the issues of paper money. The body public as a whole is quite capable of carrying the paper money, at whatever market value it attains, using it as the legal tender and the unit of account that lubricate the economic system. If a unit of paper depreciates by a half then two will be paid instead of one to get the same commodity or service, but the state does not need to provide the difference or guarantee parity with specie.73 Maistre establishes that it is not the government's function to interfere directly to prevent or counteract the movements in the money market that are reflected in the commodity markets. On the other hand, he is obviously confident that the sovereign is naturally qualified to provide stability in the monetary system through his leadership and regulation of the mechanism, rather than by implicating himself directly in convertibility. The right of the sovereign to seignorage profits in return for attaching legitimacy to money was acknowledged from classical times and the revenue from seignorage was an effective way of obtaining financing for a war or public project. The great Tudor debasement, discussed in the previous section, researched by EC. Dietz and confirmed by C.E. Challis, is an excellent illustration.74 The expenditure entailed by the wars of the 15408 in England was over £3 million. After the yield of taxation was less than £1 million and from the sale of crown lands about £1 million, there was still a shortfall of more than £1 million. Henry VIII covered this through a form of seignorage, debasement of the coinage, which netted over £1 million.75 American writers in political economy have also urged that the inherent leadership qualifications of the state were needed in the form of a more extensive participation in the monetary system. For example, it 73 Ibid., 24. 74 Dietz, English Government Finance, 1485-1558, 177, 195.

75 Challis, "The Debasement of the Coinage, 1542-1551," 454.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

101

was suggested that the heterogeneous American system, comprising of numerous private and state banks, could be improved by reducing their numbers, standardizing the operating methods, and providing a national, but still convertible, paper currency. One of the earliest of these writers was Laommi Baldwin, who had been trained as a civil engineer and lawyer and directed engineering projects in the u.s. that were outstanding at the time.76 He lamented the haphazard growth of the money supply, the irregularities associated with it, and the concomitant waste of resources.77 Other more recent observers have pointed to the role of convertibility during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as the "fundamental constraint on the exercise of the monopoly" of the state and of a central-bank type of monetary institution over money creation, but they add that this monopoly cum leadership would have been preferable, even earlier and more extensively, to the situation that existed from the earliest days of the nation.78 Maistre is of the same mind, but he progressed even further along this line of reasoning. Unlike the supporters of the gold standard in the ruling elites and intellectual circles of such countries as England, France, and the U.S., he lacked reverence for convertibility as a traditional monetary anchor. For Maistre, in Savoy and Piedmont convertibility represented recurring problems of credit, prices, and employment. He did not fear providing the monarch with more scope for intervention and discretion in the issue of paper currency, and this permitted him to consider inconvertibility as a permanent general concept to be applied continuously. He was confident that the countervailing forces of intermediaries would provide the necessary check on the abuse of power. Maistre continues to explain in his report to the King that withdrawing doubts about paper money raises its value, and that is where the government should direct its attention. It should ensure that it is not permissible for the public to refuse paper money in exchange for specie or commodities, and it should ensure that paper money is received and spent by the government in accordance with its market value.79 Apart from letting the market find its own equilibrium between prices and the quantity of money, and between paper money and specie, the government could take some other measures. Any laws or proclamations that the government may make should breathe reassurance and certainty. A 7.6 77 78 79

Dictionary of American Biography, vol. i, 540. Baldwin, Thoughts on the Study of Political Economy, 48-9, 63. Glasner, "An Evolutionary Theory of the State Monopoly Over Money," 38. Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta moneta," 37.

i O2

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

new paper money with a new name should be issued to replace the existing one. This may appear to be a minor change, but it is actually very important, as the new money would have to be given a strong start unhampered by previous errors associated with its predecessor. Any new issue of paper money should include many of the smaller denominations that are so important as legal tender for the purchases of the working classes. Throughout the half century of the use of paper money in Piedmont before Maistre wrote the paper considered here, the government attempted with little success to strengthen the value of biglietti by promising to pay interest at a rate between two and four per cent on their face value when they would be retired. The payment of interest on nominal value merely reaffirmed the misinformation that the money represented a debt owed by the government to the current holders of the money. As Maistre explains, convertibility contributed to the collapse of confidence in the money, since when some of its holders demanded conversion to silver or gold and the government was not in an immediate position to honour its promise, public confidence diminished. Interest bearing merely increased the convertibility value, for example, adding another 10,154,971 lire'm interest payments to the 176,555,704 lire of paper money in circulation if it were to be recalled from circulation in 1799, making it even more expensive for the government to finance a reimbursement in specie. In practice, from 1746 to 1799, of the 211 million lire that had been issued, only 68 million lire were replaced by payment in specie or title to confiscated real estate; while 143 million lire of paper money were simply declared no longer legal tender.80 These statistics show that the majority of holders of paper money lost the value but did not receive the promised convertibility. If the government were to see a need to follow, temporarily, the path of convertibility, paper should be converted as a regular daily operation in a public institution of recall established for that purpose, in good times and bad, and only at the conversion rate established in the free market between the paper money and other money. Conversion should definitely not be in terms of the nominal value at which the paper was first put into circulation, nor occur only when a state of emergency exists because holders of paper money are threatening the treasury. No new paper should be issued at the time of the conversion of an old issue. If new paper were to be issued simultaneously with a conversion, the public might associate the new paper money with the old issue that was considered a debt of the government. Moderation should be practised 80 Felloni, 193.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

103

in future regarding the amount of new paper that is put on the market, so that the gradual, calculated nature of the operation would increase confidence in the stability of paper. In this way also, the government can estimate the capacity of the economy to absorb more money and increase the issue only up to that level. Of interest in the light of the context of this section are the provisions in the constitution of the Bank of France, the central bank of that country, that were intended to restrain the issue of paper currency: One of the first acts taken by Napoleon after his successful coup was to establish the Bank of France (13 February 1800). The bank was to operate always in a manner that would ensure that it had the reserve of coins and negotiable paper as it matured to redeem its notes on demand (thus maintaining the same fallacy as the Bank of England). To ensure credit for itself without confusing it with the issue of paper money, the government included in the bank's constitution that the Treasury would hold in perpetuity an open credit at the bank, which it could draw on at its convenience, withdrawals being registered by scrip (vouchers) held by the bank. At first the sum of all of the loans made by the bank was limited to 60 million francs, but this was increased later; for example, in 1878 to 140 million francs?1 Maistre's first rule - that the issuing of paper money must not be confused with the lending of money to the government - was not disregarded. The bank registered the government debt as scrip separate from the issue of bank notes. Contrary to his second rule, strenuous efforts were made to maintain a promise of convertibility supported by a fractional reserve in the bank's vaults. Although the Bank of France maintained a reserve of credit instruments up to the value of its bank notes in circulation, those credits could never have been cashed in time to meet, with coins, gold, and silver, the demands of note holders if a great number of them wanted to convert their paper money even within weeks. For example, most of the commercial paper that the bank held on demand would not have to be honoured before 90 days, and even then some businesses might decide not to deliver coins or specie on the appointed date. The Bank of England and the Bank of France continued basically under the same rules and methods of operation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and on into the twentieth century. By 1928 most Western countries had resumed the convertibility that they had been forced to leave in the face of internal and external gold drains during World War I. However, it was short-lived; the depression of 1929 forced them all to return to inconvertibility and since that point 81 Essars, 69, 91.

104

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

there has been a worldwide acceptance of inconvertible paper money as a general long-run policy. Previously inconvertibility had been applied during the many emergencies, with the proviso that it was only temporary and eventually there would be a return to convertibility.82 Canada is typical of this trend. Although Canadian paper monies issued by the Dominion or the commercial banks had been inconvertible already in 1929, they were only de facto inconvertible. In 1931 they became inconvertible dejure, and with the establishment of the Bank of Canada, which was given full discretionary powers over note issue in 1935, Canada formally went off the gold standard and inconvertibility became the permanent general policy. Meeting at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the aftermath of World War II, forty-four nations ratified a gold-exchange standard that facilitated the conversion of a given national currency into the currency of other nations or gold to resolve balance of payments problems and those arising from large capital movements between countries. In the preceding paragraph international convertibility has not been referred to specifically, and my reference to the "worldwide acceptance of inconvertible paper money as a general long-run policy" after the 1929 depression was discussing inconvertibility of a given nation's paper money domestically into specie or gold by that nation's monetary authorities on demand by its own citizens; that is, internal inconvertibility. I have been discussing Maistre's writings on paper money being used within a nation, although he did discuss the international monetary system as well. However, with reference to the international monetary system in an era of Eurodollars and ecu it is not inaccurate to state that the trend since the 19305 has been away from a gold standard. A new synthesis has been developing and is still under construction in monetary theory and its application that gives more independence to national monetary governance within regional groupings such as the European union. The Bretton Woods system, before it collapsed in the 19705, influenced international monetary exchange only during a brief episode after the conference, which created the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Eventually, the stringent restrictions imposed on gold dealings were relaxed. Since 1931, Canadians have been permitted "to buy, sell or store gold, or trade it internationally."83 Since the Bank of Canada was established in 1935, the policy of the Bank has been to not guarantee to convert its paper money into gold on demand by a Canadian citizen. 82 Boreham et al., Money and Banking: Analysis and Policy in a Canadian Context, 40. 83 Ibid., 40.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

105

Even during the Bretton Woods era a Canadian citizen would only be given crisp new paper money, not gold or silver, if he or she were to demand that a bank convert his or her paper money. The Canadian Government and the Bank of Canada have employed gold reserves to influence the value of the Canadian dollar internationally but this must not be confused with the convertibility or inconvertibility of Canadian paper money within Canada. The Bretton Woods Agreement attempted to recreate an approximation of the gold standard in 1948 by having the u.s. dollar pegged to the price of gold and the international value of the money of the rest of the world's nations pegged to the u.s. dollar. However, since the 19305 the governments of most nations were either not able or not willing to operate on a fixed exchange rate, as this would require that they relinquish some control over the fiscal and monetary policies that they otherwise could use to combat inflation and unemployment. Most nations, including Italy and Canada whenever faced with economic problems, even during the life of the Bretton Woods agreement, stopped following the rules to which they had agreed. Developments in Canada illustrate how those who signed the Bretton Woods agreement have interpreted it in practice. In 1929 Canada had been the first country to go off the gold standard de facto, although until 1914 it had operated as an exemplary member of the gold standard world community. "[From 1929] Canadian banks could not ship gold abroad but foreign holders of Canadian currency obligations could redeem them in gold. De jure suspension occurred in September 1931 when both internal and external gold convertibility ended."84 Throughout the Bretton Woods period, to withstand pressures from large American capital movements Canada maintained a floating exchange rate, whereas Bretton Woods required a fixed rate, and the IMF did not apply the penalties that had been stipulated in the agreement. Although the Bretton Woods agreement did interrupt the long-term trend away from the gold standard, the duration of the agreement was only a few years, and even during those years adherence to the rules of the gold standard was erratic and minimal. Russia is of special interest, since Maistre lived there from 1803 to 1817. Convertible paper money similar to the French system of assignat had been in use in Russia since 1768: "The redemption [American term meaning conversion] was to be made on demand ... Prompt redemption was assured because each bank was required to keep on hand an amount 84 Bordo and Schwartz, "The Operation of the Specie Standard," 27.

106

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

of silver equal to its outstanding issue."85 A manifesto of June 1786 made the assignat inconvertible; "their redemption could no longer be demanded of the banks, because the circulation was not entirely covered by a metallic reserve." This is a euphemism for the fact that because of overissue and mis-management by the monetary authorities there was no other alternative to disaster. Twenty-five years later, "an Imperial decree of June 1810 provided that for the future the silver ruble should become once more the only legal money." A special fund consisting of lands and forests was set up to finance a loan to the government to which the public could subscribe by paying in assignats and repayment plus interest would be received in seven years in silver roubles. "The assignats paid in on these subscriptions were to be publicly burned." Several new decrees hastened the retirement of the assignats: for example, from 1812 repayment of taxes and debts owed to the government were to be accepted in assignats; from 1817 the state would avail itself of a foreign loan to finance the purchase of assignats. Consequently, from 1810 to 1823, the assignats were convertible. However, in 1823 the new Finance Minister M. Cancrine convinced the government to stop the redemption of assignats and make them inconvertible again, because he thought it "an imprudent system of transforming such a mass of assignats into an interest bearing debt [a debt that was also redeemable in specie]." Eventually "M. Cancrine himself was at last compelled to admit [because of the many problems] the necessity of retiring the assignats. The retirement was accomplished by a series of steps taken between 1839 and 1843." One of these was that the state would exchange silver roubles for assignats on demand, that is, the assignats were convertible again between 1839 and 1843. Remaining assignats were redeemed by the issue of a new paper money, the credit-rouble, which was "redeemable on demand for specie (silver)" and this statement was written on its face. The convertible credit-rouble was issued during the rest of the nineteenth century.86 From 1896 Cancrine modelled the monetary system on Sir Robert Peel's report, which gave English currency its final form. Because, as he stated, there would be less demand for conversion in Russia and he knew the European doctrine that "every bank should keep on hand metallic reserves that represent a minimum of one third of the paper in circulation," half of that would be adequate for Russia; so the metallic reserve was fixed at one-sixth. After his death, the government overissued paper roubles to create many situations where convertibility had to be suspended temporarily.87 85 Horn, "A History of Banking in the Russian Empire," 345. 86 Ibid., 346-50. 87 Ibid., 343, 350-1.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

107

It is clear that the policy of the Russian government and monetary authorities was not in keeping with Maistre's system, which includes "a deliberate, long-term policy of inconvertible paper money." One would describe the Russian regime, instead, as a series of ad hoc attempts to replace the assignats during the first half of the nineteenth century and similar reactions to crises during the rest of the century with the creditroubles. For example, after the convertibility of the credit-roubles paper had been discontinued in the 18505 because their issue had reached astronomical proportions, the central bank listed in a manifesto of 1862 the measures it was taking to resume specie convertibility on demand. Before this could be carried out, the Polish insurrection in the same year and adverse reaction by the European powers and Napoleon III to the Russian move to stop the revolt was blamed for a drain on gold and silver reserves. "The true explanation is that the circulation [of paper money] had been increased almost threefold within less than ten years ... the Russian Government had made the mistake of issuing in the form of a floating debt what was simply a substitute for note circulation ... thus the attempt to resume payments was a failure in 1862, and no further attempts have been made since [at 1896]."88 Russian paper money was convertible during approximately eighty-four years and inconvertible during only sixteen years of the nineteenth century. Maistre devoted much care to explaining how a government can maintain the money supply at a desirable ratio relative to economic growth to succeed with a long-term policy of inconvertibility. The Russian case does not illustrate a policy with those qualities even during the relatively few years it operated on inconvertible paper money. Monobanking, part of the state controlled polity and economy of Russia throughout most of its history, is in stark contrast with the proliferation of banking in the u.s. The American colonies experienced a shortage of medium of exchange and had to turn to a barter system, because a supply of metallic money from Europe was slow to transport and delivery was not dependable. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries many local "banks" were organized on the basis of land security or pledge of merchandise, and some of these sometimes issued paper currency. The issues of this paper, ostensibly as a public service to meet the need for currency, were often part of speculative get-rich schemes. That there was sometimes no promise of convertibility was due to necessity, as stocks of precious metals were scarce or, more often, the European practice of convertibility to other value than coins was deliberately ignored to better escape responsibility for the inevitable depreciation of the paper. Paper 88 Ibid., 373-4.

i o8

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

money in accordance with Maistre's proposals could have resolved the barter deadlock of the colonies. Government regulation was usually not provided and the promise of convertibility was rarely met. Instead, "the colonists employed this device without limitation or judgement. They pushed the bills of credit [as the paper money was then called] ... issued at will, unlimited by the hard facts of economic supply ... multiplied in amount indefinitely. "89 The Atlantic colonies eventually established the Bank of North America as the first bank in the u.s. with a specie reserve, issuing convertible notes after the arrival of $462,862 in silver, delivered by a French navy ship in 1781, to be stored in the bank's vaults. In 1790 the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, clearly set out in a paper submitted to Congress how the first federal national bank should operate, provide an example, and give direction to the rest of the monetary system. It included an important discussion of specie reserves and specie convertibility for issues of paper notes.90 The bank was chartered in 1791, mostly modelled on the Bank of England, its notes convertible in specie.91 For one hundred and fifty years after the Constitution, the federal and state governments preached convertibility of paper money, gradually achieve a modus vivendi, and learned to provide some stability in a chaotic banking system constituted by thousands of private banks of a great variety of types, suffering many bankruptcies annually. Convertibility was a delusion in the best of times and was temporarily suspended during the frequently occurring emergencies. The United States did not institute a general permanent inconvertible paper standard until 1934. One of the most respected experts on money in the U.S., Milton Friedman, admitted in 1986, after a half century of inconvertible paper, that the current unprecedented situation culminated from a process developing de facto since the end of World'War I: prohibition of private ownership of gold in 1933 and elimination of gold reserve requirements for Federal Reserve notes in 1968. It is exemplified by the fact that "money consists entirely of government fiat in the form of paper currency ... The major earlier episodes ... [when governments and banks] issued irredeemable [inconvertible] paper money, were expected to be temporary, and most of them were. The others ended in disaster," always met by adjustments to the monetary system that restored convertibility.92 Friedman admits that a system of inconvertible paper 89 Sumner, "A History of Banking in the United States," 1896, 5. go Ibid, 3, 17, 24. 91 Faulkner, American Economic History, 156.

92 Friedman, "The Resource Cost of Irredeemable Paper Money," 642-6.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

i og

money (similar to the one Maistre recommended to his King) has proven to be the most desirable. More research is needed on one shortcoming, inflation, as this long-run lack of predictability incurs real resource costs. Convertible currency and a specie system led to long-term predictability of price levels; for example, in Britain and the u.s. the price level was about the same in 1930 and 1932 as it had been in 1740 and 1832, respectively. This problem is being resolved by modern monetary policy and, in any event, these real resource costs due to inconvertibility are dwarfed by the astronomically great costs incurred due to the recurring collapses that were associated with convertibility. Although the major monetary authorities of the world continued to promote a general policy of convertibility well into the twentieth century, the operation of the Italian system may have been an exception. From 1859, when the army of the House of Savoy on its way south to unify Italy freed Lombardy from Austrian rule, the National Bank took the lead and began to annex the banks in the various parts of the Italian peninsula. The National Bank had resulted from the amalgamation of two banks, one in Turin and the other in Genoa, both created by the Kingdom of Piedmont in the 18405 with the same bylaws and regulations; after 1897 it changed its name to the Bank of Italy. An interesting aspect of the constitution of the National Bank was that it was not required by law to redeem its paper in metallic values. The value of the notes of the National Bank rested only on the basis that they were declared legal tender by the state. It is important to note that paper money may be exchanged for any one or all of specie, bullion, the central bank's paper notes, the government's paper notes, or various securities, governmental or commercial. Also, some of the nation's paper currency may be convertible while some is not, and the government's policy may be de jure (as legislated) convertible while de facto (in practice) it is inconvertible. To further diminish the potential for confusion one must also ensure that application of the term inconvertibility is clear; is it internal (inconvertibility of the domestic paper currency for the citizens by their national monetary authorities) or external inconvertibility (inability to exchange currency internationally) that is being discussed. During the subject period, the Italian government did not always enforce the law when it required convertibility of the lira within the country and consequently the banks at times operated de facto as in an inconvertibility period. During some periods exorbitant charges were attached to conversion to discourage what was legally a right of citizens.93 Several studies have indicated that there 93 Supino, Storia della circolazione cartacea in Italia dal 1860 al 1928, 107.

110

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

was not much difference in the way economic and monetary factors functioned in Italy in the first half century after unification relative to internal and external inconvertibility or convertibility, as the monetary base was exogenous relative to prices and income. "The proper conduct of fiscal and monetary affairs was sufficient to guarantee stability ... Politicians knew the limits of the paper standard and were willing to return to judicious policies after periods of laxity ... This assessment of the record [in Italy] permits us to treat statistically the periods of inconvertibility as qualitatively similar to the periods of convertibility."94 Fratianni and Spinelli are recognized by world experts in the discipline as having produced the best monetary study of the Italian economy for the subject period. Because of the domestic and international context of the time, the new government would be tempted to erect a facade to assure the availability of foreign loans and diplomatic co-operation. This would be accomplished by satisfying international monetary opinion that favoured convertibility, which was universally equated with financial integrity and stability. In practice, "Italy was not on the gold standard except for brief periods of time, and for the most part the lira was inconvertible ... yet fiscal and monetary policies ... achieved stability of nominal magnitudes. Indeed Italian experience did not differ on the whole from what it would have been had the country adhered formally to the standard throughout."95 In nineteenth-century Italy dejure and de facto convertibility did not always coincide. The monetary performance of the Piedmontese-led Italian government created in 1860 indicates that the government may have favoured inconvertibility. The following account of inconvertibility and convertibility of the Italian lira provides a sense of the period. War between Austria and France in 1859 and Austria and Prussia in 1860 had reduced support from England and France; they were wary of the creation of "a much larger Kingdom of Italy," as they feared "the preexisting equilibrium" on the continent of Europe would be disturbed.96 Taxes provided less than half of the revenue needed by the newly created national government of Italy and expenditure was rapidly increasing, particularly to maintain an army capable of safeguarding the newly won independence against a still hostile Austria. "On May i, 1866 a royal decree provided for the forced circulation of the notes of the National Bank of the Kingdom of Italy ... The bank notes, cash certificates, 94 Fratianni and Spinelli, "Italy in the Gold Standard Period, 1861-1914," 417. 95 Ibid., 431. 96 Toniolo, An Economic History, 62.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

ill

orders, etc., of the other banks of issue were to be received as legal tender by individuals ... and their redemption was to be accomplished in National Bank paper [not convertibility to metal]." This was despite much opposition in the legislature instigated by regional interests and banks that were accustomed to many years of convertible currency in the other previously independent regional states. At the period of Italian unity there were five banks of issue: the National Bank, the two Tuscan banks, the Bank of Naples, and the Bank of Sicily. Since the other banks in Italy had to "redeem their notes with the notes of the National Bank ... and the National Bank was not bound to redeem its own paper in coin, the inconvertibility of the paper currency of the National Bank then applied to the notes of all banks in Italy."97 Convertibility was partially restored in 1874, but full convertibility wa not restored until 1884. On i March 1883 the government announced that convertibility would be restored on 12 April 1884. By the law of 30 April 1874, the Italian government organized a syndicate of the six Italian banks to provide it with the revenue it needed in syndicate bank notes that would be a forced currency. "The State ... gave the banks a sufficient amount in registered consols [a type of government bond] to guarantee the syndicate bank notes. Independently of the syndicate paper, each bank could issue its own notes in an amount not exceeding thrice its metallic coin stock, or thrice its capital [these would be legal tender only in the provinces where the bank had offices, unlike the National Bank and Syndicate notes that were forced legal tender everywhere in Italy], and redemption had to be made either in specie or syndicate notes."98 Consequently, at this time the syndicate notes and those of the National Bank were inconvertible in metal but the notes of all other banks were partially convertible. "The law of April 7, 1881, which provided for abolishing the corso forzato forced currency, i.e., inconvertibility after June 2Oth, dissolved the bank syndicate. The syndicate notes in circulation were considered a Government debt and remained legal tender in the whole Kingdom, but were redeemable in coin on presentation." In 1874 some bank notes in Italy again had been made convertible. However, this does not describe the de facto situation. "Italy was under a forced currency (inconvertibility) regime from May i, 1866 to April 7, 1881, which indeed, has never been really abandoned, as there has never been any redemption, in specie over the counters, of either the bank or the state note issues." This description of the period 1881 to 1894 also applies to the period 1860-66. "There is 97 Essars, 162-4. 98 Ibid., 165.

112

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

great difficulty [in Italy] in undertaking to confine a circulation within arbitrary bounds, since in practice the bounds are not determined by the capital or by the metallic reserve, but by the needs of the public."99 It is interesting that Maistre's inconvertible system also included a paper money base that was confined not within arbitrary bounds but by the needs of the public and the economy. During twenty-five of the forty years from unification and creation of Italy as a nation state in 1860 to the end of the nineteenth century, Italy's paper money, the lira, was inconvertible. Difficulties with public finance, collapse of the Roman Bank, and the necessity of forcing a merger of some of the larger banks to resolve those problems led to legislation in 1893 that ushered in a new period of inconvertibility that lasted into the twentieth century. France's rupture of its commercial treaty with Italy, followed by the imposition of prohibitive customs tariffs by the two countries and the sale to Prussian buyers of the great quantity of Italian securities held in France, placed great pressure on the Italian monetary system during the i88os. As a consequence, Italy had to pay for imports and service her foreign debts with the country's reserves of precious metals, thus draining all her gold, silver, and metallic coins. Internal inconvertibility of the lira relieved the state from domestic monetary and international balanceof-payments problems that would, otherwise, have been exacerbated under such a dearth of precious metals.100 This experience proved that Maistre's proposal - to make paper money inconvertible and no longer maintain a reserve of gold and silver for it - was in some ways advantageous not only from a domestic standpoint but also for a country's international balance of payments. An inconvertible currency may have helped the international balance of payments situation in the sense that it led to a depreciation (which helped exports and hurt imports). International adjustment of prices and balance of payments is mainly explained by two theories: Hume's price-specie-flow mechanism and the modern theory of the monetary mechanism. "It depends very much on the mixture of shocks that occur, to what extent the various mechanisms operate, and whether the adjustment takes place primarily in traded goods, financial markets, or substantial changes in relative prices."101 Just as the mechanism of adjustment will vary, the choice of inconvertibility or convertibility would also depend on the mix of problems, available solutions, and the relative cost and benefits of each. 99 Ibid, 165-6, 184-6. 100 Essars, 184. 101 Fratianni and Spinelli, 447.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

113

Justification for inconvertibility in 1866 derived mainly from two sources: the Italian government's need of a direct loan from the banks that would be monetized; and support by Italian exporters who knew their sales would increase with the resultant devaluation of the lira. An inconvertible currency helped to conserve the country's precious metals, which could be used for servicing the external payments imbalance. But a country need not have an inconvertible currency to do this; it can have a convertible paper currency in which no metallic coins are used domestically. In the i88os, maximizing the use of existing gold and silver specie and bullion provided an advantage. The alternative carriers of value - specie, securities, real estate, etc. - are as varied as the creativity of the monetary authorities and the political feasibility of using them. However, in the actual case in Italy that is being discussed here the National Bank was by law not bound to convert its own paper in coin, notes issued by the syndicate of all banks of issue in Italy were also inconvertible, and the other banks of issue in Italy had to convert their notes either in specie or bank syndicate notes. Italy had regularly serviced her bonds held in France through the favourable balance of payments with that country, until relations worsened. France and Italy erected high tariff walls against each other and France sold the Italian bonds to German creditors. While Italy's supply of five-franc pieces and fractional coins lasted, the interest on bonds was paid by sending these to France and drawing on them bills of exchange that were sent to the German creditors. Eventually when most of her supply of coins had gone to her allies in the Latin Monetary Union (LMU), Italy had to begin buying coins back with gold bullion (within the LMU a bimetallic standard prevailed and the coins of all LMU countries were legal tender). Inconvertibility made it unnecessary to have specie on hand, at a time of their scarcity, to enable conversion of paper money.102 On the other hand, the dearth of metallic coins in Italy was partly caused by its currency being inconvertible in 1866. There was a massive export of metallic coins from Italy to other LMU countries (e.g., France) where they would be accepted at par. The advantages of inconvertibility described in preceding paragraphs might have been surpassed by the huge outflow of specie and bullion to other LMU countries to take advantage of the exchange rate. Italy became a member of LMU in 1865 and, because of the outflow, it was considering suspending inconvertibility in 1867, only a year after inconvertibility was made law, perhaps partly to satisfy the opinion of international monetary authorities. The Italian lira did remain inconvertible, but mainly for other benefits, such 102 Essars, 166.

114

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

as monetizing the huge direct loans needed to prepare for probable renewal of hostilities with Austria and to improve the trade balance. Maistre was confident that a responsible government and banking system could, by permitting the market to run its natural course under inconvertibility and carefully observing the results, learn how far it was desirable and not inflationary to expand the supply of money. The Italian experience under the deliberate and general long-run policy of the government of the House of Savoy in the nineteenth century was based on a monetary system similar to the one that Maistre had advocate in his memoir on paper money addressed to his King of the House of Savoy in 1798. He showed that his proposal could improve on the system of paper money with fractional or 100 per cent backing by specie andNor securities, and convertibility guaranteed by law (but difficult in practice) that was current during the eighteenth century. Maistre's relation to Barolo, who had powerful ties with management in the Italian banking system, and Maistre's active advisory position with the House of Savoy are circumstantial evidence. No other evidence has come to light that proves or disproves a connection between Maistre and inconvertible paper in the new state of Italy. On the other hand, my extensive research has not found any other writer before Maistre who devised and advised consistently and unequivocally a similar system of inconvertible paper money oriented in a free market; Maistre appears to be the first. The banking system of Italy, ruled by the House of Savoy and the National Bank of Italy, with origins in Piedmont, may have been the first and only national banking system until the twentieth century to follow a long-term policy of inconvertible paper money. However, my purpose is not to trace back to Maistre the eventual universal adoption of the use of inconvertible paper money in the twentieth century - my aim is to show his outstanding intellectual ability in political economy as well as in politics. That Maistre described the characteristics and benefits of a system that modern nations have been using with such success is an outstanding accomplishment, regardless of whether there is any connection between his conception and the similar system later put into practice. A critic might consider it an indication that monetary theorists of the day were being more logical and knowledgeable than Maistre, because they feared that under an inconvertible system governments could obtain power over an infinite expansion of the money supply. Maistre's "program of political reform," including intermediaries and socially oriented laws, potentially could prevent such governmental abuse as excessive printing of paper money. Also, Maistre did not naively tell his King to print as much paper money as intermediaries would permit; he explained, as in the equation of exchange, that other variables and fac-

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

115

tors should be considered. The supply of money must be managed with care and maintained at the quantity and velocity that the economy could best use at a given conjuncture. Eminent experts have shown that convertibility, too, did not entirely exclude the possibility for monetization of government debt. "For over a millennium western economies used a monetary system that had gold or silver as a nominal anchor" but it was a smoke-screen obscuring that "the link to gold or silver [only] supposedly prevented arbitrary expansions of the money supply."103 "Since the monetary authority set the price of gold and agents were required to guess the extent to which it would use discretionary behaviour, the commodity standard [e.g., convertible paper] was not as far from a fiat money standard [i.e., inconvertible paper] as the simple model of commodity money suggests."104 As Maistre points out, the convertible system only postponed action by the monetary authorities, often until it was too late, and did not in practice always prevent the excessive issuing of paper money. Some would see as an inevitable consequence of Maistre's system that when the state required revenue it could issue paper money. This view would discredit it in the minds of orthodox monetary theorists. However, as Giovannini indicated, the same undesirable potential also existed in a disguised form in a convertible system and monetary history shows how Maistre is justified in believing that would be worse. The view of a respected expert, Joseph Schumpeter, coincides with Maistre's analysis of convertibility. "Fullarton (op. cit. ch. 5) did, however, go too far when he expected convertibility to operate 'with the precision of clockwork' [to stop the excessive printing of paper money]." Schumpeter also comments regarding the period after 1870: Most modern economists will feel that even England could have done with a little monetary stimulation during the eighties [instead of just remaining on convertibility and the gold standard]. But they will not quite be able to understand why countries ... which entered the period with paper currencies ... should have retarded their growth and imposed hardships upon themselves in order to raise their monetary units to a largely arbitrary gold parity ... there was no political pressure to enforce that policy, for all the interests that really count politically - farmers, landowners, manufacturers, workmen - all suffered by it [a convertible metallic standard] ... [these effects] point to certain extra-economic and extra-national considerations that were without doubt decisive.

103 Giovannini, "Bretton Woods and Its Precursors," 113. 104 Redish, "Anchors Aweigh," 781.

116

The Mare Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

He names the prestige of gold as "the symbol of sound practice and the badge of honour and decency ... and the admired example of England [world economic and political hegemon]" as probable causes for remaining convertible.105 While he was the Regent of the Chancellery and Chief of the Supreme Royal Tribunal of the Government of Piedmont in Sardinia, during the Napoleonic occupation of mainland Piedmont, Maistre addressed another memoir to his King that states his opinion and analysis on a proposal initiated by another official at the meeting of the Royal Council held the previous day. It pertains to the rules of operation for a new state bank to be established for the purpose of removing from circulation all outstanding paper money. He states that it would be an abuse of power and against both reason and morality to attempt to stipulate a value for a bill of exchange payable by the public treasury (for that is what this paper money is) after universal experience has taught that coercive laws to support paper monies have both initiated and accelerated the collapse of their value. He did not participate in the previous day's discussion on the new bank, as it was quite beside the point, since of itself the bank would not suffice. Most of the Sardinian masses have little knowledge of what such a bank is, and if it were to open its doors all of the outstanding bills in the Kingdom would swamp the bank. For the government to purchase the notes at a premium, apart from being impossible, because of insufficient metallic value in the Kingdom to pay out, would be considered ridiculous by the public, which is simultaneously expected to accept notes as legal tender at a discounted price. If convertibility must be maintained, it would be preferable to work with established businessmen to incorporate a private bank. When the public would notice that the bank, owned by experienced and respected businessmen, researches the value of the paper money and then accepts it in payment, or purchases the notes above par, the value of paper money would be increased and its acceptance as legal tender would improve. Maistre is here advising the introduction of a private institution to function similarly to the Bank of England. It must be remembered that the problem is not the existence but the depreciation of bank notes. If the King were to purchase paper money through an independent, reputable, private institution that is co-operative with the government, it would become unnecessary to take the notes completely out of circulation. The second part of his proposal is that the King might have a stamp made that could not be counterfeited, and a small number of notes 105 Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, 770.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

117

could be stamped on one side then reissued into circulation. The public would be informed that while the government does not want to reduce the number of notes too much, as they are essential to a prosperous economy, those that are stamped on one side should be returned to be purchased at par value and burned. As these would be purchased on sight the effect on par value could be observed, and some or all of them could be again put into circulation. Gradually, par value would rise and the stamped notes would begin to return more slowly to the Treasury as confidence in them improved. Eventually, a new issue of paper money bearing the stamp could be made, always gradually and with prudence, as through this process it would eventually be learned what number of notes are needed in circulation. If the unstamped notes circulate at a lower value, some of them could be burned by the state as it receives them in payment, at a profit, since the stamped ones that can be issued in their place have a higher value.106 This memoir written in French in 1801 on the desirability of establishing a bank to retire paper money contains fundamentally the same theory that Maistre favoured in his previous memoir written in 1797-99 in Italian on paper money, except for the idea of a private bank to function somewhat like a central bank and the imaginative project with especially stamped paper. This second memoir also indicates that at least one of the other advisers to the monarchy of Savoy opposed Maistre's ideas on inconvertibility and it is probable that Maistre had presented his original memoir written in 1797-99 to his King and was following it with the second memoir in 1801. Maistre is ahead of his time in proposing fiat paper money that would be inconvertible, that would not be directly connected to the government debt, and that would be administered by an independent centralbank type of institution. The experience with the biglietto in Piedmont and the assignat and mandat in France, and the history of the Bank of England, the Bank of France, American banks, and those of other countries all confirm the inadequacy of the traditional monetary policy. Even if the best monetary theorists of the time proposed ways to avoid many of the problems, the monetary authorities and governments were not ready to heed their advice. That application of theory was not always politically feasible is illustrated by my discussion of Ricardo's aborted attempt to make bullion convertibility the policy of England. The experiment with paper money by the Bank of Italy after Italian unification under the House of Savoy confirms the fundamental truth of Maistre's statement that "there is no money without confidence but 106 Maistre, "Memoire sur le projet d'une banque proposee dans lajunte du 27 juillet, pour 1'extinction des billets," 28 juillet 1801, Fonds de Maistre, 3.

118

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

without trust there is no money."107 This applies especially to paper money, since intrinsically paper is of little value. Its currency depends on individuals' belief that their confidence in the system and their continued use of paper is well founded. Maistre's approach to taxation and to the money supply is societyoriented; it is not solely the perspective of his own class. Although he is a member of the nobility, he does not permit this to prejudice his analysis and conclusions. He does not favour only a single land tax, as he recognizes that to distribute the impact of taxation exemptions must be made for commodities essential to the needs of the working class, and taxes on the large landowners and urban classes as well as on the smallholders in rural areas are essential. Maistre is a conservative with a social conscience. He supports what is beneficial to the society as a whole, such as a progressive tax. As discussed in section two, Maistre states that previous writers - who used the equation of exchange to justify statements that attributed inflation to a too plentiful supply of money - were not considering all of the factors. The total value of money is not just a quantity, unlike commodities that are continually being replaced as they are sold for consumption or investment; it is partly a flow and its effect is multiplied by the frequency with which it is used. Inflation also might result if, as the production of goods increases, there is not a matching increase in either or both the quantity and velocity of money. Regarding the money supply, Maistre went to the root of the problem when he urged governments to practise more restraint in drawing the revenues that they need out of the economy and more courage in applying the required policy. Stopgap public financing and the creation of paper money based on fictitious guarantees that could not be honoured were not providing long-term stability. Monetary policy should be administered through intermediary private banks together with concepts and mechanisms that should include inconvertible fiat paper money, and it should be separated from the process of the production of credit for state use. Maistre perceives the need for inconvertibility, whereas other experts in monetary issues of the period and even later into the twentieth century did not, because as a conservative political thinker who supported monarchy moderated by countervailing forces he was not prevented from considering solutions to inflation and insufficient money that would require government intervention in the economy. He favours an executive that could resist popular pressure when it acted for the general welfare. Because he is realistic and does not envisage that it could 107 Maistre, "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta moneta," 14.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

119

be effective, Maistre does not allow for a democratically elected house of representatives. In the same manner that he stresses the need for the government to enforce law and order, he also requires that the government must insist on the inconvertibility of paper money. It would be an error to permit this observation to lead us to the conclusion that Maistre's confidence in the sovereign's ability to maintain the monetary system is evidence that he is a supporter of autocratic government. On the contrary, he is adamant that the role of government should be limited to providing the framework in which a viable monetary system with a free market could operate successfully. The market would determine the value of paper money; the sovereign would only ensure that this value is respected by all. There is much evidence to support the perception that Maistre's approach contains a social-scientific emphasis on the laws of the market. This constitutes a powerful riposte to the view of his being a reactionary. It has been claimed that Maistre was a counter-Enlightenment thinker because "he attacked eighteenth-century rationalism with the intolerance and the passion, the power and the gusto, of the great revolutionaries themselves."108 This chapter shows that Maistre is himself in some ways a thinker of the Enlightenment and he is interested in the science just beginning to develop in the eighteenth century: the science of political economy. Maistre is not against the use of reason per se; he is concerned, as Burke is also, about the exclusive use of reason without taking into account history, culture, and the needs of all human beings. Maistre's dislike of the controller-general of France, the physiocrat Anne-Marie-Robert Turgot, stems from his distrust of grand schemes for reform that rely too heavily on a priori reasoning and general principles such as the physiocratic claim to natural and essential order. Maistre states that if Turgot had possessed all the power he desired, "he would only have constructed castles of cards and his extravagant work would not last longer than he would last."109 Maistre's dislike for the sometimes extreme rationalism of Enlightenment philosophy has been misinterpreted as a rejection of all the ideas of the Enlightenment.110 Maistre's criticism of the misuses of human reason has been praised as a contribution to the advancement of scientific inquiry. The Nobel Prize winner and respected political economist Friedrich A. von Hayek comments that Maistre shows "an understanding of the meaning of 108 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 109. 109 Maistre, "Etude sur la souverainete," oc, vol. I, 379-80. no Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 105-6, 109, no, 127.

i so

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

spontaneously grown institutions such as language, law, morals and conventions that anticipated modern scientific approaches."111 A core argument of Hayek's political philosophy was the need to avoid extreme rationalism or what he called constructivism in politics. Institutions such as the free market and the legal structure were not the product of rational deliberation but of the unintended results of human action. Like Maistre, Hayek is wary of any deliberate transformation of institutions. Since a human being's reason cannot comprehend the whole system because of the spontaneous evolution (usually over several generations of human beings) of institutions, men and women (of one generation) never have enough knowledge to design an entirely new one. The best that can be done is to make incremental improvements to the existing system.112 Maistre's appreciation of the spontaneous growth of institutions is seen by Hayek to be a contribution to a more sophisticated understanding of the polity. For example, Maistre emphasizes how the representative system of government developed by accident in France and England over several centuries. In England, the system "was not an invention, nor the result of deliberation ... but was what an ambitious soldier [Simon de Montfort] created to satisfy his particular views, in reality a balance of the three powers that remained after the battle of Lewes [victory over King Henry III, 1264], without knowing what he was doing, as it always happens."113 Maistre attributes the origin of the representative system, and its availability to society, to the principle of unintended consequences operating through Simon de Montfort's individual self-interest. Maistre goes into considerable detail on English political history, indicating that he had done ample study of its development to support his claim regarding how "representative government" developed in England and France.114 This does not support the claim that he used dogma and attributed to the divine to obfuscate his tendency for not doing "empirical study of actual governments" in his writings.115 Many of his critics prefer to comment on Maistre's religious approach to explain his conclusions, since they feel the approach is less rational, more emotional, and in keeping with their image of Maistre: his view of the selfishness of human beings and their living in a world created by a God that permits them freedom but only within certain 111 112 113 114 115

Von Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 400. Von Hayek, "The Errors of Constructivism," 6-7. Maistre, "Considerations," 45. Ibid., 43-4. Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 165.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

121

constraints. An illustration of this approach is Maistre's analysis of revolutions: "During a revolution the chain that ties human beings to their maker shortens abruptly, they become confused ... Then are swept along by an unknown force ... none can stop the revolution ... But order is more visible than ever, never is one more aware of Providence than when its power replaces that of human beings at such a time."116 Maistre attributes unexplainable phenomena to an unknown force, Providence (God), chance, and the laws of Nature that apply to man's society and politics as much as they apply to physical phenomena. His politique experimentale would make it improbable that "Maistre denounced all forms of clarity and rational organization."117 On the contrary, Maistre's comments in his notebooks on systems of taxation and the equation of exchange show how he strives for clarity and bases his observations on empirical facts. His suggestions on how the monetary system might be reformed and on how some of the problems experienced in France during the Revolution might be avoided also demonstrate that he believes in and practises rational organization. This is an effort at science that invites testing by logic and evidence. He is more rational than some of his contemporaries who clung to the idea that paper money must remain convertible either to gold or currency. My use of the word "rational" in comparing Maistre to his contemporaries is intended to characterize his approach regarding inconvertibility and that of his contemporaries, most of whom were probably otherwise also rational and capable men. Nevertheless, they habitually reverted to what they considered represented less risk, convertibility, which has proven to be an inferior system. Backing paper money had become a habit through the centuries and habit reinforced by fear of the consequences of not following the habit is as much emotional as rational. Michael D. Bordo, Anna J. Schwartz, and Alan S. Milward are developing another quite rational explanation, which may have played a role in the choosing of convertibility.118 Convertibility created several levels of advantages and benefits that differed in magnitude as well as in kind for the countries that opted for the gold standard or gold dollar exchange standard, depending on their political and economic location. The three basic levels are the hegemon, the core countries, and those at the periphery. In most simple terms the hegemon powers, first England and later the U.S., believed that a monetary 116 Maistre, "Considerations," 3-4. 117 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 109. 118 Bordo and Schwartz, "The Operation of the Specie Standard"; and Milward, "The Origins of the Gold Standard."

122

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

system related to gold would enhance their economic and political power; the core countries - for example, France, Germany, and Russia went to convertibility to share in the benefits of a hegemon power; and the states on the periphery - for example, Greece and Argentina thought gold would make it easier for them to obtain benefits such as the capital inflow they needed for economic development. Works that discuss this more rational choice of a metallic exchange system caution that the answer is more complicated than it first appears and the final conclusions as to how rational the choice was are not yet available. Milward opens his paper with "It is a puzzling fact that... countries valued their national currencies by one method or another against gold, puzzling, because convincing rational explanations are lacking." His concluding paragraph, which parallels some of the writing of Maistre, reminds the reader that the final answer probably contains a combination of the various explanations provided about "a choice of metallic standard, which may have been both sub-optimal and irrational."119 Maistre's appreciation for religious belief and use of the Scriptures might be contrasted with the Enlightenment philosophers', rejection of religious faith and exclusive appeal to reason and the senses. "In place of science, he preached the primacy of instinct, Christian wisdom, prejudice (which is but the fruit of the experience of generations), and blind faith."120 Stephen Holmes claims that "Maistre's veneration of religion is matched by his aversion to science." Holmes's explanation is that Maistre is a fervent believer who feels that "physical laws prevent people from praying ... Modern science erodes the religion that makes social order possible."121 Such comments ignore that Maistre explicitly states that he values science but argues that Lord Francis Bacon promoted it in a way that devalued the spiritual aspect of human existence. What some consider Maistre's attack on science was really Maistre's response to those such as Bacon who claimed that life could be reduced to material things perceived through the five senses. Maistre finds distasteful Bacon's emphasis on what man had in common with animals. Maistre exclaims: "you think then that a sensible spirit, life, sentiment, one who loves in short, is just a mixture of material ingredients like a soup from your kitchen?" Bacon had put intelligence at the same rank as appetite. Maistre argues that the spiritual element of human existence that Bacon had devaluated is paradoxically the light from which science, reason, and 119 Milward, i oo. 120 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 108. 121 Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 23.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

123

wisdom emanate. Maistre criticizes Bacon in Examen de la philosophic de Bacon, not because Bacon studied the natural sciences, but because Bacon had made every attempt to separate science from religion [and the supernatural].122 In Soirees, Maistre makes similar remarks about Bacon's rejection of metaphysics, psychology, and theology.123 Those are not the words of a religious fanatic. Maistre is not alone in not agreeing with Bacon's over-zealous view of science. Today, leading physicists, e.g., Albert Einstein and Fritjof Capra, along the same lines as Maistre, include the supernatural in their model of the universe. A highly respected twentieth-century physicist, Capra deplored that Bacon called Nature a witch and stated that the aim of the scientist should be to "torture her secrets out of her." As attorney general for the monarch, Bacon was familiar with the many witch hunts of his time and used violent metaphors carried over from those persecutions. Partly because of Bacon's influence, "the whole attitude in science has been what Schumacher [a twentieth-century expert on appropriate technology] called a science of manipulation rather than a science of wisdom."124 In the early stages of the development of science Bacon's approach was perhaps desirable and produced more rapid success, but it is becoming accepted that today working with nature is more appropriate. Leading scientists have been speaking along the same lines as Maistre and including the metaphysical in their model of the universe. "The world view now emerging from modern science is an ecological view, ecological awareness at its deepest level is spiritual or religious awareness."125 Einstein defined God as "the central order of things and events" because at the level of subatomic particles the universe cannot be understood in terms of material things but in its patterns and interconnections.126 He commented that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."127 This is the stand of modern scientists who hold to the new paradigm that God is an intrinsic part of the cosmos, perhaps its ultimate reality - the system that relates its various phenomena and noumena. For them God is not a creator who remains outside his creation the cosmos and occasionally interferes, as scientists commonly believed before and during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when Maistre lived. 122 123 124 125

Maistre, "Examen de la philosophic de Bacon," oc, vol. VI, 290-2, 455. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 271. Capra, Matus, and Steindl, Belonging to the Universe, 30. Capra etal., 70.

126 Dobson, The Green Reader, 106.

127 Kluger, "Is God in Our Genes?" 46-7.

124

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre sometimes uses the old paradigm of science and theology, that is, Providence or a personal God interfering in the affairs of men, at other times he operates in the new paradigm that began to be generally used only in the twentieth century: giving decisive power over events to the internal system of order that Nature or Providence built into the universe. Maistre in the old paradigm is a common reference in the writings of his critics; for example, God inflicting the Revolution on a misbehaving France and, on another occasion, when he describes human beings as attached to the throne of the Supreme Being by a supple chain. In contrast, one instance of Maistre in the new paradigm is when he realistically perceives that man must operate in accordance with the laws (for example, those that make a hierarchy inevitable) of the political world, just as in the natural world man's freedom exists only within the constraints of the laws (for example, the law of gravity) built into that aspect of the universe.128 Another illustration of this is the system of countervailing political intermediaries compared with the several discordant musical notes that, played together, produce a harmonious sound.129 The old paradigm is today still professed by some scientists: "exactly the position of Stephen Hawking, God sits out there and has various options ... his book, A Brief History of Time [1991], is brilliant in terms of physics and cosmology. Hawking says explicitly, 'I want to understand the mind of God.'"13° The spiritual dimension is defined by Walter and Dorothy Schwartz as "the intuitive, the non-measurable."131 When Maistre can only resort to the intuitive and the non-measurable he introduces Providence or the Natural Order. Maistre believes that science can be more useful to humanity if it is contained within the boundaries of morality and ethics. While he appreciates the usefulness of the scientific revolution created by men such as Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, and Newton, he also understands the need to maintain a holistic rather than a mechanistic approach in its application. Holmes mistakenly claims that Maistre feels threatened by science, because Holmes believes Maistre fears that science will eradicate "unthinking dogmas and false certainties" that are necessary for society to function. As shown in this chapter, Maistre is willing to consider innovations in the science of political economy while most of his contemporaries are not willing to break with tradition, such as the aura of "certainty" 128 Maistre, "Lettre a Louis-Aime Vignet, baron des Etoles," Lausanne, 28 octobre 1794, De la terreurd la restauration: correspondances inedites, 105. 129 Maistre, "Essai sur le principe generateur," oc, vol. I, 74-5. 130 Cited in Capra et al., 136-7. 131 Walter and Schwartz, "Breaking Through," The Green Reader, 104, 235.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

125

of specie exchange for paper money. Maistre does not fear science per se because it might create scepticism, but only if it were to be used without social conscience. His critics have indiscriminately perceived Maistre's allusions to God, Providence, or the natural patterns that integrate everything in the Universe as a weakness in his philosophy. The writings of scientists and ecologists today indicate, instead, that he is one of those who understand the interconnectedness within the universe, the importance of metaphysical as well as physical forces, the need for a shift from attempting to control nature to a dialogue with nature. In a chapter titled "The Union of Religion and Science" in his work on Bacon's philosophy, Maistre explains that science becomes dangerous to society when it is separated from religion. One passage from that chapter illustrates that Maistre had no intention of replacing science with religion: "Science resembles a fire: concentrated in different hearths destined to receive it, it is the most useful and the most powerful agent of man; scattered at random, it is dreadful calamity." Maistre believes that science can be useful to humanity if it can be contained within the boundaries of morality and ethics. "Natural sciences must be kept in their place, and secondly the leadership should belong by right to theology, morality, and politics." This is similar to the thoughts being expressed by many great thinkers in the world today, in the twenty-first century, regarding new scientific developments, such as genetic engineering involving human embryos and the production of vegetables that are crosses with genes from animals. Morals and religion prepare the human mind for science that is beneficial to humankind. "It purifies and exalts the human spirit, preparing it to be more ready for discoveries, because it combats relentlessly vice that is the capital enemy of truth."132 Maistre explains that priests have been "the founders, guardians, and dispensers of science." The first astronomers in many civilizations, such as the Etruscan, were priests, and monks had preserved during the Middle Ages the science of the ancient peoples of Europe. The Church plays a useful role as "a force that opposes all innovations that appear to it fearful; if it is mistaken the invincible truth will soon dissipate the cloud."133 The premature free innovations of a discovery may overturn political and economic institutions and have harmful impact on human well being far greater than the immediate gain from uncovering truth by the original discovery. Society should be willing to wait for the benefits of discoveries until it is mature enough to receive them. From the analysis of his writings on paper money presented in this chapter, it is apparent that Maistre is 132 Maistre, "Examen de la philosophic de Bacon," 451, 453, 455, 472. 133 Ibid., 460, 472-3.

126

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

not against all innovation; but, as a conservative, he wants to innovate gradually in order that social order is maintained. Berlin discussed Maistre as an advocate of deliberate retardation of the liberal arts and sciences in Russia, saying that "Maistre clearly meant to apply this beyond Russia herself, to the whole of contemporary Europe."134 No evidence is provided to support this. Such a position would be contrary to Maistre's pluralistic approach to politics, which rejects an ideal institution for every circumstance or a constitution made for all nations.135 Giambattista Vico, whom Rene Descartes considered the originator of modern classical philosophy, also held that each society in the aggregate of its characteristics is unique. His major work, The New Science, was first published in 1725 and he was a professor at the University of Naples until his death in 1744. "Cultural relativism" refers to Vice's belief that because cultures have many common characteristics, differences between societies are bridged, and a viewer may understand a society not his own. Vico also originated the idea known as "cultural pluralism" — each society at any given time is a unique combination of values and ends. Consequently, the efficacy of a culture for a given society cannot be evaluated by applying what has developed in another.136 This explains why Maistre was dubious about transplanting European culture too rapidly to Russia in the nineteenth century. Vico wrote that sufficient imaginative insight must be combined with reason to create the institutions that form society. At any given time each society is at a different stage in the development of this intellectual side of civilization, evoked in its people by the political and economic juncture. He supported this with an illustration from North America in the eighteenth century. "Finally, crossing the ocean, into the new world [we would note that the Aboriginals] the Americans would be following a similar path as other human societies [evolving their distinct institutions and society] if they had not been discovered by Europeans."137 Maistre used a similar example: he insists that the Amerindian tribes were no less a society than the Europeans, since they had their sovereign chief, government by the councillors of the chief, and laws in the rules by which they associated in their society. He even understands - what Vico termed entrare (to enter) - that it was their own, consequently valid, moral values that permitted them to cannibalize their captives, unlike the Europeans, who allowed their prisoners parole on their word; despite such differences, 134 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 150. 135 Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol. I, 74, 87. 136 Berlin, "Pursuit of the Ideal," 10. 137 Vico, Opere, 859.

On Inconvertibility, Inflation, and Taxes

127

compared to other cultures, they were no less a society.138 But like the Russians, they were at a different stage of a line of development that was uniquely their own. Maistre's attitude towards the reforms in Russia shows that he wants to introduce science gradually in Russia because of the particular social and political situation in that country. As Berlin acknowledged, Russia at that time faced the daunting problem of having to govern millions of mostly uneducated serfs who had just been freed. Maistre is not saying that science should never be introduced in Russia, only that "one must creep slowly towards the goals of science, one cannot fly there!" He is fearful that when the Russians would embrace science, if the society were not yet ready for it, they may do what some Enlightenment philosophers did, completely reject religion and a social conscience. The history of Russia during the Revolution, the Communist era, and while democracy is being attempted since Gorbachev, has shown that his fears were well founded. Maistre believes that religion has a useful political purpose; it cultivates a sense of duty and respect for authority that, as discussed in section I of chapter I, he believed was needed to preserve social order. "Without preparation, they [free uneducated Russian serfs] will infallibly and suddenly pass from superstition to atheism, from passive obedience to unbridled [destructive] activity."139 Maistre notes that human intelligence and science have allowed humankind to accumulate so much knowledge that some suffer the delusion that it is possible to answer all questions about the universe. Man becomes "vain, egoistical and pernicious to himself and to others."140 Events such as the French Revolution remind people that there exists a force beyond their understanding or control. He begins Considerations with the words "We are bound to the Supreme Being by a fine chain, which restrains, without enslaving us." Human beings feel that they have free rein relative to the plans of the Creator but they do not realize that they, too, are part of the divine order. Even the most despotic men of the Revolution, such as Robespierre, were directed unknowingly by the circumstances.141 Humans are free also to operate against the natural order, but this can be to their own detriment. When human and divine powers work together, harm is prevented.142 138 139 140 141 142

Maistre, De la souverainete du peuple, 102. Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 153-4. Maistre, "Examen de la philosophic de Bacon," 457. Maistre, "Considerations," oc, vol. I, 1-5. Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 278-9.

128

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

In the same way that the divine force imposes constraints on individual free will, the laws of the market, also part of the natural order created by God, check what rulers can legislate, as well as imposing formal constraints within which economic actors must operate (the invisible hand). Maistre's receptiveness to the use of market mechanisms, which he recognized and outlined, and his intention to limit state power were exemplified by the advice not to establish a state bank in his second memoir to the Piedmontese monarchy. Confidence in the paper money would be enhanced more easily if the bank were owned and managed by experienced respected businessmen, as it was in England. Similarities are apparent between his conservative politics and his approach to political economy. In both domains Maistre is logical, not emotional, and although the role of the sovereign is valued, it is circumscribed in order that the opportunity exists for other actors, such as commercial interests, the aristocracy, and the commons, to make their vital contribution. Maistre urges the French to revitalize their political institutions through reaffirming the ancient laws of the monarchy, purchase of offices, and the parlements. He decries the abolition of the hierarchical social order and recommends ways that it may be improved when partially restored. Similarly, the discussion of his approach to paper money in this chapter shows that his appreciation for traditional ways of thinking is not exclusive and absolute. He is suggesting that it is sometimes desirable or even necessary to break with tradition and be willing to try new ways. The social goals, logical method, and conservative orientation that Maistre carries from political thought to his analysis of monetary policy enables him to realize the true potential in fiat inconvertible paper money.

Ill

Maistre on Commerce

SPECIALISTS IN MAisTREAN STUDIES have stated that one of the outstanding qualities of Maistre's thought is that it is not narrowly focused, as it ranges over European social, political, and religious development. Interpreters of his thought have, however, largely ignored the writings on political economy. Maistre writes at a time when the European economies are being industrialized; his great interest in commerce is revealed in this chapter. An examination of Maistre's notebooks containing commentaries and notes on the books that he is reading shows that much of this reading is in the field of political economy. He also formulates his own opinion on important debates of his day and writes down his understanding and analysis in memoirs and notes, some of which have been preserved. Commerce was one of the phenomena of the late eighteenth century that modernized and industrialized European states. Studies on conservative thought traditionally distinguished the reactionary Bonald from the more moderate Edmund Burke. They attempted to show how Burke supported the idea of free trade while Bonald and Maistre both wanted to prevent the expansion of commerce.1 It was presumed that the supposedly reactionary Maistre would not have anything different to communicate. According to interpreters such as Bruce Mazlish and Emile Dermenghem, Maistre and Bonald are against the principles of laissezfaire and free competition because they claim that these would undermine the bases of social morality.2 Bonald and Maistre are considered reactionary thinkers because it is assumed that they both long for a time when societies were not undergoing such transformations. 1 Mazlish, Burke, Bonald, and de Maistre. 2 Dermenghem, Joseph de Maistre Mystique, 240.

130

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Commentators may have erroneously equated Maistre's position on commerce with Ronald's because they drew parallels between the political and economic ideas of each thinker. If, as these interpreters presumed, Maistre shared Bonald's preference for absolute monarchy, then Maistre would also have a similar conception of the economy and defend protectionist policies that would enhance the power of the state. Bonald's viewpoint is illustrated by his comments on the reign of the Sun King. Bonald claimed that the ancien regime was the ideal monarchy and Louis XIV was an exemplary ruler. He argued that since the Sun King could not, as the emperor of the Ottoman despotic state could, dismiss his ministers whenever he pleased, there was no tyranny in France under the ancien regime.^ A more closed economy would also enhance the power of the state and prevent the corruption of morals, because the economy and society would be less affected by international actors. An alternative position is illustrated by the writings of Montesquieu. He stated that the nobility as an intermediary power constitutes an essential part of monarchical government, since "[regarding monarchy a] fundamental maxim is: no monarchy, no nobility; no nobility, no monarchy. But we have a despot."4 Power is moderated and controlled because it flows through intermediary channels. Montesquieu states that there is a need for "political bodies that would announce laws when they are made, and recall them when they are forgotten."5 A ruler's council could not act in the same capacity because it is "the depositary of the momentary will of the prince that executes, not the service of fundamental laws."6 In addition to political institutions that operate as a counterpoise in Montesquieu's thought, a free market is seen as another way to check the abuse of unlimited power of the sovereign and to proclaim the benefit of untrammelled individual initiative. The physiocrats were the exception to the general rule that the defence of a free market would be accompanied by the support for institutional structures that would diffuse political power. While they unequivocally defended free trade, they wanted to concentrate power in the monarch. Physiocrats Mercier de la Riviere and Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours used the term despotisme legal (legal despotism) to distinguish this kind of enlightened despotism from arbitrary despotism where the ruler makes decisions based solely on his own whim. Arbitrary despotism is based on ignorance, whereas under legal despotism the 3 Bonald, Theorie du pouvoirpolitique et religieux, 265-8.

4 Montesquieu, "De 1'esprit des lois," 247. 5 Ibid., 249. 6 Ibid.

On Commerce

131

despot follows the laws of the universal natural order, so that his decisions benefit the public interest in addition to his own interest. The physiocrats saw no purpose to counter-forces. "The idea of many other authorities in the same state presents only a complete absurdity. If they are equal there is no authority; there can only be more or less anarchy. If one of them is superior, that one is authority; the others amount to nothing."7 Countervailing forces only promote a multitude of different opinions and interests, and the division tends to anarchy and the dissolution of society. The end result is "a cruel and destructive war, during which intrigues, seductions, and treason of all kinds become common practice, which are always made at the expense of the nation."8 For the physiocrats, the people, aristocrat or commoner, should leave the business of governing to the enlightened king and his ministers. In this chapter I determine which of these three possible positions best captures Maistre's approach. At first glance, he appears to follow some aspects of all three alternatives. In Chapter I it was shown that he saw the desirability of religion for society. Bonald had stated that religion precedes the establishment of any political system.9 Maistre states that all durable and strong institutions are founded on religion.10 Religion encourages a respect for authority, an essential ingredient, while a political association that is based solely on consent without any moral force to bind members together would soon disintegrate. As discussed in section 2 of chapter I, Maistre, unlike Bonald, does not admire the regime of Louis XIV. In a letter to the baron de Rubat, Maistre refers to Louis XIV as "the sultan."11 As did Montesquieu, Maistre defends the idea of counter-forces and finds it unacceptable that the king would govern exclusively through his ministers. While Maistre argues that sovereignty resides in the king, he does not believe that this diminishes the importance of other bodies such as the thirteen parlements that had existed in France before the Revolution. "When we examine all possible governments that have the right or pretension to call themselves free, we see that the powers that seem to possess a portion of sovereignty are really only counterweights or moderators that regulate and that slow down the march of the true sovereign."12 When Maistre draws on examples in political economy to show that experience contradicts even theories that appear the most 7 Du Pont de Nemours, De I'origine et des progres d 'une science nouvelle, 29. 8 Mercier de la Riviere, L 'Ordre naturel et essentiel des societes politiques, 162. 9 Bonald, "Essai analytique sur les lois naturelles de 1'ordre social," 125. 10 Maistre, "Considerations," 56. 11 Descostes, Necker ecrivain et financier juge par le Comte de Maistre, 31. 12 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 182.

132

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

probable, he gives qualified support to one aspect of physiocratic doctrine. "To avoid food shortages and famines, theory suggests the need to prevent export of grain. On the contrary, one needs to provide a premium to those who export."13 Writings and commentaries from his notebooks, which are considered for the first time in this study, allow one to more accurately place Maistre's thought relative to other thinkers of his time and to assess the relation between his political and economic thought. The last section explores how Maistre, applying his general views on trade, when he investigated the revolt and international incident at Carouge on the Swiss border, solved an important problem of his day: scarcity in the supply of a subsistence commodity. 1. COMMERCE

AND VIRTUE

Our first concern is to establish the arguments of those who criticized free trade from a traditionalist and reactionary position. In this section I consider Bonald's attempt to refute Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Some of Bonald's arguments are shared by another reactionary thinker, Auguste Saint-Chamans. One of their central claims is that increased trade would corrupt the political and social system. Therefore, a policy of self-sufficiency should be the aim of local and national governments, as this will preserve the morals of the people. Bonald and SaintChamans overlooked that commerce promotes new virtues that are an improvement over the ancient ones; it does not simply destroy virtue altogether. An analysis of Maistre's comments in his notebooks uncovers his position. Bonald noticed that, when Smith referred to wealth, he referred to the material wealth of a nation such as its manufactures, its accumulations of capital, and its agricultural products. Bonald asserted that the most important wealth of a nation is its moral force, based on its political and religious laws and its constitution.14 Bonald's discussion of what constitutes the wealth of a nation is contrasted with the materialistic view of society of the physiocrat, the marquis de Mirabeau. For him "All moral and physical parts that constitute society derive from and are subordinate to subsistence."15 While Mirabeau claimed that policies and philosophy would be useless and illusory if they were not founded on the economic order, Bonald insisted on the reverse. Governments 13 Maistre, "Essai sur le principe generateur," 227. 14 Bonald, "De la richesse des nations," Melanges litteraires, 510. 15 Mirabeau, Philosophic rurale, ou economie generate et politique de I'agriculture, 10.

On Commerce

133

should aim at directing humankind to achieve order and discipline, rather than merely to be concerned with the administration that enhances material wealth.16 Since commerce encourages the consumption of luxuries, it corrupts individuals as it creates artificial desires for the most base and selfserving pleasures. Bonald here implies either that few luxuries were being produced domestically or that commerce was making a bad situation worse as even more luxuries became available. The consumption of luxuries also promotes more conflict within society between those who can afford the luxuries and those who can not and are envious of those who can. This argument, carried to its obvious conclusion, would promote a subsistence economy in which all members of the society are only barely able to satisfy their material needs and preferably none of their desires. In his commentary on political economy, Bonald refers to a work by Saint-Chamans. Both Bonald and Saint-Chamans were royalists during the Revolution, and influential members of the Ultra party during the Restoration. Saint-Chamans, in an essay on Smith's The Wealth of Nations, questioned whether free trade is beneficial for consumers. Proponents of free trade claimed that consumers would benefit from lower prices because goods are produced more cheaply abroad. The consumer could not benefit in this way in the days of Colbert because then the protectionist tariffs would either prevent imports from entering the country or be added to the price asked of the consumer. However, its proponents neglected to anticipate that free trade would also reduce purchasing power. When entrepreneurs are ruined and workers are unemployed, since production has moved out of the country, they also have less revenue to spend on consumer items,17 Bonald used an illustration introduced by Saint-Chamans to discuss this point further. While a million men might be employed to manufacture textiles from cotton imported from India, it would no longer be feasible for the French to grow their own cotton. The new machines would create an imbalance in the economy because production increases, while consumption remains the same or even diminishes, as many people do not have the means to purchase the increased quantity of goods.18 In the preceding illustration, Bonald ignored the payments side of the exchange described. France could not pay for the Indian cotton unless India, or a third country if multilateral trade is involved, is buying 16 Bonald, "Sur 1'economie politique," Melanges litteraires, 384-5. 17 Saint-Chamans, Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations, \ 64. 18 Bonald, "Sur 1'economie politique," 387, 389.

134

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

another product from France, thus providing the foreign exchange that pays for the cotton. More workers would then be employed in France in the industry that produces the French export, and consumption would not necessarily diminish. The only support then for Bonald's conclusion is that, while the manufacture of cotton textiles is mechanized, perhaps the primary production of cotton is not. However, if mechanization were to be introduced into cotton production as well as in the processing that transforms it into cotton textiles and clothing, shifting from the growing of cotton to the production of textiles would probably result in little difference in the level of employment. Also, Bonald considered only the number of units of labour. He neglected to take into account the value of labour input into the production function. The value per man-hour in textile production would quite possibly be greater than in cotton production. The desire to gain the benefits of the higher value of wages input and the improved returns from the sale of the product at a more processed level is why countries that produce raw materials promote vertical integration. Thus the final result may differ from Bonald's conclusion if all factors and values are taken into account. More French labour might be employed, and the purchasing power of France could be increased rather than decreased as a result of the application of technological innovations. As shown in the following section, Maistre would probably declare that the overall influence on employment in France could not be measured without discussing the actual quantities, their value, and all of the significant variables involved. Bonald expressed extreme discontent with the growth of the manufacturing industry that accompanied labour-saving machines and the new commercial activity. He believed that although the peasant worked long hours, it was strenuous physical labour in a healthy environment away from the pollution and corruption of urban life. Governments should not aim to industrialize and modernize their economies. French society would be more stable and free from corruption, and individuals within it would be happier and more virtuous, if the economy were to remain primarily agricultural.19 If governments were to follow Smith's approach, Bonald feared that they would consider money and other material things as the only sources of wealth. In their desire to accumulate more wealth through trade, such nations would become so dependent on neighbouring nations that they would become enslaved to the whims of the other governments. This dependency would threaten the stability of the nation and could potentially make many more individuals live in misery, while surrounded by much material wealth. He was reactionary 19 Ibid., 391.

On Commerce

135

in the sense that he preferred maintenance of the agrarian economy and opposed any change that would introduce more mechanization and industrialisation. Bonald attempted to classify nations in terms of characteristics such as their warlike nature and the nature of their economy. Those nations that one could consider noble, where high sentiments and generous character predominate, are also warlike nations, but the purpose of war for these nations is "to uphold their dignity rather than to expand their possessions." By contrast, the "dominant spirit" in a trading nation is not noble, even if there are nobles as well as merchants, because the professions that are "most highly regarded and form the pivot on which all the politics of the nation is based" are those that are "exclusively preoccupied with expanding capital and industry by all kinds of ways."20 Since Bonald had a low estimation of commercial activities, those nations with an influential merchant class had a lower ranking in his classification of the different kinds of nations. This is far removed from the esteem in which Maistre holds such an important mercantile nation as "wise England."21 Bonald's view was that the nobility should not participate in commercial activities. Such activities would derogate from their noble status, corrupting them and decreasing their dignity to the point that they would no longer be able to fulfill their duties to society.22 Gabriel-Frangois Coyer and Philippe-Auguste de Sainte-Foix, Chevalier d'Arc, were two of the many participants, earlier in the 17508, in the debate about whether the nobility should engage in commercial activities. In defence of a mercantile nobility, Coyer argued that when the nobility are kept occupied with commercial activities they are less vulnerable to the vices of an idle aristocrat.23 Le Chevalier d'Arc replied that the participation in commerce threatened to destroy the most important virtue of the nobility, their patriotism. The nobility must not engage in other activities during peacetime that would impinge on their desire to lead an army when the country was threatened with foreign invasion. D'Arc feared that the nobles would abandon the honour of fighting for their country for the opportunity to amass a fortune that accompanies commercial activity.24 As discussed earlier, Bonald considered the warlike nations nobler than the 20 Bonald, "De la richesse des nations," 513. 21 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains entre Carouge et Geneve," Fonds de Maistre, 4. 22 Bonald, "De la richesse des nations," 515. 23 Coyer, La Noblesse commer^ante, 51. 24 De Sainte-Foix, La Noblesse militaire, ou le patriotefranc,ais, 59-67.

136

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

mercantile nations. Similarly, d'Arc compared the more honourable military nobles, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the glory and defence of the nation, with the commercial nobles, who were preoccupied with the accumulation of material wealth for self-serving interests.25 A study of the French nobility in the eighteenth century shows that many nobles did not follow Bonald and d'Arc's reactionary advice. They were as eager to invest in innovative and modern sectors of the economy as bourgeois entrepreneurs. Frequently, noblemen would agree to joint ventures that would associate them with the owners of capital from the bourgeois class.26 In a book written in reply to the arguments of d'Arc, Coyer stated that the nobility had always associated and intermarried with members of the Tiers-Etat, yet the former had remained distinct and well respected. Some individuals who were the progeny of these intermarriages of the Tiers-Etat and the nobility had successfully held high positions in the army.27 It will become apparent in the next section that Maistre's views on political economy represent the views of this nobility that looked forward to more economic expansion through commerce. Maistre probably would have agreed with Coyer's argument that commerce would not impinge on the nobility's sense of duty to defend the nation; it might even reinforce this sentiment, since a nobleman who engaged in commercial activity considered the interests of his state in addition to his own interests. Commercial activity was an honest and honourable occupation that required considerable skill and knowledge of the interests of states and peoples. Maistre believes as Coyer did that commerce is desirable because it encourages agricultural and manufacturing production that brings greater prosperity to the nation. In contrast, war conflicts with the well-being of the people. While war might sometimes be necessary, commerce is so useful to the nation that not only the Tiers-Etat but also the nobility should actively contribute to its success.28 Burke was another conservative who viewed commerce as a sign of progress and civilization. He defended commercial society because it promoted new virtues that he thought were superior to the virtues of the more ancient, self-sufficient agrarian society. While Bonald considered the warlike, independent nations to be the most noble, Burke wanted to find a moral alternative to the moral view associated with humanism and drawn from the Greek classics. He wondered whether it was 25 Ibid., 63. 26 Chaussinard-Nogaret, From Feudalism to Enlightenment, 86-7. 27 Coyer, Developpement et defense du systeme de la noblesse commer^ante, 93.

28 Ibid., 97, 145, 149.

On Commerce

137

essential to the moral health of a nation that citizens be virtuous in the sense that they would serve the public good in politics and war. In a commercial society, would there be any place for virtue, "where the exchange of goods for services took the place of service to the public good?"29 With the specialization that accompanies commercial activities, men would hire mercenaries to fight their wars, and select other persons to direct their governments. The emphasis placed in a commercial society on the exchange of goods, did not necessarily result in the debasing of what ought to be valued in society, contrary to Bonald's claims. Commerce moderates passions, rather than intensifying them to the point that they are deleterious to society. According to Burke, commerce makes possible the relations of individuals in a less conflictive and more humane way. Manners, commerce, trade, and manufacture develop simultaneously. Burke contemplated what kind of poor and sordid nation there would be without commerce and the arts. The people of that nation would be gross, stupid, and ferocious barbarians.30 Societies progressed to a new level of sophistication when they became commercial societies. The ancient warrior was courageous and even fierce, but his character was underdeveloped. Compared to the person in a commercial society he was uncivilized, because his personality lacked the finesse that develops out of interactions with other human beings during the exchange of goods.31 Burke and Smith corresponded frequently and visited one another. Their friendship had begun after Burke wrote to tell Smith how much he enjoyed reading his Theory of Moral Sentiments.^ In that work, Smith also showed, as Burke had, that virtue and commerce were not antithetical to one another. A person would have to exercise three virtues - selfcommand, prudence, and justice - to acquire wealth in such a way that it would not impinge upon his or her moral character. I have indicated in the preface that Maistre also recommended these important virtues, when he discussed the maxim of the Stoics, sustine et abstine (selfcommand and abstinence). Self-command controls the passions, so that persons do not become excessively fearful or angry; it also assists in postponing and moderating the desire for more pleasure. When one moderates these passions, one is able to act according to what is prudent and 29 Pocock, "Introduction" to Reflections, xx. 30 Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 69-70. 31 Pocock, "The political economy of Burke's analysis of the French Revolution," 195. 32 Burke, "Letter to Adam Smith," 10 September 1759, The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, 129-30.

138

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

just.33 If one fails to exercise self-command, one becomes avaricious. Wealth does then come to corrupt as one seeks wealth above all else. Instead, we should seek wealth in a self-disciplined manner. Smith aimed to avoid the shortcomings of both the ancient Spartan warrior, who abnegated passions and material wealth, and life in a society like that of Sybaris, where material wealth and pleasures were excessive. A second virtue, prudence, is necessary to achieve this middle position between complete abnegation and unlimited, immediate selfgratification. Prudent persons realize that to achieve comfort and happiness in the long run, they must content themselves to live within a reasonable income and within the law. Imprudent persons constantly feel insecure as they struggle to seek more wealth to feel more tranquil, while they seek to experience more pleasure in the short run. They cannot fully enjoy these pleasures because their mind is filled with anxiety at the thought of the pain that they know they will experience later, if their wealth was not acquired in an honourable and legitimate fashion.34 Commerce and industry enhance national prosperity when most people spend only prudently and save the rest.35 The third virtue, justice, is also concerned with security, but unlike prudence, it is concerned not with an individual's security but with society's security. When individuals come to believe that justice is an important principle to be followed in the interaction within society, they support the idea that those who break the laws of society ought to be punished.36 They sympathize with those who have been injured - Smith advises - and could conceive of a future time when they might also be the victims. This converges with the thoughts Maistre expresses on justice and due punishment as essentials for social order. Prompt punishment of crimes committed would prevent future attempts to violate fair play by others, who would fear similar punishment if they were to be found guilty of criminal acts. Given the social nature of trade, fair play creates the environment that enables commerce to operate smoothly. Since commercial relations are founded on co-operation between buyer and seller, as well as on competition among the various producers and consumers, a mutual respect for the law is essential, otherwise exchange becomes too hazardous. Vices of malevolence and injustice not only 33 34 35 36 122.

Smith, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," 251. Ibid., 31. Smith, "The Wealth of Nations," Moral and Political Philosophy, 387. Smith, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Moral and Political Philosophy,

On Commerce

139

poison social relationships but also threaten the profitability and success of business engagements.37 Montesquieu also supports the position that commerce civilizes people. He introduces the section on commerce in De I'esprit des lots with the assertion that wherever there is commerce, there are refined mores. Then, surprisingly, he appears to support Bonald's view, as he states that commerce destroys the mores. He explains this seemingly contradictory statement with the following idea: as Plato had complained, commerce corrupts the pure mores; however, commerce perfects and refines barbaric mores.38 The pure mores to which he refers are those altruistic and communitarian virtues of the citizens in the ancient republic. Such mores are pure because they are directed towards the common good. This includes patriotism, since it combines the feelings of duty and emotional attachment to one's group. Commerce corrupts pure mores as it encourages people to act only according to their own rational self-interest. They then will seek their own pleasure, while disregarding how their actions may harm society as a whole. Commerce also perfects and refines the barbaric mores, because there are weaknesses in the character of the classical Greek citizen that Plato had overlooked. Commercial activities bring people in contact with the customs and mores of other societies. Unlike the ancient Greek citizen, people are no longer living in a relatively closed society where they can easily believe in the righteousness of their particularisms and the austerity of their lifestyle. Interaction with other peoples through commerce makes individuals realize that there are other lifestyles as reasonable and justifiable as their own. This exposure to new ideas and new ways of living complicates the simplicity of the primitive citizens of the republic, as they begin to borrow from other cultures, but it also makes their views less absolute. Their openness to other perspectives of the world and their dependence on goods from other societies make them less willing to engage in warfare with other peoples. The mores of eighteenth-century Frenchmen were less ferocious than those of the ancient citizens. Maistre copies into one of his notebooks a passage from Plato's Republic that shows Plato's preoccupation with how commercial wealth weakens morality: "Gold and virtue are like two weights put on a balance where one can only be raised when the other is dropped ... Consequently, virtu and the good people are less respected in a state, in proportion that one 37 Calkins -and Werhane, "Adam Smith, Aristotle, and the Virtue of Commerce," 56. 38 Montesquieu, "De I'esprit des lois," livre XX, 585.

140

The Mare Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

respects more the rich and their riches."39 Maistre is, therefore, aware of the claim that when more emphasis is placed on material wealth, there are fewer virtuous people and less appreciation for those few that are virtuous. From his vantage point between the new order only beginning to develop and the feudal order collapsing in front of his eyes, Maistre could see on the horizon a "blood-freezing vision of the future."40 The frightening vision alluded to is the anticipation by Maistre of the chaos and corruption that might result from the unregulated innovations developing from scientific discoveries and the commercial and industrial revolutions. Maistre feared that these new developments would cause the disintegration in Europe of the social mores of class, family, and established religion; a removal of most of the aspects of the culture that had provided a modicum of protection and comfort to the individual during the pre-industrial millennia. "Science by its very nature has the capacity to corrupt, and principles that will counteract this tendency are needed."41 He added that if the European nations were to be more selective in adopting new ways and, as the great ancient civilizations, the Roman, the Spartan, and the Hebrew, did, refuse to be tempted or hustled into corruption, they also would be successful. "The Romans [when their laws were wise and they ruled the world] had the rare common sense to buy in Greece the products of technology that they lacked but regarding which they were unwilling to emulate the lifestyle, luxury and corruption of the producers."42 A commentary in Maistre's notebooks suggests that, despite his awareness of the possibility that science and commercial activity could corrupt, he defends the new commercial society against such criticism, as did Burke, Smith, and Montesquieu. He cites a passage from a book on the history of Corsica that describes how the Corsicans are self-sufficient. "Every individual has the habit of working only for himself and for his family: the circle of need for the individual is reduced to absolute necessity, and the needs of society are excessively diminished."43 Bonald would consider that the Corsicans in autarky are living in the ideal society. This is not the opinion of Maistre. He comments, "a wonderful and wise observation" below the statement from the book on Corsica: "Without commerce, there is a dearth of civilisation and the rule of barbarism."44 Maistre makes the 39 Maistre, Melanges, Fonds de Maistre, 48. 40 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 102. 41 Maistre, "Chapitre deuxieme de la science," Quatre chapitres sur la Russie, oc, vol. VIII, 298. 42 Ibid., 299. 43 Ibid., 172. 44 Ibid.

On Commerce

141

same judgment as Burke and Montesquieu on this kind of situation. Commerce precedes or accompanies civilization. The virtues associated with the austere life of a self-sufficient society are primitive and coarse, in contrast to those that develop in a trading nation. The optimal situation for Bonald would be one wherein every nation places tariffs on both imports and exports. His reasoning was simplistic in that he thought it possible to gain some revenue from tariffs and limit the import of luxuries while maintaining the domestic production of essentials, and all of this was to occur in a balanced international regime that survived in the long term. He did not perceive that tariffs on exports would increase the cost to foreigners, causing them to buy less or none of the goods and, even if exporters were willing to absorb the tax themselves, it would reduce their profits and decrease their desire to export. It is possible also that the commodity might no longer be produced, if its production had depended partly on at least some sales to external markets to attain the advantages of large scale production. It would not necessarily follow that more of the goods would be available for domestic consumers. Tariffs on imports would limit the consumption of imports to goods that cannot be produced at home and luxuries produced abroad, for which domestic consumers are willing to pay the higher price. As imports diminished, the revenue earned by the state from tariffs would also dwindle, reducing the foreign exchange available to other nations to pay for the exports of the home country. Saint-Chamans had a mistaken view similar to that of Bonald. The nation should only import what it cannot produce with its own industries.45 As shown above, Bonald and Saint-Chamans had a static approach to the polity and the economy that led them astray. When each national economy is for the most part self-sufficient, it attains the right balance of material wealth, healthy morals, and political stability. Without any tariffs, the national economy would be vulnerable to fluctuations in the international market, with the result that the society's stability might be in jeopardy. An unstable economy and society do not provide a firm basis for public and private morality.46 The position of Bonald and Saint-Chamans was that all European nations have a pressing need to reduce or eliminate their dependence on international trade, and that they should agree among themselves to achieve such a condition of stark autarky. Maistre had witnessed the results of this policy first hand from 1799 to 1803, when he held one of the two highest posts in the government of Sardinia, Regent of the 45 Saint-Chamans, 168. 46 Bonald, "De la richesse des nations," 515.

142

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Chancellery and Head of the Supreme Tribunal, as appointee of the King of Piedmont. The subsistence economy of the island was similar to that of Corsica, discussed previously. Maistre perceives that these views could yield no net benefit. . MERCANTILISM,

PHYSIOCRACY,

AND THE MIDDLE GROUND

Montesquieu was one of the first to note the link between the implementation of a policy of free trade and the fostering of more peaceful relations among nations. Economic competition previously had often been seen as an extension of military rivalry among nations. This was the perspective of the French eighteenth-century political economist, Dutot, treasurer of the Compagnie des Indes. This company was established for two purposes: to promote the economic development of the colonies in ways that would make France's economy more prosperous; and to enhance France's position vis-a-vis other European powers through the promotion of a more visible and powerful presence abroad. Dutot claimed that there was not much difference "between the action of an officer, who, in battle defeats, or by his orders defeats, some troops of the enemy, and the action of a businessman that orders the construction of one or several ships at his own expense."47 Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the Minister of Louis XIV, also saw external commerce as just another weapon against rival nations. This section explains why Maistre is critical of mercantilists such as Dutot and Colbert. It also draws parallels between the writings of Burke, Smith, and Maistre on free trade and considers Maistre's advice to the Russian government when he was accredited to the court at St Petersburg. A policy of high tariffs on imports is detrimental to the importing nation because it cannot sell as many of its own products, since the economies of other nations will be impoverished by these tariffs, and their purchasing power will be reduced. The expansion of industry ought not to take place solely in one nation. The establishment of industries in other nations should not be considered a threat to the nation because through specialization based on different endowments each nation will have goods that can be imported at a lower cost than if they were to be produced domestically. With competition, the best price for merchandise would be decided on the basis of the relation between what is demanded and what is supplied.48 As a consequence of such specialization 47 Dutot, Reflexions politiques sur les finances et le commerce, tome I, 246.

48 Montesquieu, "De 1'esprit des lois," livre XX, chapitre IX, 591.

On Commerce

143

and free competition [as in the economic theory of comparative and absolute advantages], the highest quality products are offered to the consumer at the lowest cost. This is the argument that Maistre uses when asking for a reduction of Russian tariffs on Piedmont's silk. "The silks of Piedmont rival those of Asia and surpass all others in Europe. There is, therefore, a natural advantage that permits Piedmont to provide what it has that is the best, at the lowest price."49 Since raw silk constituted at this time approximately four-fifths of all exports,50 the economy of Piedmont depended heavily on the sale of this product. Consequently, Maistre knew that he had to do everything possible to prevent the increase of elasticity of demand for it in Russia, in contrast with the relative inelasticity of domestic demand in Piedmont for a large variety of foreign products. The mercantilist approach by a state that aims to accumulate a greater quantity of gold or silver, through increasing its exports and decreasing its imports as much as possible, is a policy that attempts to increase the wealth of that nation at the expense of economic growth in other nations. The proponents of free trade argued that this policy would fail in the long run, because of the regulating mechanisms of the market, which mercantilists tended to ignore. Imbalances in the market lead to inflation, economic stagnation, and political instability. The influx of monetary wealth drives up the price of goods in the country where it is being accumulated, while gradually destroying the purchasing power of the other nations that are losing precious metals as their economies stagnate. Maistre writes that the mercantilists are not realistic: "We hear that there is a balance of a certain number of millions pro or contra for this or that nation, but it is just as impossible [except in the short run] for a nation as it is for an individual to buy (at a specific fixed rate of exchange) more than it sells. If it were possible, Savoy would have been long out of silver; there would not be an ounce left. And, on the other hand, the French would be walking on gold."51 Maistre understands that imports can only be paid for by the accumulation of buying power in foreign countries from the export of goods and services, borrowing (in the short run), and the outflow of precious metals. If Savoy could continue to buy foreign goods indefinitely beyond the value of its exports, being a middle-sized country with a limited range of production, it would import more than it could afford and the first indication 49 Maistre, "Note a son excellence M. de Gourief," 24 juillet (5 aout) 1815, oc, vol. XIII, 108. 50 Felloni, II Mercato monetario in Piemonte nel secolo XVIII, 10. 51 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 2.

144

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

of this would be that it would lose all of its silver to pay for the increased purchases. France, being a great and varied producer, on the other hand - if it were possible to maintain a one-way foreign export trade indefinitely (it is not practicable) - would accumulate an extremely large stock of gold in payments for its exports. There was more than economic stagnation and inflation to be concerned about when following a mercantilist policy. The raising of tariffs on the imports from other countries, in retaliation for real or imagined wrongs, could eventually lead to war, as happened between France and Holland during Colbert's reign as minister. In 1664 Colbert raised by 40 to 50 per cent the import duties on most commodities going from England and Holland to the colonies of France. He wanted to increase the export of French products. He even raised tariffs on imported raw materials to enhance France's self-sufficiency. Through subsidies, bounties, and official protection, Colbert promoted chartered companies that furthered commercial interests in the French colonies. France also invested in a merchant marine to compete with Holland. It was true of most of the European powers that the avowed purpose of the possession of colonies had been to obtain raw materials without having to go through any other European intermediary, and to provide markets for goods that had been manufactured in the mother country. Tariffs were raised on Dutch goods imported into France as part of a larger plan to diminish Holland's economic and political power throughout the world. The Dutch reciprocated by banning all imports of French products into Holland and Dutch colonies.52 In 1672 France declared war on Holland. The trade war had become a military conflict. Colbert's policy of increasing currency and production in France at the expense of Holland was detrimental to France's own economy in the long run; his mercantilism was also the precondition for France's disastrous war with Holland.^ In his notebooks, Maistre makes a critical assessment of Colbert's reign. Maistre comments that the high opinion of Colbert among Maistre's contemporaries, such as French political economist Forbonnais, is a ridiculous phenomenon. "It is quite readily perceived that this illustrious merchant of Bretagne ruined France; no matter that Europe, blinded by the deceptive brilliance of his ministry, insists on speaking of him only with admiration."54 It is not surprising that Maistre's final comment on 52 Sargent, The Economic Policy of Colbert, 49, 52,

84-5.

53 Murat, Colbert, 279. 54 Melanges, extraits de lecture et notes, 1774, Fonds de Maistre, Archives Departementales de Chambery, 322.

On Commerce

145

Colbert is, "What devil has made more harm to humans," since Colbert was one of the most prominent mercantilists in France, while Maistre was an advocate of free trade. From a French standpoint, the long-run effects of Colbert's policies, such as setting up the bases for the series of events that eventually lost North America to France, were indeed disastrous. The calamitous final result of Colbert's protectionist policies towards Holland indicates the soundness of Maistre's argument that free trade would probably lead to a decline in military conflicts, in addition to creating more economic prosperity. Maistre explains to the Minister of Trade and Finance of Russia, de Gourief, that free trade between Russia and Savoy would encourage amicable relations between the two peoples, complementing the existing cordial relations between their rulers.55 Montesquieu also linked political economy and politics when he affirmed "the natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace."56 Montesquieu had hoped that the passion for conquest could be overcome by the cultivation of interests in material wealth through trade.57 He remarked "wherever there is commerce, the ways of men are gentle."58 When two nations trade together, they become mutually dependent and their rulers have less desire to pursue military projects that would disrupt trade relations. The reduction in tariffs also prevents two other great evils, inefficiency and contraband, that often accompany the absolute prohibition of trade, in addition to war and economic stagnation. Free trade strengthens national industries. Faced with competition from abroad, if the change is not too sudden and they have time to develop, they will become efficient and more innovative. Protectionism also has a deleterious effect on public morals because it encourages contraband. The state loses too because it has to spend revenue on a police force to prevent the smuggled goods from entering the country.59 While he lives in Russia Maistre experiences first hand the nefarious effects of a protectionist policy. However, even before he leaves for St Petersburg, he comments in his notebooks that Russia's tariffs are much too high and have a deleterious effect on the Russian economy. He criticizes the author of Histoire de Russie, de Levesque, for his praise of Russian tariffs. "It is a singular idea of this author that customs duties strengthen the side of Russia, when they are the death of commerce, especially as they are so exorbitant, since following the calculation of M. de Levesque, 55 Maistre, "Note a son excellence M. de Gourief," 109. 56 Montesquieu, "De 1'esprit des lois," livre XX, chapitre 2, 585. 57 Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests, 7g. 58 Montesquieu, "De 1'esprit des lois," 585. 59 Ibid., 108.

146

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

the customs duties exceed a sixth of the price of merchandise."60 Maistre writes to the comte de Vallaise that he is pleased to hear that, according to the letter from Gourief, the Russian government will follow Maistre's advice and reduce tariffs on the goods exported from Piedmont into Russia. He states that he is also relieved to learn this because the Russians are suffering so much from the existing system of prohibitions. "The price of everything is rising without any limit in sight and there is no way to live - It is a singular project to want to enrich a nation by impoverishing the individuals who compose it."61 While this sentiment of individualism might have been expressed by a physiocrat, as discussed later in this section, Maistre was not always in agreement with the approach and tenets of that school. During Maistre's stay in St Petersburg the continental blockade was in force and inflation in Russia had reached alarming levels. The cost of everything was exorbitant. In February 1808, when England had stopped sending gold to the Russian treasury, the Minister of Finance of Russia declared that his country would have to resort to inflation to cover its military expenses. The printing of large amounts of paper money caused the rouble to depreciate, as there was soon too much money in circulation relative to the quantity of goods and services that could be bought with it; so more money had to be paid for the same quantity of a commodity. One result of this inflation was that it unleashed a frenzy of wasteful spending on luxuries. More luxuries were being purchased because people knew that if they held on to the money it would be worth less and less as time passed and they might just as well spend it and gain the benefit of the commodity that it purchased. Also, a luxury product could be saved, if it were not one that deteriorated over time, and it would probably retain its value better than the money that was spent to obtain it. The merchant class gained at the expense of the nobles, who were going bankrupt on their purchases of luxury items.62 However, while they were profiting from the sale of luxury products, the merchants suffered generally as much as the rest of the population from the inflationary situation, which tended to limit domestic and international trade. The merchants blamed inflation on an excess of imports over exports. Maistre explains that this is confusing the symptoms with the real causes of the inflation (the blockade, high tariffs, and excessive money supply). 60 Maistre, Melanges, notes et extraits de lecture, "Politique Russie," 1780, Fonds de Maistre, 112. 61 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le comte de Vallaise," 20 aout (icr septembre) 1815, oc, vol. XIII, 132. 62 Vermale, "Joseph de Maistre economiste," 246.

On Commerce

147

"It is not possible for a nation to buy more than it can sell. This would be like saying that an animal can lose more by perspiring than what it acquires from nutrition."63 Such a false assertion is based on the mercantilist proposition that a nation must do what it can to accumulate its own currency as much as possible; this is confusing the real wealth in terms of goods with the means to acquire this wealth, the paper money and coins. Tariffs on foreign merchandise are justified by the Russian government under "the pretext that they favour Russian merchandise and prevent money from leaving the country."64 Maistre states that such "a motive is specious, false and harmful."65 He recommends that the Russian government lower its tariffs to remedy the inflation rampant in the country and the trend of depreciation in the value of Russian paper money.66 Maistre correctly perceives that it would be trade and not peace that could improve the Russian situation. The victory of the Russian armies against Napoleon in 1815 did nothing to appreciate the rouble. Only in December 1818 did the rouble finally appreciate substantially when Russia exported a large amount of wheat to several European nations that had experienced famine.67 Important among the forces active in this process was the demand for credits on their rouble account by the European nations to pay for the grain, as that increased the price of the rouble in terms of goods. Even when Maistre is attempting to persuade the Russians to abolish their high tariff walls, his approach is characterized by moderation, despite his enthusiasm for free trade. Absolute liberty had been until now only a philosophical hypothesis. "But between the systems so well-known in this century, of universal liberty and of strict prohibition that does not admit any kind of exception, there are an infinite number of nuances, and in these a stretch of gradations so that each nation can favour to a certain point, in its domain, the commerce of others."68 When Maistre speaks of "the systems so well-known in this century," he is referring to physiocracy and mercantilism. Physiocracy was a well-recognized school in the political economy of eighteenth-century France and its two most successful exponents were 63 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le comte de Vallaise," 6 (18) juillet 1814, Correspondance diplomatique deJoseph deMaistre 1811-1817, vol. i, 382. 64 Ibid., 381. 65 Ibid. 66 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le comte de Vallaise," 27 octobre (8 novembre) 1816, oc, vol. XIII, 451. 67 Vermale, 247-8. 68 Maistre, "Note a son excellence M. de Gourief," 108.

148

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Francois Quesnay and the marquis de Mirabeau. The latter defended absolute freedom of commerce in the work L'Ami des hommes, which made him famous throughout Europe. One would think that Maistre would admire the physiocrats, as they favoured free trade; instead, he distances himself from them. Mirabeau had argued that much prosperity would ensue if the countries of Europe agreed to a treaty that would eliminate all trade barriers to the movement of manufactures between their countries.69 Maistre does not favour Mirabeau's radical proposal for complete and immediate freedom of commerce. He is pointing to a middle ground between absolute free trade and prohibition of all trade. When trade is relatively freer than before, and exceptions are granted to particular cases, the worst aspects of the two extreme positions are avoided, and compromises between seemingly conflicting economic interests are possible. "The merchants, subjects of the King of Piedmont and Sardinia, in hoping to get some reductions on the tariffs for the silks that they bring to Russia, would not find themselves in complete contradiction with the prohibitive regulations that Russia thinks necessary to defend its own industry in general."70 Montesquieu at first glance also appeared contradictory because he affirmed free trade while also identifying the need for restrictions. This is because he did not regard with favour the absolute liberty of commerce. "The liberty of commerce is not a privilege awarded to businessmen in order that they can do what they want... What bothers the merchant does not for that reason bother commerce."71 Some tariffs and government regulation are necessary for commerce to continue to prosper, even though the individual merchant thinks that such restrictions impinge upon his profits. The free flow of commercial goods motivated by self-interest must be tempered by some restrictions that consider the impact of commerce on the public good; otherwise, trade would destabilize the social order and create grave imbalances of power. The state must not display any favouritism in instituting tariffs; their utility in terms of the general interest must be demonstrated for them to remain in force. Maistre and other advocates of free trade, such as Montesquieu, desire a reduction in tariffs because they believe that the population in general would benefit from the lowering of barriers. Maistre is interested in advances in the field of economics because he understands that these could lead to more economic growth and prosperity. He argues 69 Mirabeau, L'Ami des hommes, vol. i, troisieme partie, chapitre V, 93. 70 Maistre, "Note a son excellence M. de Gourief," 108. 71 Montesquieu, "De 1'esprit des lois," livre XX, chapitre 13, 593.

On Commerce

149

that free trade, with some exceptions, would ensure peace and greater happiness for all nations that lowered their tariffs. When entertaining the possibility of trade between Piedmont and Russia being made freer, Maistre exclaims: "Why would not the two great powers for once make the most wonderful and most useful of experiments to the profit of humanity, that of the freedom of commerce in good faith, decided upon for a certain time and without any other intention to circumvent their agreement?" Maistre states that such "an experiment would discover a great truth."72 This great truth is that nations are interdependent economically, and all become more prosperous when their economic policy acknowledges this. In contrast, the outcome of mercantilist policy will be that one nation will benefit from trade for a short time, while other nations will be in a worse position than if they were to follow a policy of autarky. One of the arguments to the contrary used by proponents of the restrictions on the export of grain was that a regime that did not place any limitations on the commerce of grain produced monopolies directed by merchants. This harmed the consumer more than the monopolizing effects created by state restrictions. It would constitute one of the exceptions to which Maistre alludes, as trade would then operate to benefit not all, but only the merchants.73 The next section covers a prevalent debate in the field of political economy during Maistre's day whether the commerce of grain ought to be restricted as an exception to the general rule of free trade. 3. MAISTRE'S OFFICIAL MISSION TO CAROUGE An obscure fragment that has never received attention from those who have examined Maistre's works contains the essence of Maistre's judgment of the physiocratic doctrine and of its general application, for example, to French economic problems. "The ideas of the physiocrats are accepted and applied to the economic problems that the French economy presents, without taking into consideration whether they are applicable to the specific economic problem at hand."74 Maistre states that the French have been too quick to embrace the ideas of Quesnay and Mirabeau. We know that Maistre had a copy of Mirabeau's L'Ami des hommes in his library.75 While Maistre respected some of the work done by 72 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le comte de Vallaise," 27 octobre (8 novembre) 1816, oc, vol. XIII, 451. 73 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 4. 74 Maistre, Fascicules et fragments, 1802-1819, Fonds de Maistre. 75 Darcel, "Les Bibliotheques de Joseph de Maistre," 68.

150

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

the economistes, and his writings in political economy show important parallels to those of the physiocrats, he was not a follower of the physiocratic school. As will become apparent from his report on Carouge, he had some serious reservations about their doctrine, despite its general acceptance by the educated classes. In 1790 Maistre was asked by the King of Piedmont to go to Carouge, the market centre of a very productive agricultural region of Savoy, near Geneva, Switzerland. The international altercation that might ensue from the Carouge uprising had the potential to involve Piedmont in a war with France, the Swiss cantons (especially Bern and Friburg), and Geneva. This was not the first time that the citizens of Carouge, as well as the other producers in the basin south of Lake Aleman (Lake Geneva) on which Geneva is situated, suffered curtailment of their freedom to sell their output; for example, in 1703-04 the King of France had forbidden the supplying of agricultural products to Geneva. The region that includes Carouge and Geneva is at the confluence of the south-eastern expansion for hundreds of years of the Kingdom of France, north-western expansion of the House of Savoy-PiedmontSardinia, and south-western expansion of the Swiss. For millennia its passes through the high Alps, such as the St Bernard, had served as the main passageways for the important European invasions. By virtue of their military prowess, diplomatic skill, and control of the mountain passes, the Dukes of Savoy, between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, had consolidated under their power most of the land south of Geneva between France on the Rhone River in the west, Lombardy in the east, and southward including Genoa on the Mediterranean Sea. Geneva had become the site of one of the most important European international fairs during the fifteenth century and the Duke of Savoy had formally guaranteed safe passage of goods and merchants to and from the city in 1432. To combat Savoyard influence France forbade French merchants from doing business with Geneva and in 1462-63 arranged the fair in Lyon to take place at the same time as the one in Geneva. The Geneva fair was ruined and the town never again achieved a successful fair of the same quality. An alliance of France, the canton of Berne, and Geneva invaded Savoy in 1589 but was repelled. Geneva was kept continuously active to preserve its independence from its neighbours. John Calvin had arrived in Geneva and established a theocracy that endured until Geneva organized itself as a republic. France, Savoy, and Berne agreed in their Edict of Pacification 1782 that Geneva would henceforth be a neutral city governed only by its own citizens. However, Geneva still could not feed or supply itself with raw materials, as it possessed no hinterland: outside the walls of the city, the land was Savoyard

On Commerce

151

on its side of the lake; and on the other shores the territory was that of other Swiss cantons or of France. Carouge, a hamlet contiguous to Geneva at the south western point of Lake Aleman, with fewer than one hundred people, had grown to a bustling centre of several thousand inhabitants after King Vittorio-Amedeo III of Savoy had granted it town status in 1786 and sent in architects and other professionals to create an urban centre intended to replace Geneva in the region. Four years later, Maistre arrived, charged with responsibility for an inquiry to provide information on the situation there, after an uprising by the people of Carouge, who had wanted the government to lift the ban on their export of grain to Geneva. The Council of Carouge had supported the people by declaring itself in favour of free trade. The analysis that follows is the first scholarly interpretation of Maistre's report to the King on Carouge. It reveals both the excellent logical analysis of which he is capable and the breadth of his comprehension of political economy. He states that the region has no manufactures. Carouge has consistently produced sufficient grain for export to Geneva, its only outlet, and those earnings pay for the goods and services that Carouge buys external to the region, mainly from Geneva, France, and the rest of Piedmont. These include a variety of items, such as the government services that are paid through substantial taxes remitted to Turin, manufactures, textiles, furniture, and the education of its young who are students in Turin or Paris. Maistre points out that a people cannot for very long continue to buy more than they can sell. It is possible to operate on international credit for a time, but in the long run the total of the debit side must equal the total of the credit side of the balance of payments. He also emphasizes that the commerce with Carouge is just as important to Geneva, and as the relations are fostered, Geneva is for practical purposes becoming like a province of Piedmont. "Geneva being then literally a gold mine ... and the neighbouring provinces that have no other resources whatsoever, having only the commodities to offer the Genevese in exchange for their gold, this commerce deserves to be favoured in every way by the Government."76 Maistre suggests that if someone were to consider the establishment of a lace manufacture or watch factory in Savoy [a watch factory was in fact later established in Carouge and watch-making is still one of the industries operating there], its exports would not be as valuable as the current earnings from export of the agricultural products of Carouge, yet this would probably receive "the most flattering encouragement from the 76 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 3.

152

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

government, and it would be well deserved."77 The value of the agricultural production of Carouge alone is greater than any new manufacturing industry that might be introduced into the region. Maistre cites the agricultural products that are sold to Geneva by the other regional Savoyard centres; for example, forty louis of poultry weekly by Romilly. It should be taken into account that the other areas of this region of Savoy have a similarly varied and substantial output of agricultural products that are exported as well as those from Carouge. If a resolution of the problem between Carouge and Geneva is not achieved soon, it might be reproduced in those centres. The state of Piedmont benefits much from the revenue, manpower, and other resources derived from Carouge and these other centres; consequently their citizens deserve every consideration. In addition to analysing directly the trade in grains, Maistre considers hypothetically what would happen if milk, instead of or in addition to wheat, were suddenly to become necessary to the subsistence of man. The authorities might begin to regulate milk as they have been doing with the production and export of grain, justifying the intervention and the regulations by the fact that milk then is also a staple like grain. He points out that since there is already free trade in milk, large amounts are produced at a price low enough that the poorest in Savoy can daily enjoy as much of it as they wish, yet over 60 louis [a very large sum] of milk from Savoy is sold daily in the market at Geneva. If milk were suddenly to be categorized as a staple, one would say about milk everything that has been said about wheat, that is, "it should not be permitted, to expose in this way the subsistence of the King's subjects," and "as the lure of profits attracts each day more vendors to Geneva where a better price is obtained, Savoy would soon find herself impoverished."78 However, if controls and tariffs were to be imposed, production would soon be reduced because the market would be in disequilibrium as prices in Savoy and in Geneva would be set artificially, and the farmers, "continually harassed by government inspectors would cut back on the number of animals."79 The people would become irritated by the shortages. The monopolists would excite the fears of the people; the people would begin to imagine even greater shortages than actually exist. "There would be riots, demonstrations of dissent; finally one might have people killing each other for a few drops of beverage."80 77 78 79 80

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 4.

On Commerce

153

Maistre argues in favour of freedom of trade in grain, beginning along the lines presented by Mirabeau in L'Ami des hommes. Mirabeau claimed to share the secret of how to end forever the famines and shortages. During the period before 1750, when Mirabeau was writing this famous work, almost every five years there was a famine in France caused by the shortage and high price of grain.81 The police only made things worse by discouraging commercial activity and exacerbating the rage of the population. Access to affordable grain was crucial to the mass of the people in France, since bread was the staple in the diet, especially of the poorest. While shortages could lead to dire social consequences, even bumper crops such as were produced during the early 17605 did not bode well for governments, because a surplus could cause a dramatic decline in grain prices that would depress the agricultural sector. According to Mirabeau, all that the French government had to do was to "allow the grain to run in complete freedom from one end of the Kingdom to the other."82 The market was the best determinant of the desirable price of grain each year, and the market would ensure that there would be no shortage for the following year. Government officials had difficulty in predicting how much grain was actually available in a given year, and what kind of harvest there would be in the following year "The wisest [administrators] would say that they know nothing, and in fact it is impossible to know, while others would just suggest an ideal amount. The only ones who really knew how much had been actually harvested were the producers and merchants."83 The state often lifted restrictions much too late, after the price of wheat had already dropped to levels which did not cover production costs. The final result was that the farmers, to reduce their losses, did not sow as much land the following year. Paradoxically, a government policy that attempted to prevent a famine created the conjuncture for a famine in the following year. The result of less land cultivated sometimes coincided by chance with harsher weather conditions that even further exacerbated the shortfall. According to Mirabeau, the way to avoid shortages and famines was to encourage farmers to cultivate all their lands every year. This would only occur when they were able to export their grain at any time, because then they would be able to make a profit every year, and as a consequence would be willing to sow all their lands the next year. If the price were too low, the farmer could not wait while storing his grain in his barn. He had to sell his grain because he had to try to cover labour costs 81 Mirabeau, L'Ami des hommes, troisieme partie, chapitre II, 26. 82 Ibid., 24. 83 Ibid., 23.

154

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

and the cost of maintaining the land during the current year. It is true that prices may have risen considerably during years when there was a shortage, and the farmer may have made the situation worse by keeping some of his harvest in his barn to raise the price even more. However, the next year there would be no shortage because the farmer, having made a substantial profit, would cultivate even land of a lower quality. Maistre came to the same conclusion. Because Carouge is allowed to export milk to Geneva, the humble worker of Carouge is as satisfied with the price of his milk that he pours into his cafe au lait as the Genevese, who also consume large quantities of coffee and tea. "The price of milk is low precisely because we sell so much of it."84 Since "the milk of Savoy causes to fall into the hands of Savoyard agriculturalists an enormous sum that is financed by the Genevese," the farmers of Savoy multiply and improve their herds of cows, and enlarge and further enrich with the abundant manure their pastures.85 As Mirabeau had pointed out with the example of grain, neither the people of Geneva (the foreign consumers) nor those of Carouge (the domestic consumers) need to fear recurring shortages of milk. As long as the farmers perceive that they are making a profit, they will continue year after year to produce more of the commodity at lower prices than would be current under the reverse perception. Maistre states that in providing the solution to the problem of Carouge and Geneva, Savoy should follow the example of England. "The Kingdom suffered periodic famines; effective ways were sought to prevent exports."86 Finally, one member of parliament suggested that the solution was to recompense all English farmers who export wheat. The important point highlighted here is that the profit motive is an important factor in a market-driven economy. When greater production is desired, it is necessary to increase the returns to the producer. Because a shortage for domestic consumption was feared in England at that time, government intervention was, instead, making it difficult to export, and contributing to a reduction in prices. Mirabeau argued that whenever demand was excessive, it could be met by imports. When this other grain arrived, the price would return to its normal domestic level. Similarly within France, if tariffs were to be removed on the grain transported between provinces, a shortage of wheat in Aurillac would not last very long. As soon as one learned in Picardie that a market in Aurillac was not being adequately supplied, the merchants of Picardie 84 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 4. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid.

On Commerce

155

would rush to bring some grain to Aurillac, and there would be a thriving market in Aurillac. The supply of grain would replenish on its own, without the care of the police.87 It only appears counter-intuitive that the best way to ensure a stable supply of grain is to allow sellers to send it anywhere they wish, only directed by the profit motive. It also appears to contradict common sense that selling the commodity outside the region would ensure a sufficient quantity available within it. Maistre uses the paradox about abolishing restrictions on the export of grain to illustrate that "the most plausible theory can be contradicted and invalidated by experience ... How to prevent shortages and famines? - 'Nothing mor simple. One must prevent the exportation of grain.' - On the contrary, one must grant a premium to those who export it."88 Even with no prohibitions, it would be still quite some time before the grain from other regions of France would replenish the stores and reduce the price to a more normal level in the province suffering the shortages and the famine. Maistre does warn the King that if free trade is to be introduced it must be given time to get into proper working order. At first, perhaps too much will be exported to Geneva, to the extent that a shortage and higher prices might ensue in Carouge and that may temporarily give rise to many complaints and possibly even famine and uprisings. The two failed attempts to design the policy on the commerce of grain in line with physiocratic doctrine showed how difficult it was to maintain a policy of free trade for very long. The declaration of 1763, under the auspices of the Minister of Finance Bertin and his adviser, the physiocrat Du Pont de Nemours, instituted free export of grain outside the country but did not allow for free trade between the provinces.89 Bad harvests and shortages in the late 17605 led the following Minister of Finance Abbe Terray to restore government controls in 1770. The greatest hope among physiocrats that the system would be revolutionized was in 1774 when their disciple Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot became minister. The decree of 1774 authorized the buying and selling of grain anywhere in the Kingdom and free export and import of grain outside France. It prohibited government officials from interfering with the activities of the grain merchants. As in the 17605, poor grain harvests occurred during the same year. Shortages had become so severe in 1775 that the labour ing class demonstrated against the rise in the price level.90 87 Mirabeau, L'Ami des hommes, troisieme partie, chapitre II, 24. 88 Maistre, Preface de "L'Essai sur le principe generateur des constitutions politiques," oc, vol. I, 226-7. 89 Ripert, Le Marquis de Mirabeau, 359-60. 90 Harris, Necker: Reform Statesman of the Ancien Regime, 59—61.

156

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Turgot claimed that these uprisings had been staged by some of his political opponents to remove him from power. Necker had written his work on the commerce of grain, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, since Turgot had become minister. Turgot joined other physiocrats in denouncing its contents. Although Necker denied that this was his intent in writing the book, Turgot and his supporters claimed that Necker's aim was to instigate these popular uprisings against the ministry.91 Necker did disagree with the physiocrats on several points. He saw dangers from the government simply waiting and not intervening, as Mirabeau and Turgot had advised, while the market returned eventually to a more stable equilibrium price. He believed that the determination of Turgot and the physiocrats to liberalize the grain trade was not matched by a certain measure of prudence as to how their principles had to be modified if they were going to be implemented in the real world. Maistre would concur; he stated that if Turgot had possessed all the power he desired, "he would only have constructed castles of cards and his extravagant work would not last longer than he would last."92 The government official when designing future policy must consider the fact that human beings, particularly the uneducated masses, are mainly driven by hunger, passions, and impulses. Reform could only be implemented in stages and only very gradually, if social order is to be maintained. If they want to remain in power, government officials must listen carefully and seriously to public opinion. The opinion that there is a scarcity of grain combined with the need for survival create a powerful force that nothing could oppose for very long. Turgot felt that these uprisings were motivated by the prejudices of the uneducated classes, who could not understand the operations of the grain market. Necker, on the contrary, thought that, since it was based on the concrete and universal need to feed oneself, this opinion might even be considered enlightened.93 At the base of the controversy on the commerce in grain was a conflict between the rich and the poor. The role of the government was to find some compromise among the demands of the merchant class, who wanted as much as possible freedom to buy and sell grain; the landlords, who claimed that they had the right to dispose of it as they wished since the grain produced on their land was part of their property, and the working class, who desperately needed access to affordable wheat. Necker and other critics pointed out that the 9.1 Ibid., 61-2. 92 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 152. 93 Necker, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, 61-2.

On Commerce

157

physiocrats, who claimed to defend absolute free trade in the interest of the nation, were really only defending the interests of the merchants and landlords. Necker's analysis of this debate on the grain trade in terms of classes stems partly from his study of the writings of Simon Linguet.94 Trenchant phrases in Necker's Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains resemble those by Linguet. "All uniform and constant mone value always falls prey to the proprietors. It is the lions and the animals without any defence [predators and prey] that normally live together."95 While he had a practice as a defence lawyer, Linguet wrote Theorie des lois civiles, which established him as a powerful opponent of the physiocrats and made him a reputation in the intellectual world.96 He attacked the physiocratic doctrine for its hypocrisy. They claimed freedom for everyone through free trade but overlooked the simple fact that those promises would never materialize for the poor. Instead, the philosophers should eliminate those dreams about freedom and face the grim reality that many still suffer.97 Linguet argued that free labourers lead a more miserable life than if they were slaves. Their masters would clothe, feed, and provide shelter for slaves, even when they were too young or old to work, because the master wanted to maintain the good health of the slaves, as they were his property. He supported the young slaves because he saw in them potential producers of income and he cared for the old slaves because they were the heads of the slave families. The slave was also precious to his master because of the money the master had spent to acquire him. T the wealthy entrepreneur, a labourer costs him no more than the wages for labour. When he has finished producing at the job, the capitalist sends him away with the coldest indifference. Masters protect slaves from despotic treatment, because they realize that physical abuse or excessive work might lower the value of their property. Wage-workers are closely supervised, threatened, and beaten if necessary, in order that they work long hours and rapidly, to produce goods that the workers cannot afford to buy themselves.98 Slaves are perhaps freer than workers, since they do not have to worry about constantly working just to maintain enough bread on the table for themselves and their family. Workers, on the other hand, live in the permanent fear of being fired and left to starve. 94 95 96 97 98

Grange, Les Idees de Necker, 201. Necker, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, 144. Levy, The Ideas and Careers of Simon-Nicolas-Henri Linguet, 90. Linguet, Theorie des loix civiles, vol. 2, 284-5. Ibid., 453, 465-7.

158

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Linguet recognized the important role of workers in the economy. Maistre quotes in his notebooks a passage from Linguet's journal Annales politiques: "Every kind of commerce that supports a considerable number of workers who consume many raw materials is precious to an enlightened government."99 Such raw materials include grain. Following this quotation, Maistre made the comment in his notebook that he finds Linguet's economic principles remarkable and interesting, particularly where Linguet stated that the rights of property have no limit: the merchant or landowner could do whatever he wished with his property, as social and political organizations were designed for the protection of private property. Necker also recognized this when he stated that "it [the contrast between the rich and the poor] is well-represented by a situation that would exist when a small number of men, after having divided the land among themselves, would make binding laws and guarantees against the multitude, as if they had built shelters in the wood to defend themselves against wild animals."100 This put those who did not own property, such as the labourers, at a serious disadvantage. It is surprising that Maistre, a supporter of free trade, would make such favourable comments on Linguet's writings. One would think that he would prefer the writings of those who claimed prosperity and happiness for all groups in society from economic development. However, Maistre was also realistic; this is suggested on another occasion, when he states plainly that republicans were not being honest when they praised popular sovereignty through representative government.101 Even if the mass of the people could vote, they still would not have much influence. An aristocracy, whether elected or hereditary, would make the important political decisions. It is understandable then that Maistre found Linguet's arguments in political economy attractive, since he described the real nature of the relations between employers and their employees. The physiocrats had neglected to discuss class disparities and attempted to hide the fact that the policies they promoted would only increase the wealth of the rich minority at the expense of the poor majority. His realistic approach does not mean that Maistre was callous. His concern about the condition of the poor is illustrated by another comment in his notebook. "The suppression of beggars that contributes so much to tranquility ... far from producing generosity, as it attempts to have us believe, makes many of us forget that poverty exists ... Is it 99 Maistre, Melanges, notes et extraits, Fonds de Maistre, 1774, 151. 100 Necker, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, note sur 1'ouvrage, ii. 101 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 223.

On Commerce

159

avarice, is it because of lack of sympathy caused by excess of luxury, what are the causes? It is rather, as we have said, negligence or forgetfulness."102 Maistre noted that the only relief for the poor was the one established at Saint Sulpice in Paris in 1777. But few beggars in the streets does not mean that there are no poor. Maistre was fully aware of the darker side of the emerging industrial society. His comments suggest that he thinks that the state and the wealthy should give more thought to how these social problems can be resolved or at least alleviated, rather than being exclusively focused on further expansion of commercial development. The wealthy are neglecting their duty to assist the poor, who, it should not be ignored, share the same society, and in the long run this will lead not only to more suffering among the poor but also to detrimental repercussions on the rest of society. It is not simply out of sympathy for the poor that Maistre implies there should be more relief. Maistre, Necker, and Linguet understood the potential threat that this could pose to the existing government, the economy, and the social order. When considering whether Carouge should be granted the freedom to export its grain to Geneva, Maistre advises the King of Piedmont that "absolute freedom along all points of the frontier would present too much opportunity to the bad-intentioned to lead the people ... to considerable [undesirable] excesses."103 Others intent on overthrowing the government could mobilize the poor politically, although the poor are only unhappy with the particularly high price of grain. Historians have recognized that the high price of grain and the accompanying demonstrations by the working poor contributed to creating the conditions for the French Revolution.104 Instead of only bread riots as had occurred earlier during the eighteenth century, a revolution took place in 1789 because the revolutionary bourgeois had rallied support among the people of the lower classes, who were again in a mental state that was ready to receive such urgings to revolt. Otherwise, the poor would have merely continued to criticize the monarchy but probably would not have attempted its destruction. The feelings of helplessness, fatalism, and inferiority prevalent among the labouring poor made them accepting of their situation rather than determined to revolt against those whom they considered responsible for their miserable living conditions.105 102 103 104 105

Maistre, Melanges, extraits et notes, Fonds de Maistre 1780, 154. Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 6. Harris, 67. Kaplow, The Names of Kings, 165-70.

16o

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre, Necker, and Linguet, from their recognition of the miserable condition of the labouring poor, predicted that, if more were not done to alleviate their plight, social disturbances would probably continue to occur. Linguet had commented, "However embarrassing, the social subordination of a great many in society is a legitimate yoke that they cannot shake off. It is justified by its utility, by its necessity."106 Linguet claimed that one could only choose between anarchy and exploitation. It would be futile for the lower classes to oppose those who oppress them. The only result would be complete chaos and destruction, as the whole system depends on social subordination and unequal distribution of wealth. The immobility of the lower classes is crucial for maintaining social order and harmony. Such an imprudent revolt would never recover the liberty being sought. The only change that would result from such an uprising would be the acquisition of new tyrants, perhaps even more severe than the previous set.107 Linguet's arguments reflected a conservative position. However, Maistre believed that the state must intervene to ensure that the poor have access to the necessities of life, not only to prevent social disturbances but also to minimize their hardship. Despite their attacks on the physiocrats, Maistre, Necker, and Linguet were not against freedom of commerce and industrialization. Linguet recognized that tariffs, placed by provincial or even city governments on goods coming from other regions of the country, had reduced domestic commerce in staples. This commerce was essential to the prosperity of the country. Linguet urged governments to build an extensive network of canals throughout France that would be toll free, so diat France could realize fully the benefits of free internal trade. The building of canals would also reduce smuggling.108 This was not Utopian, since an extensive system of natural waterways already existed in the country. Necker advised the government "to set a fence [only] along the borders of well-known precipices, but then to allow each individual to walk anywhere he wishes within this common enclosure."109 The merchants and speculators perform a useful function for society when they buy the surplus of one region and transport it to a region where there is a shortage. Their activities are also useful to society when they purchase large amounts of grain at harvest time and store them for less productive times. Necker conceded that the government could not do this job more efficiently and effectively. On the other hand, "when the price of grain is reasonable, the intervention of 106 107 108 109

Linguet, Theorie des loix civiles, vol. 2, 351. Ibid., 350-2. Levy, 86. Necker, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, 73.

On Commerce

161

merchants and simple speculators is always harmful and dangerous."110 They raise the price artificially, through collusion, to a level much higher than what the market would bring. According to Necker, complete freedom of commerce would discourage competition, unlike what proponents of free trade claim, creating a monopoly because the merchant takes the place of several property owners. Such increases in the price would "excite the indignation of the people" and that could lead to considerable social unrest.l J l Maistre writes, as Necker did, of monopolies developing among the vendors. The final stage of the crisis is envisioned in the same way by both of them, although they were writing at a different time and about a different economy - social upheaval and rioting among the poor. The situation at Carouge is compounded by the threat of international conflict since it happens to be close to the frontier with Geneva where merchants of Carouge have been attacked in the marketplace; other areas of Savoy and Switzerland might become involved and France might utilize it as an excuse for war. It is also important to note that Necker and Maistre pointed to different causes. Necker said that absolute free trade in a commodity serving as a necessity provided the conjuncture for the development of monopolies, high prices, shortages, famines, and riots. Maistre believes that the regulation of the export of a commodity, including tariffs and government inspection, as well as quotas, incarcerations, and fines, lead to the same vicious circle of monopolies, high prices, shortages, famines, and finally the riots at home (in Carouge) and the threat of international conflict. Maistre and Necker understood the importance of psychology in the study of political economy. The expectation, sometimes-false perception, and anticipation of worse shortages are just as important to the final result as the real amount of grain available. Necker wanted to avoid dramatic shifts in price because it was the sharp fluctuations that led to unhappiness and riots among the poor. Necker differed from the physiocrats in the sense that he saw a limited role for state intervention to ensure that minimum subsistence was available for the workers at all times. Necker's conclusion was that it would be preferable for France to prohibit the export of grain. However, he qualified this statement by arguing that such prohibition cannot be absolute. The government could permit the export of grain when it was certain that there was a surplus. This could be determined by noting the current market price. "Exportation should be permitted only when the no Ibid., 77-8. 111 Ibid., 80, 88.

162

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

price of grain falls to 20 livres le setter or below that point."112 A ceiling price should also be set on the wheat traded between different regions in France. Only when the price of grain rises to 30 livres le setter or higher should the government curtail the freedom of the merchant and proprietor, because at that level the high price of grain threatens the subsistence of the working class and the social order.113 Since the average price of wheat, from 1710 to 1789, rarely surpassed 30 livres le setter, Necker's proposal did not infringe very much on the activities of speculators and merchants.114 Although Necker's position appears initially to be highly interventionist, in reality it was much closer to a free-trade position, particularly with regard to internal trade. "Freedom is almost always favourable to commerce, because most exchanges being useful or at least indifferent to society, to submit them to laws would be to substitute the apathetic eye of the administrator for the active and zealous attention of self-interest."115 Both Maistre and Necker stressed moderation and recommended that absolute principles must be modified to suit particular circumstances. Both were opposed to the physiocratic doctrine that had neglected commercial and political practice. Necker stated that although a principle was efficacious in a particular circumstance, it would not necessarily be of equal application in others.116 At another time when there is a shortage of grain, Maistre writes to the King of Piedmont and Sardinia asking him to allow the export of grain from Sardinia to a hospital in Leghorn in another principality on the Italian mainland, despite the general prohibition on the export of grain from Sardinia. "If public interest is opposed to unlimited export, this same interest does not appear to permit that we suppress it absolutely, as the emergency situation at the hospital in Leghorn would justify that permission be given to export as an exception."117 Maistre's position on this debate tends more towards free-trade than Necker's, in that Maistre defends the free trade of grain without contemplating specific exceptions or discussing any price ceilings. While he concedes that the opening of trade at Carouge may be accompanied by a difficult period of adjustment, Maistre does not advise 112 Ibid., 123. 113 Ibid., 129. 114 Harris, 65. 115 Necker, Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains, 73. 116 Ibid., 74. 117 Maistre, "Lettre a votre altesse royale," 22 mai 1800, Twelve letters from Biblioteca civica di Torino.

163

On Commerce

the King to establish, in advance, the restrictions that will apply when the price decreases or increases beyond a specified level. He does not start with Necker's assumption that the monitoring and regulation of the market mechanisms by the government must include pre-calculated fixed floor and ceiling prices. He shares the belief of Smith and Burke that it is best to trust that the market will locate the optimal price in its own time. "Possibly some people will be fearful and will cause others to feel the same, but after a few balancing movements, an equilibrium will be established between the market in Geneva and Carouge, and everyone will be peaceful."118 The preparation and application of a more sophisticated interventionist program would have required a higher level of statistical science and data availability than had been achieved in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Necker's advice proved to be unrealistic and impractical. Maistre instead recommends that the government rely on the market to provide the optimal equilibrium price and be prepared to maintain order until market forces have accomplished this. Reform in economic policy that is applied gradually - not with the revolutionary approach of the physiocrats nor with the unrealistic fixed price controls of Necker - is what is required. Maistre advises the government "to deal with the problem a little at a time, gradually there will be fewer shocks [challenges to the established order], there will be less with which to cope, and less inconvenience."119 Contraband and the accompanying corruption of government officials will decrease. Individuals who before were smuggling goods across the border will begin to work in the interest of the society instead of against it. He also discusses the contraband in grain that operates on the western frontier of Piedmont with France, and explains how it is impossible to stop it efficiently by maintaining an army at the border as has been customary, whereas well-guided market forces could do the work quite effectively. The citizens who previously worked in contraband will return much of the wheat to Savoy that under the previous trade policy would have escaped to France, as prices and stocks of the product are stabilized, and the psychological climate improves. A "sort of fraternity" will develop between the people of Geneva and those of Carouge, as they are natural co-operants, replacing the current "open warfare" as each has been blaming the other for their problems.120 The cost of administering and policing the tariff is barely worth the revenue obtained, and "the government forces, when no longer being needed on the border .

118 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 6. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid., 5.

164

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

with Geneva, could be better utilized in other ways along the border with Switzerland."121 Mirabeau had argued that the solution to the shortage of grain was, surprisingly, to lift all restrictions on the export of grain and to cease the intervention that the French government had practised in the past to prevent grain from leaving the province and the country. Necker and Linguet claimed that the physiocrats ignored valid reasons to limit the export of grain because they neglected the unique character of this subsistence commodity. Maistre takes a middle position between the standpoint of the physiocrats, who favour absolute freedom, and their opponents, Linguet and Necker, who favoured the retention of restrictions on the grain trade. Maistre, overall, is somewhat closer to the physiocrats. Although he favours the liberation of the export of grain, he differs from them because he insists that restrictions should be lifted gradually, with adequate attention to the particular circumstances and the effect of the changes on social stability. As he states in the general comment on physiocratic doctrine, Maistre genuinely admires their ideas, but their approach is too extreme. They had relied on exaggerations and over-generalizations to make their case. Their writings were dangerous because if policy-makers were to follow their advice, the resultant policies would be so drastic that considerable havoc and hardship could be caused. Maistre shares with Smith, Burke, and Montesquieu an enthusiasm for free trade and its economic, social, and political benefits. Unlike that of the physiocrats such as Mirabeau, Maistre's optimism is tempered by the realization that wealth would be even more unequally distributed among nations and among the people of each nation unless the government acts with care in implementing free trade. Necker and Linguet observed that the political institutions and the economic system tended to ignore the plight of the poor. Although this does not go unnoticed by Maistre, he does not arrive at their general conclusion that governments ought to build barriers at every precipice where it is possible that some individuals might go over. Maistre does not react as Bonald did when he perceived threats to social morals: build even thicker walls around each nation to prevent all international contact. Nor does Maistre condone despotic behaviour in international commerce, such as that of France under Colbert. Maistre's response to the problems presented by commerce differs as a whole from those of the other great thinkers considered in this chapter. 121 Ibid., 6.

On Commerce

165

Maistre's thought exemplifies how economic liberalism could accompany moderate political conservatism and not necessarily be associated with political liberalism. Economic liberalism is defined as the belief that the best way to promote economic development and general welfare is to remove the fetters of government regulation from private enterprises. Those who advocated more democratically elected representative government promoted political liberalism. Smith qualified as an economic liberal, since his aim was to enrich all of the people through free trade. With greater economic prosperity, more goods and services would be within the reach of the lower classes.122 He was also a political liberal in the sense that he admired the way in which the British parliamentary system combined monarchical and democratic elements. "The king had no power by which he could overawe either the people or Parliament" and "The Commons in a great measure managed all public affairs."123 One of Ronald's main criticisms of international trade was that commerce corrupts, but Smith countered this with the argument that new and even better virtues would develop out of a commercial society. Maistre would agree with Smith that morals could be improved through commerce, and economic output would be greater with a free market. Maistre's position did not coincide completely with Smith's liberal advocacy of the distribution of economic benefits through the trickle-down effect from the greater production of commodities. Moderately liberal in economic affairs, Maistre sought practical compromises that would ensure the survival of the conservative institutions and ways that he considered to be best. He held that government and business leaders must intervene directly in the economy to ensure that those in the lower classes receive a share of its output that would maintain their well-being. It could be assisted ceteris paribus, but not guaranteed merely by the operation of the "invisible hand." Maistre wanted to restrain a too common tendency of the powerful to oppress the weak and of the wealthy to take advantage of the poor. As well as the penetrating logic and philosophy of its dialogues, Soirees does contain passages that describe a world containing sights as strange as Dante's Inferno and as shocking as modern science-fiction, yet one should not leap to the erroneous conclusion that Maistre had given up hope because of the weakness of human nature or that he aimed to exacerbate the world's ills because he perceives and describes them. In contrast to Adam Smith, 122 Smith, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Moral and Political Philosophy, 215. 123 Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, vol. 5, Report dated 1766, part I, 421.

166

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre argued that the aristocracy could act as an effective intermediary between the king and the people and even defend their interests against an oppressive monarch. In the economic sphere, Maistre justified the need for more relief for the poor by appealing to noblesse oblige. Smith was perhaps not as optimistic as Maistre regarding the question of whether one could prevent the law of the jungle from prevailing in human society; for Smith power and competition were all important. Smith regularly took a Whig position that supported the new and growing power of business interests and democratically elected representative government that in his day represented mainly the wealthy, while further reducing the dwindling powers of the monarchy. He made no effort to reconcile the will of the people and the political participation of the hereditary aristocracy. "The nobility are the greatest opposers and oppressors of liberty that one can imagine. They hurt the liberty of the people even more than an absolute monarch."124 This probably referred especially to the Scottish warlords who, because they typically refused to improve the productivity of their estates and relied primarily on their status, inherited wealth, and military exploits, did not facilitate the economic freedom that might have resulted from more participation in the market. Smith thought that the people cannot rely on their aristocratic intermediaries; there must be a democratically elected representative government that reduces the powers of the monarchy. Maistre's position is that an elected representative government would be unattainable, but he does realize that any economic policy should take into account the needs of the people. The failed attempt to implement physiocratic doctrine illustrated how the political system imposed some constraints on what was feasible in the economic domain. The Maistrean way acknowledges all of this, is more moderate, and particularizes a problem in the process of seeking the solution. Peace was restored after the delivery of Maistre's report on the Genevan-Carouge area, until the invasion in 1792 by the French Revolutionary army. The Savoy Kingdom of Sardinia agreed in the Treaty of Turin in 1816 to cede Carouge to Geneva, as Savoy prepared, by divesting itself of its territories bordering France to obtain the cooperation of France and the Swiss, for its leadership in the Italian war of independence. Subsequently, the House of Savoy became the ruling monarchy of Italy. Carouge is today a prosperous suburb of the city of Geneva. At the geographic centre of Europe, Geneva-Carouge is home to international bodies related to the United Nations and head offices of multi-national corporations. The following lines from the conclusion of his report on 124 Ibid., vol. 4, Report dated 1762, part I, 81-2.

On Commerce

167

the problems at Carouge represent Maistre's approach: "presented humbly to Your Majesty ... in politics numerous things, essentially beneficial, may become harmful due to specific circumstances. Second, all sudden or too large changes are followed by undesirable consequences."125 Maistre recognizes that protectionist trade policy can only be reformed gradually, taking all of the factors and the effects of implementation into account as progress is made; but the ultimate goal should be to dismantle trade barriers, so that nations can enjoy the advantages of interdependence.

125 Maistre, "Memoire sur le commerce des grains," 7.

IV

The Balance of Power

WHEN MAISTRE ARRIVED in Russia in 1803, the Kingdom of Piedmont and Sardinia was struggling to survive as an independent state, since the French revolutionary army had taken Savoy and Nice in 1793. In 1798 the King of Piedmont, Carlo-Emanuele TV, was forced to relinquish to Bonaparte the remaining areas of Piedmont on the mainland. As a result, the Kingdom was diminished to only the island of Sardinia. The behaviour of the Russian government indicated that it valued the continued existence of the House of Savoy. Paul I, the previous Czar, was the only European sovereign who had attempted, during the Congress of Rastadt in 1797, to defend the interests of the King of Piedmont. Then in 1799 the Russian marshal Souvarov led into Italy the army of Cossacks and Russians that defeated the French Revolutionaries. Upon his entry into Turin, he had sought, in the name of the Czar, to re-establish the King of Piedmont on the mainland. After the battle of Marengo in 1800, where Napoleon's army defeated the Austrians, it was only under the diplomatic pressure of the Russian ambassador, the Count of Kalitscheff, that Bonaparte agreed to negotiate with the King of Piedmont.1 To foster the continued co-operation and assistance of Russia under the new Czar, Alexander I, Maistre was sent to Russia in 1803. Given this sequence of events, the King of Piedmont would have had more reason to hope for support from Russia than from the other great powers. Maistre's appointment to a diplomatic mission of such crucial importance to the very existence of the House of Savoy and the State of Piedmont indicates that he was highly regarded by his King and the Court for his knowledge and for his skill in diplomacy. Maistre's perspective on international relations was influenced by the fact that he represented the interests of a European state that was not a i Mandoul, Joseph de Maistre et la politique de la Maison de Savoie, 106.

The Balance of Power

16g

great power. Although such states did not have extensive territories or very large armies, they were important players in European politics and in the Russian court. The Polish army under Jan Sobieski, which defended Vienna when it was under siege by the Ottoman Turks, and the military leadership of Prince Eugene of Savoy, which was instrumental in not only decisively banishing the Turks from Europe in the early eighteenth century but also in expanding the empire of the Habsburgs from the Low Countries to the Balkans, are illustrations of the historically decisive contributions by smaller powers. As I show later, Maistre believed that the smaller powers contributed to European culture and society in many ways that would not have been possible for larger powers. All middle-sized powers, including Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain, had over two million people. At the end of the eighteenth century the population of the middle-sized power Piedmont was between three and four million, whereas one of the great powers, England, had between eight and nine million people, not including the population of Wales and Scotland. Although her population was less than the other great powers such as France, whose population was 29 million, England had the military capacity and influence of a larger country because of other attributes, such as her powerful navy. All of the other great powers of the time had over 20 million in population. Other characteristics could reduce the power and influence of a nation, even when its population was much greater; for example, the people of Spain or Poland were as numerous as those of England at this time, but they barely ranked as middle-sized powers. Poland, fragmented by religious rivalry between the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox elements, had been utterly defeated and then dominated by Russia and Austria. A multitude of even smaller nations existed in Europe, all under one million in population; for example, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, and Serbia. Most of them had come under the aegis of a larger power. Some of the diplomats of the most influential middle-sized powers were Maistre's most supportive allies. For example, Maistre considers the Ambassador of Sweden, Count Stedding, and the Ambassador of the Two Sicilies, Duca di Serra-Capriola, to be two of his closest friends. The influence of Serra-Capriola in Russian high society was considerable, because of his personal abilities and also because he had married Princess Wiazemsky, whose family was one of the most prominent in the Russian Empire. The French ambassador Caulincourt called this duke, "the boute-feu (instigator) of all coalitions."2 2 Ibid., 79.

170

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Diplomats of the middle-sized nations were pleading with the great powers other than France that they should join forces to offset the growing power of Napoleon. Napoleon's series of invasions had transformed most of the smaller nations from independent states into satellites of his empire, increasing both his economic power and the size of his armed forces with the forced contribution of their resources. Even larger nations such as Austria and Prussia had been forced or seduced into becoming Napoleon's allies. After the defeat of both Russia and Austria at Austerlitz in 1805, Prussia, which had been an ally of Napoleon, was defeated and most of the country was occupied by the French army. After continuing into Poland, Napoleon was challenged by the Russians, who were defeated at the battle of Friedland. They accepted peace with France, declared war on Great Britain, and agreed to close their ports to British shipping. The Napoleonic army then defeated Austria and the Habsburg emperor became Napoleon's ally after the latter married his daughter. In his Berlin decrees of 1806, Napoleon proclaimed French economic dominance over the whole of Europe. Napoleon was at the height of his domination of Europe. Of the great powers, Prussia was under French occupation and Austria had been coerced into alliance with Napoleon; only Great Britain, Sweden, and Russia remained independent states. In this chapter I examine correspondence and diplomatic memoirs that Maistre writes on behalf of his King to gain support for a coalition against Napoleon and for the restoration of the King of Piedmont to Turin, his capital city, as an independent ruler, not as a vassal of Napoleon. Maistre's abilities as a skilful diplomat contributed to the eventual creation of a coalition against Napoleon led by Russia and to the restoration of the Kingdom of Piedmont. For example, in 1806 Maistre learns through his contacts at the court of St Petersburg that the Kingdom of Piedmont had not been discussed in the negotiations for the signing of a peace treaty between France and Russia. Maistre immediately sends letters, notes, and memoirs to the Russian minister of foreign affairs, de Soltikoff, and to the Chancellor, de Budberg, reminding them of the importance of the Kingdom of Piedmont for Russia and the rest of Europe. "Thanks, again, to the animated eloquence of J. de Maistre, the House of Savoy escaped from almost complete abandonment."3 Maistre's diplomatic writings are as valuable for their theoretical analysis as for their historical significance. The analysis in this chapter differs from previous studies on Maistre's contribution to the diplomacy of the Napoleonic period in Europe, such as J. Mandoul's, because its approach 3 Ibid., 129.

The Balance of Power

171

includes a theoretical element. It places Maistre's thought within the tradition of realism in international relations. Maistre uses discourse and ideas on international relations typical of those in the writings of other thinkers and diplomats during the eighteenth century, such as Viscount Henry St John Bolingbroke, Francois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fenelon, David Hume, Charles Davenant, Edmund Burke, and Friedrich von Gentz. The principle of the balance of power appears so frequently in the writings on foreign relations and in the strategies of policy-makers during this period that scholars have called the eighteenth century "the golden age of the balance of power."4 Throughout his writings on diplomacy, Maistre uses the balance of power as the primary principle in the basis for his theory of international relations and in his recommendations to the King of Piedmont regarding foreign affairs. The exponents of realism were defenders of the balance of power. The first section of this chapter discusses the main characteristics of realism and shows how Maistre's arguments coincide with this view of international relations. The second section shows that Maistre was as much an opponent of despotism at the international level as previous chapters have shown that he was at the national level. This motivates his support for a defensive alliance among the great European powers and also locally within certain regions of Europe such as the area between the Tyrrhenian Sea and Switzerland, where the Kingdom of Piedmont was situated. The third section examines another reason why Maistre frequently uses the idea of the balance of power. One of the advantages of a balance of power is that it allows middle-sized and smaller nations to survive, in this way preserving cultural diversity within international society. It also recognizes that, despite their more limited military capabilities, smaller powers play an important role in the preservation of the order and stability within the Westphalian state-system. None of these ideas conflicts with, on the contrary they support, Maistre's more immediate point of view and his practical duty to defend the interests of his King. 1. MAISTRE ON I N T E R N A T I O N A L RELATIONS: AN E X P O N E N T OF REALISM

This section identifies the theoretical framework underlying Maistre's view of international politics. It shows that his assumptions about human nature, the nature of international society, and the role of power and diplomacy were the same as those of theorists within the school of international relations known as realism. The writings of Thomas Hobbes are 4 Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 183.

172

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

often used as an example of this school. The Hobbesian and the Maistrean views of international relations have similarities, but Maistre was more optimistic than Hobbes. Although he agrees with Hobbes that states act out of self-interest, he considers that a balance of power among states moderates power and provides the possibility that international relations do not inevitably result in a state of war and anarchy. Realism uses a concrete and factual method in the study of international politics. Theory should always be anchored in what already exists and in what could possibly exist given the particular circumstances. Maistre criticizes the French revolutionaries for basing domestic policy on abstract ideas created out of pure idealism and speculation. One must avoid "those aerial systems founded uniquely on what is called reason, and that is, however, only reasoning. Again, man needs prejudices, practical rules, and sensible, material, palpable ideas."5 Maistre did not oppose the idea of writing a constitution, only the claim that by writing a constitution one would promote liberty. The seeds of liberty exist in the natural unwritten constitution, in the culture and mores of the nation. It is the work of an infinite number of circumstances and not made a priori.6 Maistre greatly admires English institutions, but is careful when making comparisons, as he recognizes that they are not always compatible with the culture, the size of the population, and land area of a country such as Piedmont or France. He mentions that "no one esteems and respects more the illustrious English nation ... However, it is precisely for this reason that I would never advise its constitution to a continental nation three times more numerous."7 Twentieth-century demographic research suggests that Maistre came close to estimating correctly the ratio of the population of England to that of France. England's population in 1801 has been estimated to be 8.6 million.8 The population of England, Wales, and Scotland in 1801 was 10.88 million.9 The population of France at that time was 29 million.10 Maistre uses the term politique experimentale to highlight what is needed to assure concreteness and specificity when designing policy, whether domestic or foreign. The method used to study the political system should be circumscribed in reality by history, the realities of consti5 Maistre, "Quatrieme lettre d'un royaliste savoisien," oc, vol. VII, 166. 6 Maistre, "Essai sur le principe generateur," oc, vol. I, 246. 7 Maistre, "De la republique frangaise et de ses legislateurs," oc, vol. I, 21314. 8 Wrigley and Schofield, The Population History of England, 577.

9 Woods, "Population Growth and Economic Change," 137. i o Paquier, La Population franfaise aux XVIF et XWIF siecles, 81.

The Balance of Power

173

tutional law, and the needs of human beings. When Maistre had used the expression in Essai sur le principe generateur, he had drawn on examples from political economy to show that experience contradicts even theories that appear the most probable. For example, some economic theorists predict "that to sustain an exchange favourable to the nation, one needs to prevent the flow of specie out of the country, but experience shows that this will only lead to deflation and to an increase in the debt of the nation."11 Deflation results because, as more money value becomes available through the accumulation of specie, not offset by greater availability of goods, the buying power of a given unit of money diminishes. The debt of the nation increases since, if specie cannot be used to pay for imports, the latter have to be purchased on credit. He concludes that public policy must closely follow experience. Maistre is applying the same method, his politique experimental^, to international politics when he states that the traditional policy of the House of Savoy, to side with neither France nor Austria, is the product of the geography of the region that contains the three countries. It is true that this moral and political system of balancing between the two powers had prevented die territory of the House of Savoy from expanding, since neither great power wanted the Kingdom of Piedmont to become larger, as its rulers could potentially side at any time with either of these two greatpower rivals. However, the system did not create this situation; on the contrary, this situation produced the system.12 That is, the House of Savoy balanced between France and Austria, because to side with one or the other would probably lead to its territories being devoured by one or the other, or being torn apart and shared between them. Realism places importance on interest defined in terms of power. Knowing the intentions of political actors is not as valuable as knowledge of their interests and power, because the latter determine what possible alternative actions states can take. Maistre, in several of his memoirs, considers the interests of the King of Piedmont. For example, in one memorandum he poses the question: what is the clear, evident, and incontestable interest of the House of Savoy? "It is to prevent France and Austria from touching it, each from their own side."13 That is, neither the territory of France nor the territory of Austria should become contiguous to the political unit within the state ruled by the 11 Maistre, "Essai sur le principe generateur," 227. 12 Maistre, "Lettre a Monsieur le Chevalier," 13 fevrier 1807, Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de Chambery, Memoires, notes et relations, 208. 13 Maistre, "Memoire sur la situation et les interets de S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne a cette epoque," 15 decembre 1812, oc, vol. XII, 323.

174

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

House of Savoy where its capital city is located. Maistre is advising his sovereign of the various possibilities that might present themselves after the expected defeat of Napoleonic France and the negotiations by the European powers in the aftermath. For example, Genoa had long been under Piedmontese rule while Milan was an Austrian duchy and he fears that Austria will attempt to put Milan and Genoa under her control, while France might ask for the northern part of Piedmont, which is like a citadel overlooking France, thus protecting her eastern flanks; this would leave the House of Savoy ruling from Piedmont only the difficult-to-defend, although fertile, southern plains. He speculates that even trading a part of Piedmont for Venice and moving the Royal House of Savoy to become the ruler of that maritime city-state might be a better alternative to such a desperate situation, wherein the monarchy would find itself being simultaneously squeezed by both France and Austria. He recommends that the King must be ready to do what is necessary, but preferably must strive to regain the position that existed before the invasion by Napoleon's army. Turin, in the highlands of Piedmont, is protected on all sides: the Alps at its back and buffer regions on the other approaches. This location provided the time to prepare to repel the rapid advance of an invader, such as one coming from France, which Piedmont had experienced several times before. As did Thomas Hobbes, Maistre considers that in addition to the self-interest and power of human beings, their insatiable desire for more power and their tendency to be vain are also a cause of conflict and a threat to society. Government is not a matter of choice but of need, because of this aggressive human nature. "Hobbes was perfectly right... society is really a state of war. We find here the necessity for government... It is necessary that when several want the same thing a power superior to the claimants judges the matter and prevents them from fighting." Maistre points out that domestic society is still "a potential field of battle." The constant vigilance of the magistrates prevents conflict from occurring because they punish those individuals that violate the laws of the sovereign and such punishments regularly applied deter others who might be contemplating criminal acts. When a government collapses and the magistrates can no longer enforce the law, the nation "quickly falls into the state of war" and is "tormented by a deluge of crimes." Maistre concludes that the necessity for government is the result of the nature of things: "it is impossible that man be what he is and that he not be governed, for a being both social and evil he [she] must be under the yoke."14 14 Maistre, "Examen d'un ecrit de J.-J. Rousseau," oc, vol. VII, 563.

The Balance of Power

175

Maistre and Hobbes founded their approach to international relations on the same view of human nature. Hobbes had to escape to France in 1640 and remained there eleven years, while King Charles I was beheaded and England was in the throes of a civil war between the Cavaliers and Roundheads. The last chapter of Maistre's Considerations discusses this turbulent period in English history. Recognizing as both Hobbs and Maistre did that human beings are far from always behaving in a virtuous manner is not what some have called "a dark dimension" of the thought of these philosophers; it is a realistic perception of human nature. However, they did not move from that realization to similar positions regarding the balance of power that is being considered in this section. Because humans do not want to be restrained in any manner, have insatiable appetites for more power and material goods, and are motivated mainly by what furthers their own interests, enmity is unavoidable among nations. "It is an uncomfortable truth; but it is a truth: that nations do not like each other. But did I say nations! It is men who do not like each other."15 Conflict rather than co-operation is commonplace because human beings have faults and vices. The main interest of both states and individuals is to enhance their power relative to others and to increase their material wealth. According to Hobbes, one of the causes of conflict among individuals is the scarcity of material wealth. "If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they ... endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another."16 Similarly, a state could claim to be sole owner of a certain area adjacent to its territory so that it can access the material wealth of that territory, while other neighbouring states could make a similar claim. The government intervenes in conflicts between individuals or groups within a country and either agreement is reached by negotiation or the courts penalize the wrongdoer. Unlike in domestic politics, in international politics there is no impartial arbitrator who could ensure that a just settlement would be reached when a conflict occurs and who would be able to prevent rivalry from escalating into a war. To survive, a state has to rely solely on its own resources to repel invasions. In this environment, where the threat of war and death is constant, the struggle for survival takes priority over principled actions. "The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place ... Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues."17 Likewise, 15 Maistre, "Lettre a M. 1'Amiral Tchitchagof, dissertation sur le mot: patrie," oc, vol. XI, 481. 16 Hobbes, Leviathan, 184. 17 Ibid., 188.

176

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

in the precontractual state of nature, the lives of human beings were "poor, nasty, brutish and short."18 They were often oversensitive to criticism from others because they feared that it would diminish others' respect for them. Similarly, leaders of states are also sensitive to the respect given to their state by the ruling elites of other countries. This desire to enhance their reputation and the reputation of their state motivates them to struggle for military pre-eminence, through the domination of other smaller states and through taking by force the material wealth and territory of other states. Apart from the pride that motivates men to go to war for their country, insecurity and uncertainty about the survival of the state are also present in an international system that lacks a world government. It is important to point out that Hobbes was not claiming that states are always at war, only that they are constantly preparing for war. Hobbes makes this clear: "The nature of war consists not in the actual fighting but in the known disposition thereto, and during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary."19 When states adopt "the postures of gladiators, having their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed upon one another," they actually render conflict and war more probable for two reasons.20 States become more distrustful of other states as they grow fearful for their own independence and existence. The increased lack of trust makes it more difficult to agree to end the conflict. Hobbes also considered that diffidence is a principal cause of conflict.21 A second reason that causes conflict to escalate is what international relations scholars have called the security dilemma. Defensive measures taken by one state are misperceived by other states as offensive manoeuvres, increasing their feelings of insecurity and leading them to increase their own military expenditures. Maistre compares humans to hot-air balloons and maintains that pride and emotions can function as a motivation towards good and great accomplishments or towards the reverse. This metaphor occurs to him because of his experience when his younger brother Xavier de Maistre obtained permission from the King of Piedmont to pilot a hotair balloon in the first flight over the mountainous territory of Savoy and asked Joseph to assist him to organize the flight. Joseph de Maistre consults a physicist on the technical details and arranges financing for the project. On 6 May 1784, Xavier de Maistre and a friend, Louis Brun, 18 Ibid., 186. 19 Ibid., 186. 20 Ibid., 187. 21 Ibid., 185.

The Balance of Power

177

travelled above Savoy in the hot-air balloon for twenty-five minutes. Both were army cadets on leave and neither had flown before. Xavier de Maistre, a poet, had accomplished his goal to emulate the clouds and to make Piedmont one of the first states to have such a flight take place within its borders. The first flight of a hot-air balloon had been achieved only a year earlier, in June 1783, by the Montgolfier brothers in France. Elevation was achieved and maintained by burning bales of hay on board, and there was little control as to where the balloon might go in its flight.22 Maistre reflects, "Man by himself is nothing. He is nothing more than a hot-air balloon, a huge silken bag, whose greatness, beauty, and power depend only on the gas that fills it. In human beings this gas is composed of religion, liberty, pride, and anger."23 This reflection vouches for the great value Maistre places on liberty, contrary to the opinions of some of his critics, as he writes that liberty is a sine qua non to a human being's greatness, beauty, and power. Another illustration of his belief that moral sentiments inflame man's natural strengths is his explanation of Napoleon's ability to stimulate the spirit of his soldiers by appealing to their feelings, despite much talk of his military genius. It was perhaps the most important of the forces that enabled them to achieve what to others appeared impossible. Critics have argued that Maistre's belief in the wickedness of man and the necessity of conflict, bloodshed, and war made him a CounterEnlightenment thinker and formed part of the credo of fascism. "His realism takes violent, rabid, obsessed, savagely limited forms, but it is realism nevertheless."24 Maistre is an unyielding adversary of the simplistic view of life promoted by the philosophers of the Enlightenment. He declares: do we see "The spectacle of harmonious self-fulfilment of the optimistic rationalist, the marquis de Condorcet? The very opposite: that nature turns out to be red in tooth and claw." The bloody civil wars in England, which Hobbes suffered, and its participation in international military violence are not taken into account when historians attempt to distance Maistre from his moderate conservative contemporaries, such as Edmund Burke. "His [Maistre's] violent preoccupation with blood and death belongs to a different world from the rich and tranquil England of Burke's imagination."25 Maistre's critics ignore that, like him, Burke made every effort to minimize the evil, but he was very much aware of shortcomings in the 2 2 Descostes, Joseph de Maistre avant la Revolution, vol. 1,125-69. 23 Maistre, "Reflexions sur le moment," avril 1815, Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de Savoie, 59. 24 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 109, 115, 167. 25 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 111-12.

178

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

nature of human beings and of violence in the world: "As to war, if it be the means of wrong and violence, it is the sole means of justice amongst nations. Nothing can banish it from the world."26 Emile Cioran called Maistre the "apologist of war," perhaps because Maistre lists as one of the explanations for war the possibility that God may have ordained it.27 He also claimed that the dark and violent passages in Soirees justify calling him a monster who does not belong in the same group of conservative thinkers as Bonald.28 Commentators claim that the deeply pessimistic vision of Maistre's writing anticipates nineteenth-century thinkers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, and twentieth-century totalitarianism.29 Cioran states that Maistre's terrible vision resembles passages from the Old Testament. "His affinities with the spirit of the Old Testament were so profound, that his Catholicism appears, can one say, Judaic."30 That Maistre's vision is bad and wickedly modern and that it may have derived from reading the ancient, highly respected book that formed the basis for the JudaicChristian tradition appears contradictory. Others have used similar ideas to those in Maistre's Soirees when they wanted to explain the need for religion. "He respected ... religious feeling ... precisely because it taught men the limits of their reason ... Berlin observed: 'it [religion] is transcendent, absolute, orders things which, in human terms, may be horrifying (as so often in the more blood-shedding exploits in the OT [Old Testament]) but are the essence of a truly religious attitude'."31 Maistre too understands that much of what he is depicting is not explicable by pure reason: how men abnegate and immolate themselves to advance a cause, and the pain, injustice, and unhappiness that is so common in the world. Therefore, he uses the irrational, the emotional, and the metaphysical to provide an explanation, to induce his readers to think about the problems and contribute to solutions. Maistre is an expert storyteller who knows how to maintain a serious mien when he is telling a joke and speaks with conviction even when he and his readers know that he is exaggerating beyond belief. He believes that once he has begun to consider a question, he should pursue the answer until he can explain it to others, and that he should not be deterred 26 27 28 29 30 31

294-

Burke, "Letters on a Regicide Peace," 525. Cioran, Essai sur la pensee reactionnaire, 10. Ibid. Cioran, 9; and Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 127. Cioran, 41. Berlin to Oppenheimer, 13 October 1981, in Ignatieff, Isaiah Berlin: A Life,

The Balance of Power

179

by the fear of not appearing to be within the acceptable norm for seekers of the truth. Because his writing is so direct, without subterfuge, and with vivid, powerful exposition, he has been erroneously accused of promoting bloodshed even to the point of sadism. Richard Lebrun has pointed out "Maistre quite consciously used literary artifice to challenge the assumptions of the age. To a friend who questioned provocative passages in one of his works, he replied: 'In all these questions, I have two ambitions. The first, would you believe it? It is not to be right, it is to force the kind reader to know what he believes.'"32 His style brings to mind Socrates, who annoyed his listeners so much that he was sentenced to death to silence him. Socrates also questioned whether people truly knew what they were talking about. Maistre carries over the idea of expiation of sins from Soirees to Considerations, but this idea is in keeping with Berlin's own belief, as shown above, that it is not only normal but also salutary for the mental and moral well-being of the species that humankind should turn to the metaphysical world for answers to questions that reason cannot fathom. Fuel for an inflammatory view arose from the seventh dialogue in Soirees, but commentators have misinterpreted Maistre's intentions there. He is not romanticizing or apologizing for war; he is only describing and attempting to explain a phenomenon that cannot be rationalized. Instead of reading and considering his complete argument and its possible motives, some have jumped to conclusions and argued that if Maistre says God ordained it then he is excusing and promoting war. The God orientation is only one possible explanation for war and Maistre hopes that it will not be without at least one good consequence, that is, to prevent human beings in the next generation from contributing to the causes that have led to war. One of the characters, the Senator, observes in Soirees that, while man had succeeded in escaping the state of conflict at the domestic level by establishing a government to police it, the nations of Europe have failed to create a society of nations at the international level to end wars among them. Maistre concludes, since reason cannot explain such a calamity, it must be ordained by God. "War is, therefore, divine in itself [that is, not wonderful, but ordained by the Almighty; the alternative would be to use the secular idiom and say that war is part of Nature], since it is a law of the world." One does not call irrational the multitude of men who from the beginning of time have said of something that cannot be explained by human reasoning that it must be a creation of the Almighty. The metaphysical explanation that Maistre gives for war is most apparent in the passage where he refers to "this exterminating angel that revolves like a sun 32 Lebrun, "Introduction" to St Petersburg Dialogues, xx.

18o

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

around this unhappy globe," that "hits in the same instant all the peoples of the earth; at other times minister of certain precise and infallible vengeance, he goes unrelentingly at certain nations and soaks them in blood." Maistre wonders whether one can attribute all this bloodshed and violence to the fact that God is punishing humanity for their sins. This is not a surprising argument coming from Maistre since, as discussed in section 4 of chapter I, he explains the execution of criminals in terms of the expiation of their sins. "As long as there remains some blood, they [the most guilty] will come to offer it; and soon the few remaining young people will be listening to stories of those saddening wars produced by the crimes of their fathers."33 Maistre had also read Plato's theory. "Plato (Plat. Gorgias, Opp. T. VI, 156) ... said a frightful thing ... but it may be the truth. Centuries may pass between a meritorious act and its recompense, as between a crime and its punishment... even the King ... if he is guilty of a crime will receive his just deserts ... judged and punished."34 The Revolution had a useful purpose; its violent acts on guilty and innocent alike had a purging redemptive force and even the monarch does not escape it. Statements such as this are testimony of Maistre's optimism, since the Revolution, too, is for him not a completely negative phenomenon. In a chapter in Considerations devoted to a discussion of war, Maistre argues that war is a habitual state of humankind, as there is always war in some place in the world. Maistre provides the same explanation there for war that he used in Soirees. "When the human spirit has lost its resilience through laziness, disbelief, gangrenous vices that follow from the excesses of civilisation, it can only be re-immersed in blood."35 Fatalistic views such as this made Maistre an extremist in the minds of Cioran and others.36 Cioran points to one of the concluding statements in that chapter of Considerations, which highlights Maistre's dark explanation of happenings in the world: "There is only violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by modern philosophy that states all is good, while evil has blackened everything, and in the very true sense, all is bad, since nothing is in its place."37 Stephen Holmes's impression from the vivid pictures of killing and bloodshed in Maistre's discussion of war and capital punishment is that he is in a "frenzy" or "delirium" and "discloses a strain of near-dementia 33 34 35 36 37

Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 13,26. Maistre, oc, vol. V, 168. Maistre, "Considerations," 28, 35. Cioran, 15. Maistre, "Considerations," 39.

The Balance of Power

181

in his works."38 Holmes wrote that Maistre saw a beneficial effect "from war in the way it weeds out the weak from the strong." However, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Maistre is emotionally involved with his writings or "nearly" insane and that he sees war as contributing to the survival and evolution of the fittest. On the contrary, his writings clearly show that he is a very logical person who is analysing the world around him as only an objective observer and a scientist would. He is in the good company of many men and women who throughout human history have also turned to the metaphysical for answers when the physical world could not supply them. Would one be justified in saying that the political economist Malthus was probably in a frenzy of near dementia because he wrote as vividly as Maistre about war? War is a positive check on population growth that constantly exceeds growth of the means of subsistence. "Necessity that impervious all pervading law of nature restrains them ... The race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice."39 One should not leap to the erroneous conclusion that because he perceives the negative side of human nature and describes the world's problems, Maistre had given up hope or for some occult reason aims to exacerbate these problems. Maistre is actually more optimistic than many other important thinkers regarding the possibility of curing some of the world's ills; for example, the profound fatalistic pessimism of Malthus is not completely shared by Maistre. As indicated in chapter III, Maistre writes of the need for more relief for the poor, while Adam Smith accepted that the law of the jungle would prevail in the economy. Chapter I shows that Maistre is optimistic that his socio-political system of intermediaries would counteract the undesirable effect on government of the shortcomings of human nature. In chapter III he advises his King that patience and perseverance in applying free trade in grain would bring to an end the rebellions in Carouge, despite the extremely self-interested protagonists and the threat of a repetition of international conflict among the protagonists. He even believes it would be possible that the Protestant religions could come together under the leadership of the Anglican Church and co-operate with the Catholics, despite the natural tendencies to remain divided because of established religious vested interests as well as particular political and economic reasons. He does not despair that, if his hopes would not materialize, religion would be less effective in the role that he attributes to it as a counterbalancing force against despotism. 38 Holmes, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism, 31. 39 Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 20, 44.

182

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

If one must judge Maistre at fault, perhaps he errs on the side of too much optimism. One could construe that some of the antidotes and prescriptions he prescribes are not usable because some humans are even more foolish and evil than he supposed. When Maistre wrote his "notorious passages" and his "infamous descriptions" on bloodshed, war, and death, he was attempting to inject some realism into intellectual discussions, while the philosophy that dominated French society promoted a simplistic and idealized view of life. How could one deal with the problems of contemporary society in Maistre's day if one were to ignore the frequency of war and suffering in the world? Most scientists would confirm that natural life on earth, including human life, is often ordered in relations of predator and prey, parasite and host. Maistre wants to remind the public that man has the potential to do harm even to his own kind and to himself. Gifted with the ability to present a vivid picture in words, he makes the vision come alive with shattering impact. "There is not an instant of its duration where a living thing is not devoured by another ... The entire earth, continually steeped in blood, is only an immense altar on which every living thing must be immolated without end."40 Some critics of his published works erroneously interpreted these images as evidence of a warped mind preoccupied with the gore and violence that it had witnessed, and felt that Maistre is pessimistically concluding that nothing could be done to achieve peace and prosperity in a world inhabited by creatures such as he depicted. Because Maistre's writing is so direct, without subterfuge, and with vivid powerful exposition, he has been erroneously associated with the bloodshed and evil that he describes. However, nowhere in his work does one perceive him delighting in seeing individuals suffering or being killed. Stephen Holmes correctly concludes "What fascinates Maistre are not the hewn-off limbs, the smashed skulls, or the moans of agony, but the ultimate unintelligibility of war from a rationalist point of view."41 Maistre is not glorifying war or speaking as a madman; he is exasperated and simply trying to understand its prevalence and what need in man it might satisfy, when reasoning does not provide the answers. As spectators of these great human calamities, Maistre states "we must not lose courage: there is no punishment that does not purify; there is no disorder that Eternal Love has not turned against the principle of evil." Maistre admits that his explanation for such human calamities as war are conjectures, but he hopes that they are consoling and it might be 40 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 22, 25. 41 Holmes, 30.

The Balance of Power

183

possible to make them serve to improve the behaviour of humans beings, if people are made to understand that, for example, war is a retribution for evil doing.42 Commentators have not understood that the experience of war during the Revolution and the Napoleonic years would lead Maistre to reject the view of the Enlightenment that social life mirrored the spontaneous harmony of the natural world. Maistre rejects the Enlightenment ideal of "eternal harmony and eternal peace" that had been "founded on the common interests and the natural goodness of man." For him, conflict and suffering were the "normal condition of fallen man and the nations to which he belonged."43 Why would one be surprised that Maistre and Hobbes both were less than pleased with the spectacle of stupidity, selfishness, and cupidity that the world's experience with human nature presented, and that they were very aware that man had the potential to do harm. Owen Bradley, referring to Maistre's writings on politics and religion, has argued that Maistre's "lifelong interest in violence and irrationality" made him adamant "to defend every limit against the spread of that darkness."44 Maistre is cognizant that the natural state of the universe is chaos and that human beings must constantly be on guard to maintain order. This is similar to the Augustinian view that the world and man are evil and need to be renewed. It is one of the factors that led Maistre to support a monarchical government. In his diplomatic writings, despite recognition of human weakness, Maistre does not come to the same pessimistic conclusion that limited Hobbes's theory - that the state of war cannot be avoided in international politics. Hobbes witnessed precarious order within a nation break down, leading to civil war in seventeenth-century England. He realized that in domestic society there is normally no state of war, since those who intend to take by force what is not legitimately their own face sufficient opposition and punishment by the state if they attempt to act unjustly. Hobbes did not discuss a way to apply the same principle to interstate relations. Unlike Nietzsche, Maistre does not propose that society should encourage or act to perpetuate this kind of exploitative relationship between human beings. Although there is no Leviathan in international society, Maistre observes that it is still possible to create a countervailing force that would sufficiently deter those states that might otherwise attempt to invade other states.

42 Maistre, "Considerations," 39-40. 43 Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," 109. 44 Bradley, A Modern Maistre, xvi.

184

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

It follows from Maistre's view that human nature is far from perfect that his solution would be based on creating a force strong enough to deter aggression; he did not appeal to human goodness or rational compromise on the part of potential combatants. Hugo Grotius was one contributor to international relations theory who appealed to the universal characteristics of human nature, such as the faculties of reason, when claiming that cultural divisions could be superseded and a common set of laws could be observed.45 Unlike Grotius, Maistre is not a rationalist. Maistre concurs with Hobbes that individuals most often act on the basis of their desires and passions, not their reason. While Maistre and Grotius both note the propensity of human beings for sociability, Maistre realizes that humans also tend to be aggressive and to consider only their own interests. It would be na'ive to claim that the common good could prevail without also appealing to self-interest. While for Grotius international law was a source of norms of behaviour, and rulers could appeal to the universal moral imperatives, which originated in Natural Law, for Maistre there is no entity beyond the state capable of enforcing a moralizing influence. Internationally, justice is defined by raison d'etat (reason of state) and by what is practical and prudent in terms of self-preservation and self-interest. Maistre's theory of international relations has little in common with the Grotian conception. In his treatise Dejure belli ac pads (On the Law of War and Peace), Grotius constructed an exhaustive set of principles and rules to regulate interaction between states. A state would be part of a society of states wherein they all accepted these laws as binding.46 Grotius' work established international law as an independent discipline. Despite Maistre's legal background, his writings show no preoccupation with rules or legal institutions to arbitrate conflicts between states. As an ambassador, Maistre's emphasis is on negotiation that appeals to self-interest and advantage rather than right and obligation. Just as Maistre holds little regard for the importance of written constitutions, he would also criticize the formality of treaties and compacts. Such legal institutions would not coincide with his method of politique experimentale, which ensures the concreteness and specificity of policy. Maistre believes that in the same way that the seeds of liberty exist in the natural unwritten constitution, peaceful relations among states originate in the innumerable circumstances and ongoing interaction among officials like himself, rulers, and the common people; they are not made a priori. 45 Grotius, "Prolegomena," Dejure belli acpacis, 45. 46 Ibid., 48.

The Balance of Power

185

Maistre would also question the feasibility of the Grotian project on other grounds. For states to achieve some consensus on a set of laws, they would need a sufficient number of common characteristics. Maistre was impressed by the diversity of European nation-states, despite the fact that the monarchical governments ruling most of them were similar. Being a representative of a middle-sized state, Maistre fears the idea of a commonwealth of Europe, since he anticipates that this would result in cultural and political domination by the most powerful in the union, such as France or Austria. As indicated in section 3 of chapter IV, Maistre has a pronounced contextualist approach to the study of human nature. He places more emphasis than even Montesquieu on physical and cultural factors as determining causes of the character of a people and even of their institutions themselves. Maistre would judge Grotius's work in international law as he judges the constitution of the revolutionaries: abstract ideas created out of pure idealism and speculation. The European state system is dynamic. A particular configuration that achieves a balance of power is only a temporary arrangement, because factors such as the relative power of each state change constantly (as noted earlier of Poland and Spain in the eighteenth century), just as, at the domestic level, the constitution of a particular nation changes over time. Although both use the expression "society of states," Maistre uses it a differently from Grotius. For Grotius, the society of states was orchestrated through a single and deliberate written agreement among states, whereas for Maistre the society of states is an organic entity that develops over many centuries and is constantly changing over time. Nature and the Creator set the laws, and individuals must operate in accordance with them whether they are kings or just individuals. This coincides with the idea that the balance of power is self-equilibrating and that when change is desired it must be carefully done; otherwise, the whole system of weights and counterweights might be upset. Maistre stresses that even very small states, which appear to be unimportant to the balance of power, can be very important because of their geographic location and other peculiar characteristics. A countervailing force might be created by states forming an alliance that threatens to attack should an aggressor state target one of the states in their alliance. If the potentially aggressive state were to realize that the harm inflicted upon it would outweigh the benefits from acquiring the target state, it would probably decide to relinquish its idea of invasion. A balance of power is a state of mutual deterrence, where "either party in a conflict fears that military action will prove abortive or unleash a war whose costs exceed the gains of eventual victory."47 A threat 47 Malnes, The Hobbesian Theory of International Conflict, 81.

186

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

of counterattack may not be a sufficient deterrent in some cases. The more capable and intent on opposing aggression power are the parties to the alliance, the more credible the threat. Severe punishment by a group of states may be the only way of deterring an excessively determined aggressor. Maistre does state in Soirees that it might be difficult to achieve such coalitions because the natural tendency of the universe is towards chaos and conflict. "There are all kinds of unanticipated circumstances that can destabilize the equilibrium and abort or prevent the success of the greatest projects, in spite of all the calculations of human prudence."48 Maistre decries the fact that the great powers, such as Austria, too easily gave in to Napoleon's demands instead of forming an alliance that would pose a credible opposition. He writes in one diplomatic memoir, "if Russia, England, Sweden, Turkey, and Prussia would come together, they would still give enough trouble to Napoleon, to the point that one single battle lost might defeat him."49 On the other hand, Maistre still thinks it would be possible to achieve peace and prevent an aggressor such as Napoleonic France from dominating all of Europe by using existing resources and factors to resolve the immediate problem, without expecting to create a perfect world immediately. Realism values pragmatism. It recognizes that to improve this world one must understand that "moral principles can never be fully realized, but must at best be approximated, through the ever temporary balancing of interests and the ever precarious settlements of conflicts [as they present themselves]."50 Commentators remark on the change in the way foreign affairs are discussed after the Treaty of Westphalia. A "spirit of righteousness" was replaced by a "more flexible vocabulary of calculation."51 Wars were no longer attributed to disputes on religious matters, as during the Reformation, but were openly acknowledged to be centred on the desire of the rulers to expand the territory of the state. A larger territory was considered an asset, since it enhanced state revenue and increased the population, thereby enlarging the size of the army. Also, extending borders was desirable as it created buffer states that must be crossed by an invader before it could hit at the home base of the state. The term raison d 'etat captures this shift from rationalizing foreign policy in terms of principles beyond state interest, such as Christian values, to 48 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 30. 49 Maistre, "Lettre au roi Victor-Emmanuel," 2 fevrier 1812, oc, vol. XII, 82. 50 Morgenthau, 3. 51 Keens-Soper, "The Practice of a States-System," 31.

The Balance of Power

187

arguments based exclusively on the necessity of furthering state survival.52 This does not mean that Maistre excludes intervention in the form of advice or moral suasion by the Pope or other religious leaders. Although the Papacy was no longer in his day an important military power he believes that even purely non-military suasion could influence political events. Maistre advises his King that he should be careful in his policies towards Austria, given the open unwillingness of Austria to assist in the restoration of the House of Savoy to Turin, although the King is married to a member of the House of Austria. Austria probably entertained long-term plans for complete conquest of the Italian states and, accurately, as later events were to prove when Piedmont led the unification of Italy, considered Piedmont to be an important obstacle. "Raison d'etat always looks in front and never to the side: it acts without princes and in spite of princes. Anyhow, it is immortal, while affections are a passing fancy."53 The idea that states operate primarily to further their own self-interest, contained within the concept of raison d 'etat, was the primary constant element in the eighteenth- century studies on the balance of power. Despite their support for the idea of a balance of power, writers such as Friedrich von Gentz and Antoine Pecquet recognized that it would be difficult to make exact comparisons of power in the international system. Gentz was a German diplomat who later acted as an adviser to Metternich during the famous Congress of Vienna. He argued that it might be better to consider the balance of power as a system of counterpoise, "not so much a perfect equipoise, as a constant alternate vacillation in the scales of the balance that, from the application of counterweights, is prevented from ever passing certain limits."54 The balance of power is constantly changing because it contains both objective and subjective factors. Subjective factors include the morale of the state's citizenry and army. Louis XVIII had placed most of his hopes on the uprisings of peasants in Bretagne, Poitou, and Anjou, also called les guerres de la Vendee after the inaccessible marshes where the peasants found refuge. The comte d'Artois, supporter of the court in exile, planned to lead an army of emigres from Savoy into France. He did not succeed. Unlike the emigre princes, Maistre believes that counterpropaganda is needed and he composes several works for the royalist cause. One cannot rely on the strength of a coalition of European monarchical powers and force alone. Attempts to immolate the revolutionaries 52 McKay and Scott, The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815, 210. 53 Maistre, "Memoire sur la situation et les interets de S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne a cette epoque," 15 (27) decembre 1812, oc, vol. XII, 328. 54 Gentz, Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe, 63.

188

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

would be pointless if their opinions were to continue to circulate among the mass of citizens. The ideas of the revolutionaries had perverted the masses to the point that it was impossible to govern under a monarchy without changing public opinion. Maistre is disturbed when he contemplates the irreparable damage done to public opinion in France. "It only takes a few years to heal all that [physical destruction caused by revolutionary ideas being put into practice]; but public.spirit annihilated, opinion vitiated to a frightening degree!"55 Later, when Bonaparte came to power, Maistre argued again that public opinion must change if restoration of the Bourbons is to take place. The admiration and devotion for Bonaparte among the French populace presents the greatest threat to the coalition, not the military strength of Napoleon. "One will have done nothing, if one has not brought to birth in France the spirit that wants no more of Napoleon."56 A quarter of a century before, with his characteristic preference, like Maistre, of appealing to reason rather than force, Francois Quesnay had spoken similar thoughts: that it is not the halberd that leads the nation, but opinion. However, it is not "some Godlike power, unaffected by any other power ... Opinion, just because of its potent influence, had in turn to be led, using the resources that belonged to legitimate authority."57 In the same vein, Maistre comments that battles are primarily won, not by differences in military capabilities or the disposition of the generals, but by the side most convinced that it can win. "It is opinion that loses battles, and it is opinion that wins them."58 Maistre feels that it is not Providence, not directly at least, that decides the outcome of battles, but the confidence of men in their own ability. In Considerations he writes that war operates according to the plans of Providence to make people do penance for their wrongdoing. He is not, however, introducing a completely new factor since he has referred before to the elasticity of the chain that ties man to his Creator and this flexibility permits human beings to control their own destiny to some extent. Not everything is predetermined. Similarly, perceptions are also at the base of how a balance of power operates. Antoine Pecquet had been a quartermaster at a military school in Rouen, and had written books on the navigational 55 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le comte Henri Costa de Beauregard," 21 Janvier 1791, oc, vol. IX, 11. 56 Maistre and Blacas, letter to Blacas, 24 December 1811, 148. 57 Gunn, Queen of the World, 249. 58 Maistre, "Les Soirees de Saint-Petersbourg," oc, vol. V, 31.

The Balance of Power

189

and forestry laws of France.59 He remarked that "the balance of power resides mostly in the opinion of men, and secondary causes for which it is physically impossible to establish unchanging principles."60 However, he believes that it existed whenever there was peace among states. Uncertainty about the nature of the balance of power might actually make it work more effectively, because governments would be less willing to risk the state's security solely on a tentative estimate that it would have enough power to deter aggression.61 Contrary to most of his contemporaries, including Maistre, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant did not hold that lasting peace could be derived from the balance of power. Equilibrium among the great powers would only be a temporary phenomenon, as kings would inevitably finance armies with which to attack neighbouring countries to acquire more wealth and enhance their prestige. Kant attributed the wars between states to the competition among the royal families of Europe. He claimed that perpetual peace could be achieved if nations were to replace their domestic institutions, such as the hereditary monarchy, with those of a democratically elected government. He appealed to the reason of individual citizens and not to the self-interest of political elites. It would be more difficult for political elites to lead a nation into war if they were to be elected by the mass of the people. Individual citizens are averse to war because they bear most of the hardships while their rulers enjoy the spoils.62 Maistre would have observed that republican government does not necessarily produce more peace. After the revolutionaries had consolidated their power in the country, France invaded many of her neighbours, beginning with Savoy and Piedmont. Maistre comments that since true democracy is difficult to achieve in practice and any government tends to be controlled by some kind of aristocracy, peace is difficult to attain without appealing to the interests of elites. "Every insurrection of the people against the nobles only leads to the creation of new nobles."63 Maistre's position is that sovereignty of the people does not exist, even in a political system that has elected representatives, because an elite, whether monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic, de facto controls 59 Desplaces, Biographie Universelk Michaud ancienne et moderne, tome 32, 341. 60 Pecquet, L'Esprit des maximespolitiques, vol. I, 192. 61 Malnes, 86. 62 Kant, "On the Relationship of Theory to Practice in International Law," 197-8. 63 Maistre, "Considerations," 137.

i go

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

governments. "Properly speaking all governments are monarchies that only differ by whether the monarchy is appointed for life or for a time, hereditary, or elected, an individual or a body."64 Rant believed in the virtues of republican institutions and the pacifist nature of individuals and their democratically elected government. Maistre holds that a democratically elected government representative of all of the people would not be feasible, and even if it were, it would be motivated by the same human frailties that have led humankind to war before. Although the label realist is more applicable to Maistre than any other, he was a realist with a difference. For example, he disagreed with much of Hobbes's writing. He pointed out that the continuing operation of an effective balance of power, while it is based on realism, could not be accomplished without functioning societies of states. In Maistre's view these societies of states would not be a project as ambitious as that of Grotius, akin to a united nations of the world, but rather temporary coalitions with shifting membership of nations based on self-interest and power politics. Unlike Hobbes, Maistre was optimistic that a balance of power could lead to long-term peace and the survival of smaller states, while preventing a hegemony by one state, such as Napoleonic France. Maistre is a realist in that he accepts that states operate in a milieu of high risk and uncertainty, where principled behaviour is often not rewarded and the ability to apply force is of prime importance. However, he does not simply resign himself, as did Hobbes, to the conclusion that the law of the jungle should prevail in international relations; one must continue to seek an alternative and one should strive to operate according to principles anyway, such as is illustrated in the exchange between the Swedish prince and the Viennese court that Maistre relates in the next section. The exclusive focus on national interest that leads to the competition of every state against every other state can be turned into a positive force. Maistre believes, as some of his near-contemporaries such as Hume did, that it would be in the interest of every state to restore the balance of power and to contemplate the use of a restrained amount of force. The next section considers the instances where middle-sized and smaller states could act in concert, because they would realize that it would be in their own interest to form alliances to oppose the threat of domination by a larger state. The balance of power is not only a mechanism to prevent a state of war; it is also a way to prevent autocratic behaviour at the international level. 64 Maistre, "De la nature de la souverainete," 245.

The Balance of Power

191

2. DESPOTISM IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

While Maistre was in St Petersburg, Napoleon's conquests were challenging the manner in which the international affairs of Europe had developed since the seventeenth century. By the time of the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, Europe was an association of independent and sovereign states and no longer predominantly the Holy Roman Empire controlled by the House of Habsburg. In this section I show that Maistre and other thinkers of the eighteenth century, such as Davenant and Hume, considered the balance of power to be the mechanism by which independent states could prevent a nation from becoming a universal monarchy or an exorbitant power. Maistre draws parallels between events during the late seventeenth century and those occurring in his own lifetime. He writes that Louis XIV alarmed Europe by the excessive developments, the wars, and the large expenditures needed to promote them, inflicted on his people in precisely the same way that the revolutionary government has misled the French people in the last twelve years. The same kind of efforts were made to stop this revolutionary torrent as were applied to deter the aggressions by the France of the Sun King and they have had a negative discouraging result similar to those of a century before, especially since the result was so unexpected.65 The contribution of Charles Davenant to the war against France under Louis XIV at the turn of the eighteenth century is analogous to that of Maistre in his opposition to Napoleon at the turn of the nineteenth century, in the sense that both men are combatting a despotic ruler of France who is attempting to conquer all of Europe. They both participate actively in the conflict, Davenant as a member of the British Parliament and Maistre as a diplomat representing Piedmont, and they both produce written works on the political philosophy related to the conflict. Davenant and Maistre also share an interest in political economy. Although Davenant is mostly well-known for his treatises on trade and public revenue, in 1701 he published An Essay upon the Balance of Power, urging the British to declare war against the French to preserve the liberties of Europe. When the Spanish king, the Habsburg Charles II, died in November 1700 without an heir, there was a good possibility that Louis XIV, who had aspired to dominate Europe since the Thirty Years War, might finally accomplish it. The Bourbon relatives of Charles II could claim to inherit the vast possessions of the Spanish monarchy that comprised the Spanish mainland (excluding Portugal), Belgium, large 65 Maistre, "Memoire a consulter sur 1'etat present de 1'Europe," Janvier 1804, oc, vol. IX, 127.

i gs

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

parts of Italy, and the overseas colonial empire. The annexation of these territories to the crown of France would form "that great and perhaps universal empire to which they have long aspired."66 Davenant argued that to prevent the French from subduing "one nation after another until they have formed a power which nothing shall be able to resist" the British must support diplomatically and militarily Holland, Portugal, and the Austrian empire against French invasion.67 In September 1701 the English did conclude an alliance with the Dutch and the Austrian Emperor Leopold I. Then in 1702 England, Holland, and the Austrian empire declared war on France. Maistre's thought continues this trend into the late eighteenth century, as he is among those who oppose absolutism in the domestic sphere and universal monarchy at the international level. To show that other intellectuals living at the time of Louis XIV's attempts at French hegemony were aware of these failed attempts to create a countervailing force, Maistre cites a verse written by the famous poet Fontenelle and a passage from Bolingbroke's Letters on the study and use of history. Although Bolingbroke acknowledged the unsuccessful attempts to prevent French hegemony through the construction of a coalition, he was for the most part supportive of the idea of another attempt at a balance of power. He was the chief architect of the peace treaty of Utrecht in 1713. This treaty was unique as the first to state explicitly that it was intended to maintain a balance of power. Maistre is of the same conviction as Bolingbroke was under similar circumstances. Despite the many failed attempts to counter French domination in the seventeenth century and the discouraging failures during his own time regarding Napoleonic France, Maistre persists in his conviction that it should be possible to create an alliance that would successfully oppose an aggressive state. "Instead of repeating ad nauseam that coalitions will never succeed, it would be better to remember the one at the beginning of the eighteenth century, under the auspices of William of Orange, that succeeded very well and in very similar circumstances."68 It is true that only when William of Orange became the King of England in 1688 did England begin to get involved in continental European affairs on the side against Louis XIV, with states such as Holland, Austria, and those of the German princes. Historians recognize that 1688 was an

66 67 68 1804,

Davenant, An Essay upon the Balance of Power, 75. Ibid., 79. Maistre, "Memoire a consulter sur 1'etat present de 1'Europe," Janvier oc, vol. IX, 129.

The Balance of Power

193

important turning point in Anglo-French relations. Until then it was customary for England to side with France against the Habsburgs and Spain. "It was largely through the personal efforts of William of Orange, who recognized the danger France posed to all the allies that the unstable anti-French coalition was kept together for so long."69 Despite some opposition from other members of the coalition who were less willing to see the significance of the struggle against French domination, William of Orange persevered and, by 1699, French power had been prevented from becoming too preponderant in the European state system. Maistre considers the accomplishments of the British general John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. Between 1704 and 1710 he led the allied coalition that eventually brought about Louis XTV's capitulation and the peace treaty of Utrecht-Rastadt in 1713. Referring to Marlborough's epitaph, Maistre remarks that England had the honour of leading this struggle against French domination; consequently, Marlborough deserves some of the credit for ensuring that Europeans remain free. The kind of freedom considered in Marlborough's epitaph is similar to that advocated by William of Orange when he stated that the purpose of the coalition against the Sun King was to defend the liberties of Europe: the freedom that preserved the independence of states within Europe. Maistre comments that other European leaders should not recognize the legitimacy of the Napoleonic regime in France, as Napoleon has no respect for the sovereignty of other states. "As long as he will uphold revolutionary maxims, we shall consider him a revolutionary power.'"70 The war of the coalition against Napoleon would be a just war that should not be confused with a war of aggression, because its goal would be conservation and its very nature would be defensive. A work published anonymously, which Paul H. Beik considers from the internal evidence to probably have been produced by Maistre, contains the following comment:71 "Every society has the right and duty to look after its own conservation by preventing and repelling an attack, and by neutralizing or seeking compensation for the effects of the injuries inflicted upon it.'"72 Maistre hopes that in this next round of French aggression, the Russian Czar Alexander I would play the role of William of Orange. "It is certain that all eyes are turned more particularly towards Russia that 69 70 405. 71 72

McKay and Scott, 33. Maistre, "Memoire a son excellence M. de Novosiltzof," 1805, oc, vol. IX, Beik, The French Revolution from the Right, 70. Plan d'un nouvel equilibrepolitique en Europe [1798], 113.

194

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

could never be humiliated in sharing this honour with England."73 Maistre envisions England and Russia, in co-operation, leading and promoting "the noble project of re-establishing the peace and balance in Europe."74 Maistre's predictions are accurate, as through the diplomatic and military efforts of these two countries the coalitions that defeated Napoleon were created. A coalition of the great and the middle-sized powers might have been more than a match for the French army. However, until 1815, Napoleon managed to divide and conquer Europe as, while attracting one or more of the other great powers to his side or convincing them to remain neutral, he intimidated or conquered the others. Maistre touches on the root of the problem as he vents his frustrations, which represented the feelings of the majority of Europeans who were suffering because of the advance of the seemingly invincible French imperial army. "Will the powers that constitute the base of this coalition, to support it finally forget what they consider their individual self-interest and their ancient quarrels? Will they resist the temptations of vain hopes, the seeds of discord, and jealousy that France scatters among them to divide and undo the ties that bind them?"75 Using the threat to use force, strategy, reward, and surprise, Napoleon negotiated unilaterally with Russia, Great Britain, Austria, and Prussia, and the potential balancers, one by one, were intimidated into agreeing to his demands, instead of doing what their logical long-term self-interest would advise. Resisting an aggressor is, ceteris paribus, more difficult than complying to his demands, especially since it is difficult to measure what potential allies will do in the future. For example, England, Austria, and Prussia feared that Russia may attempt hegemony on its own, if France were to be defeated by a coalition. Napoleonic France was, however, definitely better off because it bluffed and succeeded in influencing to its own advantage the choice of other state actors, by threatening to declare war on a state in the potential coalition and pointing to other costs or benefits that it could arrange as a consequence of the state's choice. Napoleonic France's influence on other states changed after Napoleon's armies suffered great losses during the Russian campaign. Following the Russian winter, exacerbated by the Russian scorched-earth strategy in 1812, it is estimated that only one out of every nine soldiers 73 Maistre, "Memoire a consulter sur 1'etat present de 1'Europe," oc, vol. IX, 132. 74 Ibid., 130. 75 Plan d'un nouvel equilibre politique en Europe, 275.

The Balance of Power

195

survived the retreat to France.?6 Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia became more inclined to agree to form a coalition during 1813-15, despite Napoleon's threats or blandishments. The change in attitude that made the alliance possible was not caused by the preponderant power of any one actor; on the contrary, it was mainly due to the perception of the reduction, real or imagined, in the power of both Russia and Napoleonic France. In its diminished numbers, the French army was no longer considered invincible and Russia no longer represented the threat of a power that might replace France as aggressor. The other great powers noted that it was not only battle that had defeated the Napoleonic French army, but also the Russian winter and the scorched-earth policy as the Russian army was retreating towards Siberia. Aware of France's debilitated condition, each of the great powers was eager to call Napoleon's bluff. Maistre cautioned the coalition that "Creating a counterbalance to the power of France does not involve dismembering France, nor does it require the plundering of any state that actually exists."77 Maistre emphasizes that one must keep in mind the eternal axiom, "without France, no salvation."78 It is not only inevitable but beneficial that France would remain a great power in Europe. "This preponderance can be called to do more good than the harm it has already done."79 David Hume also disagreed with those who argued that it would be a just retribution to completely destroy the state that is attempting to dominate the rest of Europe. Great Britain's "wars with France have begun with justice, and even, perhaps from necessity; but have always been too far pushed from obstinacy and passion."80 For example, during the War of the Spanish Secession, France had repeatedly asked for peace from 1706 onwards, but the allies were not willing to consider a settlement until 1712. The war could have been ended five years earlier. The allies were not content with checking French power; they wanted to weaken her completely. Wars to prevent the French from dominating Europe were justified but, if Great Britain and its allies had been prudent, they would have known when to stop fighting. When the leaders of states plan their counterattack in a reasonable manner and do not allow 76 Rosecrance and Lo, "Balancing, Stability, and War," 493. 77 Plan d'un nouvel equilibre politique en Europe, 77.

78 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le Chevalier de Rossi," 7 (19) decembre 1810, oc, vol. XI, 535. 79 Maistre, "Lettre au roi Victor-Emmanuel," decembre 1809, oc, vol. XI, 38380 Hume, "Of the Balance of Power," 354.

196

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

passions to intervene, they will see that it is in their best interest to limit the extent of the war against the threatening state just to the point where it realizes that its bid for domination will not succeed. This idea, Maistre believes, should be kept in mind when opposing the aggression of the French revolutionary armies. One of the useful purposes of allowing France to remain powerful is that it could then offset another great power, Austria. Maistre writes to the baron Vignet des Etoles in 1794 that when the French revolutionaries are defeated the coalition powers should not consider dismembering France and dividing the spoils among themselves. "It is to the poor House of Austria that we want to give Alsace, Lorraine, and Flanders. What a balance good God! It is in the interest of everyone that the emperor can never enter into France as conqueror ... We have no need of a Charles V."81 France had been the counterpoise that prevented for centuries the hegemony by the House of Habsburg, later called the House of Austria, although it originated in Burgundy. Maistre is referring to the sixteenth century, when the House of Habsburg under Charles V, who inherited Spanish, German, and Italian states, achieved nearly total hegemony in Europe through military and political victories. Bolingbroke had also remarked that Europe had much to fear from the House of Austria and Charles V, particularly when the latter also became the King of Spain. Yet the princes and states of Europe did not do enough to check the growth of his power. "We do not find that any confederacy was formed, any engagement taken, nor any war was made to remove or prevent this great evil."82 Maistre is concerned that should France be too greatly weakened from its war with the coalition, Austria would be able attain the same position that it had under Charles V, and Europe would still not be free of despotism. Maistre emphasizes that part of the winning strategy of the coalition against Napoleon should be to make clear to the French people that the coalition is not against the idea of a French nation as it existed before Napoleon's expansion; it is only at war with Napoleon.83 It is interesting that Maistre fears and opposes the creation of the circumstances for another Charles V, a pious Roman Catholic whose greatest enemy was Martin Luther and the protestant movement he instigated, th Great Schism. When necessary, as in the Schmalkalden War of 1546, Charles V resorted to war to subdue those states in his empire that 81 Maistre, "Lettre au baron Vignet des Etoles," 15 aout 1794, De la terreur a la restauration: correspondances inedites, 97. 82 Bolingbroke, Letters on the Study and Use of History, vol. II, 50. 83 Maistre, "Memoire," 12 (24) octobre 1806, oc, vol. X, 218-19.

The Balance of Power

197

promoted Protestantism, but only when all other tactics failed. Charles V co-operated with the papal power and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pontiff in 1530. One of his great accomplishments was the turning back of the resurging tide of Islam, which included the invasion of Europe by the Turks. The European forces were able to rout Suliman's army at Vienna in 1532 because they were united in their Roman Catholic faith within the empire forged by Charles V.84 Maistre opposes Gallicanism and prefers a papacy that could exert some moderating influence on the monarchs of Europe, yet Charles V does not qualify for his respect, although the emperor supported Christendom. If Maistre was truly the blindly devout Roman Catholic, the proponent of a universal papacy in Europe, or even the great lover of absolute monarchical rule that his critics have painted him, one would expect him to have celebrated the rule of Charles V. Why then does Maistre look with repugnance on a repetition of Charles V through Napoleon? Evidently, it is more important to Maistre that nations retain their freedom of self-realization; he despises an emperor as much as a national despot, and while he can see the usefulness of the papacy, for example, in moderating monarchical rule, he evaluates monarchies and Roman Catholicism rationally not emotionally. Maistre also cautions that the members of the coalition should remember that they are participating in a war of Europe against Bonaparte. "A great misfortune that could happen to Europe at this time would be to conduct a general war from particular viewpoints."85 Conceiving the war in a European perspective does not mean that states cannot operate in terms of their own self-interest. It is in every state's own interest to recognize the independence and sovereignty of each state and to prevent any one state from becoming an exorbitant power. Success of the coalition to resist the despotic power is tied to the approach of each member state. "It appears incontestable that if the great powers would form again a coalition with a wiser, wider and more European perspective, they would have all the possible reasons to flatter themselves with complete success."86 To ensure Russia's continuing support for his King Maistre has reason to be careful when he discusses Russian policy. Yet the following illustration shows that he acts on principle and keeps an objective approach, with a clear understanding, an argument based on the strength of his 84 Habsburg, Charles V, 49. 85 Ibid., 217. 86 Maistre, "Memoire a consulter sur 1'etat present de 1'Europe," Janvier 1804, oc, vol. IX, 131.

198

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

convictions, and unequivocal conclusions. Any state should be stopped if it were to initiate a war of aggression, and the opposition to Napoleon was not to be confused with any enmity towards France. Maistre adamantly refused to accept that a war was justified when it was motivated solely by the desire of self-aggrandizement of any state, Russian or otherwise. Other powers had good reason to oppose it if it were to make any effort to enlarge its territory and enhance its power. Maistre relates the exchange between the Swedish prince, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte (King Charles XIV of Sweden from 1818), and the court of Vienna to illustrate this point. Although both were allies of France, Sweden and Russia were for many years rivals for territory in northern Europe. However, the threat of Napoleon brought a rapprochement between Sweden and Russia that developed into a treaty by 1812. Both declared themselves enemies of France. The Swedish prince Bernadotte responded to Vienna's offer to become an ally of Austria (Austria had sided with Napoleon) with two notes that Maistre condenses in the following comment: "If the Emperor of Russia were fighting against the liberties of Europe, I would side with you against him; but as he fights, on the contrary for his states and even for his capital, I side with him against you."87 The Swedish prince was using the expression liberties of Europe as William of Orange, Davenant, and Maistre used it. Sweden would have reason to be an enemy of Russia if Russia were attempting to dominate the rest of Europe and possess the territory of other states such as Sweden. Russia, according to Bernadotte, is only defending what it already has a right to own, and is, therefore, only promoting the status quo in terms of territorial boundaries. On the other hand, "Bonaparte makes his monarchies precisely as Robespierre constructed his republics, with a compass, a ruler and a geographic map."88 Since Napoleon has little interest in how Europe developed over the centuries, he disregards claims of independence and sovereignty that other states base on this history. Likewise, since Robespierre did not concern himself with the traditional institution of the French monarchy, he created completely new institutions. Maistre predicts that such a revolutionary approach is destined to fail, whether applied to foreign or to domestic affairs. His realism, in terms of interstate relations, does not conflict with his 87 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le Chevalier de Rossi," 9 ( 2 1 ) avril 1812, oc, vol. XII, 116. 88 Maistre, "Memoire sur les interets de S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne et de 1'Italie en general," 6(18) decembre 1813, oc, vol. XII, 409.

The Balance of Power

i gg

conservatism with regard to political affairs more generally. The argument of Maistre and Bernadotte is based on principles, on what is right, and on what they optimistically believe will maintain peace and order. A counter-argument is available in the philosophy of Nietzsche. He was convinced that might is right; principles, laws, and virtue are not sacred but mere creations of man's imagination that may be discarded. There is no reason why the status quo should not be overturned by anyone or any group with the will and the requisite power.89 On this basis international relations would become a perpetual arena of conflicting nationstates: the powerful would devour the less powerful and infinite chaos would be the rule. Hobbes pessimistically accepted that international warfare by the strong to dominate the weak could not be stopped. Maistre understands that the creations of the mind of man, such as virtue, laws, and co-operation, can be just as powerful as the vices of human nature if they are used in concert with satisfaction of the basic needs and wants of human beings. Beginning with the desire of every nation-state to defend itself, he re-discovers a solution to the problem of unrestricted international conflict and conquest: belief in the principles that the government of a nation-state has a right to protect the integrity of its boundaries and that the balance of power offers an effective means of policing this right. Maistre's interest in the principle of balance of power stems not only from his concern to protect or re-establish the possessions of the King of Piedmont and his allies. Maistre's preference for the status quo ante 1792 when Napoleon's Revolutionary army invaded Piedmont stems from his desire to maintain the stability and the peace of the entire international system. Earlier presentations of the balance of power, in the seventeenth century, in comparison to later discussions on the same idea, lacked "the notion of a general field of forces, the idea of what we call a statessystem."90 For example, Bacon wrote that all kings must follow the general rule that they have to "keep due sentinel that none of their neighbours do overgrow."91 Such a statement on the balance of power does not consider the principle from the standpoint of its effect on the whole system. It focuses instead on how each state has an eye on every action of other states because each state is distrustful of the motives of the others and is prepared to attack at the slightest movement that may have the potential to threaten its own security. 8g Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 151-3. go Butterfield, "The Balance of Power," 137. gi Bacon, "Of Empire," 420.

soo

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

A contemporary of Davenant, Fenelon was another thinker of the early eighteenth century to argue explicitly that the principle of balance of power was in the interest of the community of states as a whole, rather than only of a particular state. He linked self-interest to the general interest, by showing how states have a mutual interest in preserving the balance of power. States are so interdependent that any change in the power of one state relative to another would significantly alter the security of all of the other states. He used the analogy of stones in an arch to illustrate this point. "When one stone is taken out of an arch, the whole falls to the ground, because they sustain each other."92 Fenelon went so far as to transform the state's "interest" in maintaining the balance of power into a "duty" to ensure that the general balance is preserved: "It is a duty then, as natural for neighbouring countries to concur for the common safety against one who grows too powerful, as it is for fellowcitizens to unite against an invader to their particular society or country."93 Fenelon did not reject the position of realism; states are egoists. Yet, there is an automatic check on this egoism. States will take a more enlightened view of their own interests as they will consider its effect on the whole system, since a negative effect on the whole community will eventually also affect them. It will be in their self-interest to limit some short-term objectives for the sake of long-term survival and security. Through the operation of a balance of power, the egoism that Hobbes thought was so destructive, resulting as it often has in a state of war and anarchy, could be used to promote peace. Maistre does not consider the balance of power solely as a limited tactic of foreign policy but also as a means of maintaining the entire Westphalian states-system. He recognizes that, in addition to creating a more stable international order, the balance of power has another beneficial effect. It would preserve the independence of smaller nations; they would probably not be conquered by a despotic power, if there were a balance of power to defend them. The next section deals with the role of middle-sized states, such as the Kingdom of Piedmont, in the preservation of the balance of power in Europe. 3.

THE I M P O R T A N C E OF SMALLER NATION STATES

The Hobbesian perspective of international relations predicts that smaller powers cannot survive, since there is no authority above states that could prevent them from succumbing to an invasion by a much larger and stronger state. One could consider many cases during the 92 Fenelon, "Essay on the Balance of Power," 768. 93 Ibid-

The Balance of Power

201

eighteenth century where smaller powers were at the mercy of what great powers had arranged among themselves. For example, Poland, after being invaded continuously by her neighbours, no longer existed as a separate state after 1790, when three great powers, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, reached an agreement to divide it among themselves. This section presents the arguments that Maistre and some of his contemporaries developed to show why the great powers should have an interest, although it has not been taken into account in the past, in allowing smaller nation-states to continue to exist as independent entities. Maistre also presents an argument, unrelated to state interests, that is based on his definition of a nation. A balance of power could not only prevent despotism; it could preserve the cultural diversity within the European states-system, permitting it to flourish to the benefit of all Europeans. Despite their smaller size and weaker military capabilities, smaller nation-states could still have an impact on the balance of power because they constitute neutral buffer zones between more powerful rival states. A neutral state could keep two more powerful states apart; without it they would be contiguous. Since this marginal region must be crossed to reach the other state, any trespassing on the smaller state's territory serves as a preliminary signal of potential aggression between the two major states. "The great powers put in contact with one another will never stop fighting, and it is also good that there are between them smaller powers, capable of frightening one or the other by threatening to give themselves to one or the other."94 Maistre strongly rejects the principle that one needs only great powers. If this principle were followed, the great powers would then continue to act on the modus operandi that they must engulf the others that remain independent and in turn the other states also would believe that they would need to grow larger.95 The end result would be an escalation of war, invasion, and bloodshed as the larger states compete to become still larger. "The society of nations, similar to the one of individuals, is composed of larger and smaller ones and this inequality is necessary."96 The principle, "that one needs only great powers" should be replaced with another principle whose truth is of the first order: "that no nation is destined by nature to be subjected to another."97 94 Maistre, "Memoire pour S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 6(18) decembre 1813, oc, vol. XII, 410. 95 Ibid., 411. 96 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le baron de Vignet des Etoles," 15 aout 1794, De la terreur a la restauration: correspondances inedites, 97. 97 "Memoire pour S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 6(18) decembre 1813, 411.

202

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Maistre was concerned about a comment made by an Austrian diplomat during the conferences of Luneville, where a treaty was reached between France and Austria in 1801: "And what is the necessity that there should be a King of Sardinia?"98 Maistre writes to his friend, the Chevalier de Rossi, a member of the House of Savoy at its last remaining stronghold in Sardinia, that the strategy of Piedmont should be to make itself as visible as possible, since its enemies want to erase it completely from the map of Europe. "Napoleon [as well as Austria] wants to extinguish us gradually in all the courts and exclude us from the last treaty, in order that then, relying on the egoism and indifference of governments, he can, when he judges it a convenient time, come and take Sardinia [the last part of the Kingdom of Piedmont remaining independent from Napoleon] with a few boats."" Part of Maistre's contribution to the campaign of making Sardinia more visible is in explaining, in his memoirs and in person to the diplomats and princes of other countries, that restoring the Kingdom of Piedmont is in their interest and in the interest of all of Europe. An essential part of this argument is that the Kingdom of Piedmont is necessary to the balance of power in Europe. The Kingdom of Piedmont had acted as a buffer zone between France and Austria, as Austria and France had for centuries repeatedly invaded Italy, in conjunction with or in opposition to the Vatican, which was attempting to bring more and more of Italy under its aegis or even complete domination. The sovereign of Piedmont has been called "the guardian of the Alps" because he had at times prevented France from entering Italy and taking possession of the city-states in Northern Italy.100 Without an independent and strong Piedmont, the House of Austria would become an exorbitant power in Italy. This is particularly true when one adds to its ancient Italian possessions all that the French Revolution had invested in it.101 That the King of Piedmont can rule again in Turin, Maistre claims, is in the interest not only of the other Italian princes and the Pope but also of England and Russia. Piedmont was always an important ally of England in Italy and could further England's commercial interests in that area of Europe.102 Maistre writes to Alexander I that it is in the interest of Russia to assist the King of 98 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le Chevalier de Rossi," 18 (30) aout 1810, oc, vol. XI, 468. 99 Ibid., 470. 100 "Memoire pour S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 6 (18) decembre 1813, 414!5101 Ibid., 413. 102 Ibid., 414.

The Balance of Power

203

Sardinia, because "Piedmont is the hand by which the Czar can act upon the Po as on the Duma."103 The relation between Russia and Piedmont illustrates how smaller powers can be important players in shaping the balance of power, because they are positioned between the great powers. Smaller nations affect the states-system as a result of which alliances they decide to join. In the second half of the eighteenth century three more nations had achieved the military capabilities of a great power in Europe, in addition to France and Austria. Catherine II of Russia was successful in the wars against the Turks and was able to consolidate her empire. Allied with England, Prussia under Frederick II completed the building of a powerful army that resisted the combined attacks of France, Austria, and Russia in the Seven Years' War, 1756-63. The Treaty of Paris, 1763, strengthened British footholds around the world, including in India and Canada, and finalized the creation of a great British empire. By 1763 the increase in the number of great powers from two to five Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia - provided more alternative strategies for smaller powers. It also made the balance of power more secure because a greater number of nations in the system would make more combinations possible. It then became easier to change membership in the coalitions to maintain the overall balance of power. A greater variety of sizes and capabilities among the nations also enhances the possibility that a balance of power might be established. Gentz argues that if nations were more equal in terms of power, the balance of power might be more difficult to achieve.104 It is beneficial to the whole system that smaller nations continue to survive as independent political units rather than be amalgamated into a larger unit. Since Gentz considers the effect that smaller powers would have on the international society when they shifted their weight from one side to the other, he adds a dynamic element to the balance of power not present in earlier seventeenth-century writings. Maistre uses a concrete analogy to show the importance of retaining intact the ancient possessions of the Kingdom of Piedmont and to refute the false ideas of partial possession and parcelling. "If one diminished by half, the diameter of a hose, a layman would think that less than half of the water that came out before would come out of it now. However, professionals know that only one-quarter of the water that flowed out previously will now come out of the hose. [This is because the change is more than two-dimensional, as 103 Maistre, "Memoire a S.M. 1'Empereur de toutes les Russies," 20 mars 1813, oc, vol. XII, 351. 104 Gentz, 56-9.

204

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

volume is also involved.] A similar thing happens in politics."105 If the possessions of the King of Piedmont were reduced by a quarter, Maistre predicts that instead of losing a quarter of his power, he could be as much as four times one-quarter weaker. One can conclude from such an analogy that Maistre, like Gentz, does not believe that one should take a simplistic approach to the balance of power. Even very small states that appear, at face value, to be unimportant to the balance of power, are in fact very important because of their geographic location and other peculiar characteristics. "Savoy some may think by itself is worth zero, but when it is added to something else, its value increases many fold."106 Competition among the great powers is beneficial for smaller powers, particularly those similar to Savoy that are a buffer zone between two major powers. Maistre remarked that if Austria and France were to cease to be at odds with one another and could agree to divide the spoils, for example, by separating Piedmont into two parts with each great power taking a part, the existence of Piedmont as an independent state would be under serious threat. Burke recognized a similar situation for the heterogeneous body of German states. He criticized the government in France for not considering the serious repercussions on the order in central Europe, and on the balance of power in the rest of Europe, from a rapprochement between Austria and Prussia. The German states would remain free and independent as long as the princes of Austria and Prussia were at variance and could not agree on how to divide the German states among themselves.1017 France should be taking steps to distance Austria from Prussia, to prevent the partition of German states. Burke also argued that Great Britain should allow France to remain a great power, although it should not be allowed to threaten, as it had done previously, the independence of Europe. It was not in the interest of Great Britain that France be "wholly annihilated" because then Austria and Prussia would be so powerful on the continent that they could threaten the independence of the smaller German states.108 Maistre shows that Russia and Piedmont are connected to one another through their link with Austria. "Austria touches from one side Russia and from another side Piedmont [through the duchy of Milan that was ruled by Austria] and, therefore, Russia and Piedmont touch 105 Maistre, "Lettre aM. le Chevalier de Rossi," 16 (28) decembre 1808, oc, vol. XI, 181. 106 Maistre, "Memoire sur la situation et les interets de S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne, acette epoque," 15 (27) decembre 1812, oc, vol. XII, 327. 107 Burke, "Thoughts on French Affairs," 28. 108 Ibid., 30.

The Balance of Power

205

one another."109 This connection with Austria entails that tThey share an interest in limiting the influence of Austria in Italy. Maistre advises the Czar that it would, therefore, be in the interest of Russia to increase the power of his ally and guardian of the Alps, the King of Piedmont. Arranging that Genoa should again become a possession of the House of Savoy could do this. Maistre argues that, if Genoa is not ruled by Piedmont, Italy will never be sufficiently defended against French invasion. The ancient republic of Genoa is the lowland area, bordering on the Tyrhennian Sea, that lies contiguous to and between the French province of Provence on the west, the state of Piedmont on the north, and the duchy of Milan (ruled by Austria) on the east. Consequently, it provided a route for an invading army to move from France to Italy without having to force its way over some of the highest mountain passes in the Alps, where the armies of the House of Savoy had repulsed French armies before. "Genoa under Piedmont's control is a door always closed to France and we know how well such barriers contribute to universal tranquility."110 The emperor of Russia would also become a more important player in the great European congress as the Kingdom of Piedmont becomes a more important state in Italy with the return of Genoa. An alliance with a smaller power is a strategy of a great power to enhance its position relative to other great powers, within a particular region of Europe and within all of Europe. Maistre also has appreciation for another role of smaller powers in international society. He values those powers intrinsically, on the principle that they are the vehicles for maintaining and fostering the cultural diversity of Europe. "Nations present to the observer an ineffable character that results from all the individual characters moving towards a general and not unknown goal."111 A universal monarchy, with a single political unit ruling very different cultures, would tend to assimilate those cultures into one homogeneous cultural entity. In attempting to recreate another Roman Empire, Napoleon's conquests were not only upsetting the distribution of power in Europe but were encouraging the French culture to dominate other cultures, particularly those developed within smaller states. Despite Maistre's admiration for the French language and culture, he was against the idea that French culture should become the only culture of Europe. 109 Maistre, "Memoire a S.M. 1'Empereur de toutes les Russies," 20 mars 1813, oc, vol. XII, 351. 110 Ibid., 352. 111 Maistre, "Caractere et influence de la nation francaise," Fragments sur la France, oc, vol. I, 187.

206

The Mare Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Enlightenment philosophers did not share Maistre's dislike of absorbing all national cultures into a single cosmopolitan culture. JeanAntoine-Nicolas Caritat, the marquis de Condorcet, was a member of the society of Enlightenment philosophers who contributed to the Encyclopedie. He believed that the assimilation of national languages into a single universal language would be liberating for individuals. With everyone speaking a common language, it would be easier to educate more people in the sciences.'12 A cosmopolitan identity would emancipate individuals from the constraints of having been born into a particular ethnic and linguistic community. This ignored the counter-argument that culture requires a lengthy period to develop and is produced mainly by national communities. So-called cosmopolitan culture is mainly parasitic and eclectic, borrowing its cultural elements from national cultures. Maistre was one of those political theorists who were ahead of their time in the eighteenth century in their appreciation of the intrinsic value of national cultures. In the nineteenth century, one begins to encounter this explicit discussion of cultural nationalism more frequently. An expert on international relations, Kalevi J. Holsti, explains that while nationhood was established in England by the sixteenth century, in most of Europe a sense of this relationship between nation and state would become general only by the twentieth century. "Even as late as the mid-nineteenth century ... on astute politician [M.T. d'Azeglio, Premier of Piedmont, famous author and soldier of the Italian Risorgimento] noted after the successful unification of the heterogenous polities of the peninsula 'we have created Italy. Now we must create Italians.'" Parochialism was still predominant also in Germany and the rest of Europe.113 One of the distinguishing features of eighteenth-century politics of the balance of power is that the state is conceived exclusively as a political unit controlled by a prince or king and this vertical relation between the ruler and the people is mainly considered. The horizontal relation, which was ignored, takes into account the idea of belonging to a cultural group and the feeling of togetherness between people that forms the basis of nationalism; its extreme proponents have been categorized as Romantics. Maistre's discussion of nationalism shares some similarities with the German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. Herder also claimed that the well-being of the individual and peace in the world depended on the flourishing of national cultures. He 112 Condorcet, Esquisse d'un tableau historique, dixieme periode, 278-80. 113 Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics, 44-6.

The Balance of Power

207

shared Maistre's dislike for centralization, coercion, and conquest. Maistre, who did not read German, promotes the benefits of continued development of a variety of cultures and writes in French and Italian, the other large language area of Europe. Herder and the others in his group, the Sturm und Drang (storm and stress), were living in German states and wrote in German. Like Maistre, Herder doubted the desirability and even the stability of empires where different national cultures are forced to exist under a single political unit.114 Herder differed from Maistre in that he abhorred the social hierarchy of a monarchy. Like Rousseau and members of the Sturm und Drang movement, Herder appreciated the political and psychological importance of the horizontal relation, based on fraternal ties among citizens, but he disliked the feudal hierarchy and refused to consider the vertical relation between the monarchy and the people. Herder's ideal nation would operate as a sort of loose co-operative organization, wherein the German volk would assist one another and none would be subservient to any other; there is no vertical component in his social and political organization. Maistre follows a different path from Herder and Rousseau to reduce the deep tensions between these dimensions. Maistre's plan is to modify the vertical, developing an improved model of what existed before it so deteriorated that the people found cause for revolt; he also explains how to improve the horizontal by promoting social groups to represent their individual members. In Maistre's view the vertical as well as the horizontal dimension will inevitably form regardless of attempts to eliminate it by introducing representative government and attempting to have the individual citizen participate more in political decision-making. Just as in weaving a viable and durable tapestry both the warp and the woof are essential, the fabric of a nation state needs both hierarchy and community. Maistre defines not merely a "state," but what would be called in the twentieth century a "nation-state," recognizing both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Whereas most of his contemporaries preferred the traditional vertical dimension - the power and protection of the king over his subjects and the obedience and service of subjects to their sovereign - Maistre perceives and values the political and psychological importance of the horizontal relation, based on fraternal ties among citizens, that provides the essential feeling of belonging. But this lay within the vertical class structure, which he states must inevitably be an integral 114 Herder, "Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Mankind," Book IX, chapter IV, 324.

2 08

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

part of any nation-state. This conflicts with the view of Maistre as a traditionalist who defended solely ancient institutions such as the hereditary monarchy. Maistre's thought was not narrowly circumscribed to studying the ruling classes or to considering the influence of institutional structures on the political system. Despite his lack of confidence in the effectiveness of democratic elections, he did recognize a more popular element in his discussion of how a national identity was formed by folk culture, as in national language and customs. Maistre's approach was different and his reasoning more all-inclusive than Herder's, in that Maistre took into account both the horizontal and the vertical political elements and relationships, and this was unusual during his lifetime. When Maistre distinguishes the homeland from any other country for his friend the Admiral Tchitchagof at the Russian court, at first he defines it in a way that would not conflict with eighteenth-century ideas. When one uses the term country, one refers to a certain place in the universe, taking into account its geographic location and physical nature. However, when one considers this same region in terms of a person's right to live there and the relation that this person has with his sovereign, then it is called a homeland.115 Later in the same work he begins to cultivate what is new ground in the eighteenth century, as he introduces ideas that recognize the cultural aspect of a nation-state. Men are divided into families that we call nations. "Character, opinions, and especially languages constitute the unity of nations in the moral order, and even in the physical order they are designed with eminently distinctive characteristics."116 Maistre recognizes the importance of language as a vehicle for culture and, therefore, as a mechanism by which individuals bind to the national community. Maistre arrives at these conclusions partly from his reading of the writings of Sir William Jones, an expert in oriental languages. Jones had travelled to Calcutta, where he had worked as a Supreme Court judge, and had established a society in Europe that studied oriental languages, law, history, and art. Maistre subscribed to Asiatic Researches, the journal of this society. The approach of the researchers in this society was an advance over previous studies by Europeans of the cultures of Asia. The aim was to search not primarily for the exotic but for what different civilizations shared in common. Previous researchers in oriental studies had not mastered the language to the same extent as had Jones and 115 Maistre, "Dissertation sur le mot: patrie, a M. 1'Amiral Tchitachagof," oc vol. XI, 481. 116 Ibid., 482.

The Balance of Power

209

other members of his society.117 Jones believed that by mastering the language one could better understand foreign societies and customs. Since, as Maistre remarks, "the genealogies of nations are written in their languages," a study of languages can give us a clue as to how human societies evolved.118 As different societies interacted, their languages also intermingled. The mix of idioms and the many ethnic origins of the people could create much confusion for those studying the history of societies. Maistre admires how "The penetrating eye of Sir Jones [sic] can follow through this maze of dialects, some the most foreign sounding to our ears, to three primitive nations from which all the others originate."119 Maistre continued to be interested in Jones's work. While he lived in St Petersburg, his notebooks made numerous references to this work and to the Asiatic Researches. In 1803 Maistre copies the passage from Jones's work that explained why the three originating societies of Asia in the times of antiquity were the Hindus, the Arabs, and the Tartars. Jones was speculating that all three have a common origin in Iran, because the language spoken in the Persian empire was similar to the language of India, Sanskrit, those languages spoken in Asia, the Zend, Parsi, Chaldeen and Pahlavi, and the language spoken by the Tartars.120 Maistre's remarks regarding the political situation on the Italian peninsula also reflect this interest in language as an important part of what defines a nation. He writes that he sympathizes with the plight of Italians; because of their disunity they have suffered much as a battlefield and a place to be mined for the benefit of the major European powers. Peace will only come to that region when the Italians have their own nation-state. Since they have been condemned for many centuries to fatal political divisions, part of what is needed to resolve their problems is to achieve cultural unity through the means of a common language. Already their writers, such as Dante of Tuscany and Ciullo d'Alcamo of Sicily, had produced literature in a common Italian language developed at the two ends of the peninsula. However, the regional differences, with more than two dozen dialects being spoken, and the papal state with international interests located near the geographical centre, were formidable stumbling-blocks to the creation of an Italian nation-state. National unification had almost been achieved several times. The first 117 118 119 120 87.

Mukherjee, Sir William Jones, 75. Maistre, "Des origines de la souverainete," chapitre VII, 121. Ibid. Maistre, Melanges: notes et extraits de lecture 1803, Fonds de Maistre,

21 o

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

important attempt, under the Lombards in the eight century, was crushed with the assistance of the army of the Franks from France, and the Pope then crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor. The second attempt, by Frederick II of Sicily in the thirteenth century, was thwarted at the eleventh hour by a league that included Spanish and German armies hastily called together to assist the papal states. Again, Maistre had accurately taken the pulse of the situation and anticipated future political developments. Only in 1860, when the political influence of the Vatican had diminished, would Italy be united, under the orchestration of the able statesman from Piedmont, Camille Benso comte de Cavour, as a monarchy under the House of Savoy. France was bribed not to interfere by being given Savoy and Nice, while Italian armies of independence drove out foreign armies of occupation. In accordance with Maistre's analysis, the Italian peninsula, like insular Britain, naturally constituted a distinct country geographically defined by its physical characteristics, but other factors had intervened to thwart the creation of a homeland that provided citizens the right to live there in peace and prosperity led by their own sovereign government. Maistre contrasts France with Italy: France had already been united for a millennium; its twenty-four million people were subjects of the same monarch and spoke only French.121 This is only relatively true. Linguistic uniformity did not become a major issue in France until the Revolution. On the other hand, it is true that French had become the common language of France more completely and earlier than a common language became current in Italy. France had become standardized under Charlemagne's regime, whereas Italy, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, was continuously ruled simultaneously by several domestic and foreign powers that tended to foster development of local dialects. Maistre is again considering the vertical and horizontal features of the nation-state, the feudal and the cultural bases. Herder had also pointed to the importance of the German language for German unification, but his conception of nationalism did not contain the vertical dimension because he was hostile to aristocracy and monarchy. Maistre considered monarchy to be the natural form of government for Piedmont-Sardinia and France, as he thought that it coincided with the traditions and culture of those regions. For Herder, dynastic monarchy was not suitable for the Germans because "distinctions of social rank, established by tradition, run counter to the forces of nature, which knows 121 Maistre, "Lettre a Galleani Napione," 13 juillet 1787, Archivio della Biblioteca Civica di Torino.

The Balance of Power

211

no ranks in the distribution of its gifts."122 The organic Vo/^-state that Herder envisioned would foster mutual assistance and protection among the different parts of the state but leave little room for domination and subordination. Hierarchies and social privileges would be replaced with the right to popular participation and greater equality for all members of the community.123 Unlike the conservatives Maistre and Burke, Herder wanted to combine fraternity with equality in his somewhat Utopian Germanic state.124 Maistre's conception of the nation-state envisaged how a group of people who shared a sense of collective identity could use a common sovereign power in addition to sharing a common language and culture. Maistre argues that the citizens of most European nation-states are subjects of monarchs, although in other characteristics the European nation-states do not resemble one another. An observer would be struck by their diversity. The temperament of the governing group and the nature of the territory are some of the factors that explain this.125 Maistre conceives the causal relation of mores affecting institutions. He asks the rhetorical question: "Should we say that the government produces the mores? I expressly deny this. It is the mores, on the contrary, that create the governments."126 Maistre uses the influence of Montesquieu's writings to lend credibility and weight to his own pronouncements. In fact, Montesquieu had never ventured so far; for him the influence between mores and governments could actually move in either direction. Maistre places more emphasis than even Montesquieu on geographical and cultural factors as determining causes of the character of a people and even of their institutions themselves. There can be no government made for all men because there is no universal culture or landscape. Maistre's contextualist approach to the study of human nature and political institutions is illustrated by this passage: "There is no such thing as man, in the world ... I have seen, in my life, French, Italians, Russians, etc., I know, even, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian: but, as for man, I declare that I have never met him in my life; if he exists, it is without my knowing him."127 122 Herder, 325. 123 Barnard, "Introduction" to/. G. Herder on Social and Political Culture, 7-10. 124 Berlin, "Herder and the Enlightenment," 380. 125 Maistre, "Memoire pour S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 6 (18) decembre 1813, oc, vol. XII, 408. 126 Maistre, "De la republique frangaise et de ses legislateurs," oc, vol. I, 205. 127 Maistre, "Considerations," 74.

212

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

The distinctive language and culture that brings together people who live in a certain area of the world also distances them from individuals belonging to other national groups in international society. "There is an element of attraction that forms a national unity and that results in a community of language and other characteristics; this unity is again generously reinforced by an element of repulsion that separates the diverse nations."128 Maistre believes that rulers of the great powers have not placed sufficient attention on the forces of attraction and repulsion when attempting to redesign the political map of Europe. Twentiethcentury political theorists are observing the importance of language to the success of government, just as Maistre's writings point out, and they wonder whether civic nationalism can flourish. For example, it is argued that the reforms to the European Union to include transnational referenda and voting for a European parliament will improve the formal legitimacy of supranational and international institutions, but will they lack the social legitimacy of democratically elected parliaments in nation-states? Democracy is not just about votes, but also it is a system of collective deliberation and legitimization. The vehicle of language has a crucial influence on cultural identity. Citizens value the uniqueness of the democratic process when the conversation in the national forum is in their vernacular [a language naturally spoken by the people of a geographical area]. The average citizen feels more comfortable debating political issues in her or his own tongue. Political communication has a large ritualistic component, and these ritualized forms of communication are typically language specific.129 This is not to say that these are insoluble problems, but they are obstacles that must be surmounted. "Peoples value these national differences to the point that they will be unhappy and even insulted, if they see them destroyed or contradicted."130 Such unhappiness could motivate people to take up arms against other groups, including those who attempt to consolidate nations under a single umbrella governing unit. Maistre warns his King that there is a danger that this might happen to Piedmont if Genoa were again to be put under its rule and if Piedmont were to acquire Milan as well. These areas were contiguous to Piedmont on the south and east. "Certainly these acquisitions are superb but they also involve considerable inconveniences. It will be extremely difficult to amalgamate these three 128 Maistre, "Dissertation sur le mot: patrie, a M. 1'Amiral Tchitachagof," oc, vol. XI, 482. 129 Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship, 77. 130 Maistre, "Memoire pour S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 6 (18) decembre 1813, oc, vol. XII, 408.

The Balance of Power

213

[Piedmont, Genoa, and Milan] peoples who do not like each other."131 This coincides with what he had stated earlier, since the language of Genoa (Ligurian) has basic Celtic origins, while the one of Milan (Lombard) had originated in the same area of Germany as the Angles and Saxons, although Latin has influenced all three. Maistre foresees more conflict in the long term - despite the peace that it brings in the short term - from forced incorporation of very different nations into a single state under one ruler. This differs from a European Union, just as it differs from an Italian nation-state that evolved sufficiently by 1860 towards a voluntary coming together of peoples on the bases of those aspects of landscape, history, culture, and language that were commonly shared; here the motive was to present a united front and thus to put an end to recurring incursions by foreign armies. "Forced divisions and amalgamations of nations are not only great crimes, they are also great absurdities: once the hand of steel that led all such changes is stiffened by death or weakened by ill health all its work will collapse, and Europe will become again a volcano."132 Maistre dislikes a single empire under Napoleon stemming from the Berlin decree of 1806, even if it should temporarily be seen as the solution to all the tensions and wars in Europe, because he views universal monarchies as unstable and shortlived at best, even when headed by a person as strong and charismatic as Charlemagne, Charles V, or Napoleon. The time will come when the emperor will vacate the throne; this will provide the right conjuncture for dissatisfied national groups to take steps to oppose the hegemonic power, and conflicts will emerge in many places in the empire. When the individuals in national groups see their cultural attributes such as language being attenuated by the universal power in its efforts to unify the empire, they will at an opportune moment revolt against their oppressor. Napoleon's conquests stimulated nationalism in many parts of Europe. The generalized nature of the uprising in Spain surprised Napoleon, who had expected to fight only the Spanish army, which he thought was weak, so he had not sent in his best troops. He was faced instead, along with conventional warfare, with guerrilla warfare that continued unabated even after the conventional warfare came to a standstill. Napoleon had to abandon plans for conquest in the Orient in order to deal with opposition in Spain.133 Although the masses were 131 Maistre, "Memoire sur la situation et les interets de S.M. le Roi de Sardaigne," 15 (27) decembre 1812, 331. 132 Maistre, "Lettre a M. le Chevalier de Rossi," 14 (26) septembre 1819, oc, vol. XI, 492. 133 Herold, The Age of Napoleon, 214-15.

214

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

mobilized by strong religious feeling and allegiance to dynastic rulers, the hatred of the foreigners also partly explains the strong support among the general population for the resistance against Napoleon. In addition to the actual foreign occupation, Napoleon's efforts to redraw the map of Europe to more easily control diverse peoples, paradoxically, also laid the base for opposition to his aspirations for a united Europe. This is best illustrated with Germany. Germany had little nationalist sentiment or conception of a German nation until Napoleon's advance in Europe. There was only a congeries of many small states ruled by various princely governments. Napoleon reduced the number of states when he united many of them under the umbrella of the Confederation of the Rhine. Just as religious authorities and the political elites of Spain appealed to Spanish nationalism to arouse opposition among the masses against French invasion, the fear of Napoleon in 1808 and 1809 led high Austrian officials, such as Friedrich Gentz, to "favour an appeal to German nationalism common to Austria and other states of the former holy Roman Empire." Previously, the dynastic rulers of Austria and Prussia had discouraged German nationalism.134 Not all Germans were opposed to Napoleon's rule of Europe. The German philosopher Friedrich Hegel, for exemple, argued that a Napoleonic regime would provide more liberty to a conquered state's citizens than the national state had or would permit. For him Napoleon was a "world historical individual." Such individuals are unintentionally part of the forces that cause humanity to progress from one phase to another.135 Men such as Napoleon assist historical change and are part of the "cunning of reason" because they reject the prevailing standards, such as the belief that laws should be based on national tradition and precedent. The Napoleonic Code was the pinnacle of the attempts at universalizing legal principles that had started with the philosophy of the Enlightenment preceding the French Revolution. For Maistre such universal principles were sources of oppression, since they did not consider the situation of individuals within different cultural settings. Laws that provide the most freedom must be suited to the particular circumstances and the culture of that nation. The establishment of such new codes would be used as a pretext to destroy all existing laws, even though some of them were still useful. Napoleon appealed to universal reason but, as Maistre and Stael cautioned, that was often just caprice and desire to satisfy his thirst for power. Madame de Stael saw how a despot could be presented to the people as a 134 Holtman, The Napoleonic Revolution, 187-9. 135 Hegel, Philosophy of History, 29-33.

The Balance of Power

215

defender of their interests. An adviser once suggested that a proposition that Napoleon was about to make was inconsistent with the Code Napoleon. Napoleon's reply was that since "the Code Napoleon was made for the security of the people, if that security requires other measures, one must adopt them."136 Napoleon was claiming that he needed unlimited power to defend the public interest, but that was often only pretence to justify his unlimited power to modify the laws as he wished. The legislation of Louis XIV was also arbitrary and capricious. Maistre draws a parallel between the despotism of Louis XIV and that of Napoleon. "Place the red bonnet of Napoleon on the head of Louis XFV, or the wig of Louis XIV on the head of the Corsican; once this effort is made, you will find many points of contact: an abuse of power, outrageous desires ... fruits of a union of forces pushed to an extreme."137 Napoleon was not an emancipator but a despot disguised as a saviour of all humanity. For Hegel liberty was associated with the actual powers of the state and liberties were not found through the claims that individuals could make against the state. "The worth of the individual is measured by the extent to which the individual reflects and represents the national spirit."138 Maistre and Herder also perceived liberty in this positive sense, but the similarity ended there. For them it was expressed as the freedom to belong to one's cultural national group. Men are social beings, who develop their hidden potential through their participation in particular groups. Every group has the right to control its own destiny: "history has to be seen as a creation of man, rather than as a complex of impersonal forces to which he is subject."139 Hegel, on the other hand, sacrificed individuals and groups to the march of history. Even Napoleon, an extremely powerful person, was being controlled by an external force. This is somewhat similar to what Maistre says with reference to leaders of the Revolution. Hegel justified "enormous sacrifices" such as the destruction of national groups, as long as it allowed for the march of reason through history. History was described as "the slaughter bench at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals have been victimized."140 Hegel could excuse all kinds of atrocities as long as they were shown to move humanity forward. 136 137 138 139 140

Stael, Considerations sur la revolution francaise, 413. "Lettre a Blacas septembre 1813," Joseph de Maistre et Blacas, 277-8. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, 80. Hampsher-Monk, A History of Modern Political Thought, 413. Hegel, Philosophy of History, 21.

216

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

Hegel claimed that Napoleon was a benevolent dictator because he liberated peoples from their own national oppressors, despotic monarchs, or aristocrats. It was hoped that, after the conquests, Napoleon would withdraw his troops and give the European countries an opportunity to be truly independent as democratic republics. Such hopes did not materialize. The Napoleonic regime appointed administrators, many of them from outside the nation, whose greatest motivation was to please Napoleon, not the citizens. Bonaparte intervened in local politics in various ways. In Italy and Holland he supported various candidates who were most supportive of France's interests and were not necessarily the most democratic or moderate.141 Napoleon designed schemes to concentrate power in the hands of his own subservient elite. For example, in the Italian states, the landed proprietors, merchants, and manufacturers participated in the appointment of members of the government. Since Napoleon feared that the professional classes could have been harbouring subversive ideas, he only gave them the power to submit a list of candidates to the government and then his government would appoint individuals from that list to important positions. Napoleon was establishing in the conquered nations a new aristocracy that depended completely on his favours. This new elite would act as did the flattering courtiers of Louis XIV. As Maistre and Fenelon pointed out, they would not form an adequate countervailing force to the arbitrary and despotic aspirations of an emperor or king. Therefore, the masses of the people did not acquire any more political power than they had when they were governed by a national elite. The citizenry was also forced to make great sacrifices for the aggrandizement of Napoleon's empire. Napoleon's aim was to increase the power of the empire as a whole, not any particular nation within it, except perhaps France, where he had his headquarters. Many men from conquered nations were sent to fight in wars that aimed to extend the empire and not to defend their own nation. The loss of manpower from such conscription and the demands that Napoleon placed on vassal states to provide financial and other resources for his conquests ruined the economies of conquered nations. For example, Napoleon agreed in 1808 to withdraw French troops from Prussia only after the Prussian government agreed to pay one hundred forty million francs. "This amount exceeded by 40 per cent the total yearly revenues of Prussia before half her territories had been taken away by the Treaty of Tilsit."142 141 Lefebvre, Napoleon from 18 Brumaire to Tilsit 1799-1807, 117. 142 Herold, 268.

The Balance of Power

217

Is it possible that Maistre, too, wanted to establish a universal empire, but one under the papacy - since he did favour an ultramontane policy by national leaders? He wished that Christians would not weaken their position further vis-a-vis atheists and agnostics by continually quarrelling among themselves and splitting into a number of sects. Maistre's writings indicate that he was motivated by a desire for more unity and cooperation in the religious sphere, not by a wish for a universal theocratic government. During the sixteenth century, after Martin Luther had spoken out against the sale of indulgences and other abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, religious motivation was added to the causes that resulted in almost constant warfare in Europe. Islam, mainly represented by the Turks, took advantage of the internecine conflicts in Europe to establish footholds: taking Belgrade in 1521; laying siege to Vienna in 1529; establishing protectorates in eastern Europe, such as Transylvania (Romania); and replacing the Hungarian monarchy by a Turkish colonial government. The large Islamic enclaves that still exist in these areas of Europe originated in that period; they have been the orientation for recent conflict and genocide, for example, in the Yugoslav region. The advantage of the use of papal power as a unifying force against an external threat to Europe in the sixteenth century is apparent. The Burgundian Emperor Charles V attempted to counter the inroads of Islam with the assistance of the papal and other Catholic states. For example, Tunis was invaded and thousands of Christian slaves, who had been captured by Moslem corsairs in raids on the European coast, were freed. However, the protestant states and France continued to weaken the Emperor's power and papal power. In 1536 and 1542 catholic France even fought as an ally of the Turks, against the Emperor. On many occasions, such as the battle of Lepanto in 1571, the papal fleet provided a unifying religious element, so that the Venetian fleet together with the fleet of the Emperor (mainly Italian and Spanish) decisively defeated the Turkish fleet. This external threat to Europe was stopped for a considerable time, but the Pope's political influence continued to deteriorate, partly because the princes and bourgeoisie of the German and other European states were increasingly using the new Protestantism, combined with the rising national consciousness, to achieve their own political ends. By Maistre's lifetime in the eighteenth century, the Pope could no longer provide a unifying political force for Europe, as had occurred during the Middle Ages. The papacy's religious influence was diminished and it possessed little military power. Maistre feared further weakening of ecclesiastical power by the Napoleonic Concordat of 1801, such that it would not even be able to act as a partial counterweight in

218

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

terms of bringing moral suasion to bear on political powers within a nation-state to reduce or avoid tendencies towards despotism. Albert Blanc refers to a letter that Maistre had written to the Pope before the coronation of Napoleon, explaining that it would be desirable for the pontiff to resist Napoleon. This letter was intercepted and never reached Rome.143 The Pope travelled to France to crown Napoleon, to the consternation of Europe, and especially of the Russian court, where Maistre happened to be during his appointment as the ambassador of the House of Savoy. By the eighteenth century the most that a pope could do was to remind a king when the latter had trespassed what was acceptable by virtue of the laws of God and the nation; and then only in exceptional circumstances, since even this would place both him and the Church at risk. Consequently, no reasonable person could expect the renaissance in the eighteenth century of a European civilization devoted to a single Christian religion and Maistre would perceive that this was no longer feasible. I have discussed the potential for an affirmative answer to this question only because Maistre has been accused by some critics of promoting such a futile endeavour. As discussed in the first chapter, he never promotes the establishment of a universal European theocracy such as the one that had existed in Geneva under Calvin. A Roman Catholic, he appreciates the advantages of a united front against secularism and atheism for maintaining social morality and, while he is not a proponent of religious diversity per se, he encourages co-operation among the Christian sects. Maistre's diplomatic correspondence and memoranda provide an important contribution to our understanding of the period between the French Revolution and the Restoration in France, partly because they consider the events in Europe from the perspective of a middle-sized power and they show a sensitivity to the situation and aspirations of smaller national groups. During this period, the great powers sometimes attempted to manipulate the smaller nations like pawns in a chess game, ignoring or disregarding the important role that these could play as contributors to the well-being of Europe. Maistre's writings reveal his frustration as he works to promote the interests of Piedmont at the meetings among diplomats and political leaders. "Savoy is divided by the stroke of a pen, not considering what is natural, and men are apportioned here and there like the members of a flock of sheep."144 Maistre 143 Blanc, Memoires politiques et correspondence diplomatique, 138. 144 Maistre, "Copie de note verbale a son excellence M. le conseiller prive comte de Nesselrode," 10/22 aout 1814, Correspondance diplomatique de Joseph de Maistre i8n-i8ij, 6.

The Balance of Power

219

recognizes that a national culture would require its own institutional structure to survive and flourish. This is advantageous not only to that particular national culture but also to the rest of the world, because then aspects of the culture such as Arabic numerals, Italian classical music, Chinese china, or Indian yoga are available for adoption by other nations. Cosmopolitanism does not produce much new culture, but rather a mixture of existing cultures. A governing elite ruling a large number of diverse groups would unavoidably suppress some of the distinctiveness of national cultures within an empire because, to rule effectively, standardization and homogenization are needed. In addition, Maistre recognized that independent smaller nations can provide a more stable regional and general balance of power. Maistre's interest in the balance of power is primarily driven by his desire to find a way to prevent and oppose despotism at the international level, exemplified by Napoleon's conquest of Europe. One finds a parallel between Maistre's treatment of politics at the national and at the international level. As discussed in chapter I, Maistre envisioned the domestic political system as a set of countervailing forces, where social groups with different strengths and influences interact to limit and diffuse political power. At the international level the nation-states with various sets of capabilities could apply, on their own and in co-operation with others, the force necessary to prevent any particular nation-state from dominating the whole system. Nation-states play a similar role in the international system to that of social groups in the national system, and in both situations the result is a check on the possibility of the misuse of excessive and concentrated power. Maistre's vision realistically perceived the need to limit individual liberty to allow the hierarchy fundamental to a viable group, just as there will always be weaker and more powerful nations in international society. The operation of such a system of groups within a national social framework and of nations in international society would provide more freedom and well-being for individuals in the long term. We delude ourselves, he writes, if we think that simply because man has the inherent ability to choose, there can be infinite [and equal] liberty for all individuals. Man must operate in accordance with the laws of the political world, just as in the natural world man's freedom exists only within the laws of nature. "In both the society of individuals and of nations, it is inevitable that some have more and some have less freedom."145 Nevertheless, Maistre was optimistic that it is possible to optimize and to continue to improve the well-being of all 145 Maistre, "Lettre a Louis-Aime Vignet, baron des Etoles," Lausanne, 28 octobre, 1794, in De la terreur a la restauration: correspondances inedites, 105.

2 2o

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

this does not mean that he believes the goal would be easily achieved and still maintain the peace. Maistre writes that "if Italy, and particularly Piedmont, is left to France, then there is no need to reason; the European association is dissolved: all that is left is to submit and to receive the yoke."1^6 If the war to preserve the liberties of Europe is to succeed, and if liberty is to be maintained after the peace will have been won, the great powers need to realize that smaller states are their shield and their companion both in battle and in the balance of power.

146 Maistre, "Memoire a consulter sur 1 'etat present de 1'Europe avec quelques reflexions paruculierement sur 1'Italie," Janvier 1804, oc, vol. IX, 152.

Conclusion

THE PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED WORKS of Joseph de Maistre COD-

sidered in this study reveal a thinker who was in tune with his time and who makes a significant beneficent contribution to European thought. Maistre's commentaries in his notebooks and the observations in his memoirs show that he is conversant with the ideas and leading questions of his day, produces a capable assessment of them, and adds an outstanding, original, constructive contribution. His understanding of the mechanisms of the economy and the political system is excellent and in some instances goes beyond what was achieved by his contemporaries. Policy recommendations similar to those that he had made to the government of Piedmont in 1798 regarding fiat inconvertible paper money have been acclaimed by leading monetary experts more than a century after his death and have become the accepted standard in all of the world's nation-states. His ideas have bearing today on topics such as cosmopolitanism, democracy, and reform of the Canadian Senate. Maistre's writings, although diverse, form a unified whole. Occasionally, a significant variation became apparent in the course of this study between the interpretation or evaluation of previous commentators and my analysis, which uses unpublished, neglected, original manuscripts, as well as those previously published. I have presented a representative sampling of the commentaries and opinions by previous critics of Maistre's writings. When the facts or statements already disseminated in the literature on Maistre's works appear incompatible with my interpretation, I have provided my explanation of the probable cause. There is only one Joseph de Maistre. Maistre's writings were censored because European governments feared that, as they were becoming widely read and influential, they might constitute a threat. His works were proscribed by the Napoleonic government, the Savoyard government, and neutral governments such as

222

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

the Swiss. He was persona non grata with some of the exiled royalist counter-revolutionaries and with the French princes in exile. The conservatives complained that he was not sufficiently reactionary and traditionalist. His writings have not received extensive acclaim partly because he is never neutral, and if that is the truth as he sees it, he often speaks out against both sides on a given question. He has a reputation with some liberals of being an extremist and precursor of fascism but, on the contrary, he has never received recognition of any kind by the several varieties of totalitarian government and no evidence has come to light of any use made of his writings in their policy or activities. Since one of the most important tenets of liberalism is freedom of speech, which Maistre also holds dear see, for example, his discussion of the non-existent freedom of the press under the monarchies in France and Piedmont, and under the Revolutionary governments, in chapter I, section 3, one would expect his writings to have been better received by liberals. Since in politics he has been shown to be a moderate conservative, liberals could hone their own beliefs by comparing them with his. His moderate liberalism in things economic, which sometimes becomes an ad hoc pragmatism, may be a desirable approach in a cosmopolitan world. Some of the claims against Maistre's writings have been made by commentators who referred only to secondary sources or a far from representative sample of his published works. The unpublished writings considered here serve to further clarify and broaden our range of understanding of his thought. The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy may explain the erroneous precursor of fascism label; he despises despotism of any kind, including those he knew personally, the dictatorial monarchy and the post-Revolutionary French government. He is not reactionary in the sense that he wishes the return of the pre-Revolutionary monarchy to France; his choice would be an aristocracy headed by a king whose power is tempered by countervailing forces. One could hardly call him consistently traditionalist after becoming aware of the modern pragmatic solutions he devises, such as inconvertible paper money, when everyone else was holding onto the anchor of custom. It is a travesty of logic to associate his aims with his vivid illustrations, as has been done repeatedly by his critics regarding violence. Describing violence does not equate ipso facto with promoting and perpetuating it. He describes violence in its many forms to dissuade people from using or associating with it by exposing its horrors and proving that it only results in more conflict. The violence associated with the execution of convicted criminals he personally acts to minimize, as in the Pala case, and he attempts to rationalize it in terms of expiation, which is in keeping with the times and his Catholic religion. When in some cases as in war or execution of

Conclusion

223

convicted criminals he wonders whether violence may be ordained by Providence, he accepts what he considers inevitable but does not enjoy war or executions. "Theocratic" he is not; the papacy is only one of many political counterweights in his ideal polity. He was a conservative, in the sense that he witnessed and anticipated little practical benefit being derived by the majority of citizens from the liberal negative freedom of choice for individuals. But this was not a pejorative in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the majority of the population were not capable of profiting from the franchise and the minority normally set the values and governed. He promotes political (positive) freedom to be gained through participation in groups within the larger society. Such groups as the family, the neighbourhood, the class, and the occupation provide individuals with opportunities to influence political power and to optimize their political liberty. Maistre's writings form a unified whole because his analyses of both the economy and the polity are guided by the three lodestars: authority, equilibrium, and justice. The traditional ranks that exemplify the first lodestar encourage a respect for authority, moderate the influence of wealth and self-interest, and infuse throughout the state a societal approach that aims towards the public good. The pyramidal aristocracy headed by the monarch also maintains the integrity of the moral and cultural life of the polity. The system of countervailing forces represents the second lodestar, equilibrium. While Maistre prefers a political landscape where the king is central, the system he conceived provides checks and balances to prevent abuse of power by the monarchy. Multiple centres of separate power, including the king, the nobles, the Pope, and the people, reduce the chance that one political actor could dominate absolutely. Maistre's third lodestar, justice, recognizes that no monarch should be permitted with impunity to go beyond his powers as recognized in the customs, the written constitution, and the laws of the nation. The magistrates, as a part of their role in enforcing justice, are qualified to advise the king as well as the commoner and other players. Through the legal system, symbolized by the executioner, they administer punitive measures that prevent anti-social behaviour and keep the various parts of the polity aware that justice will be served on transgressors. Because Maistre did not hesitate to assign an important role to government in providing a framework and milieu, he was able to recognize within the monetary system that he devised the full potential of inconvertible paper money, while his contemporaries did not. Despite the misleading appearance that the confidence in paper money would be strengthened if the government were to follow the conventional way and promise to exchange any bill for its value in coins, Maistre shows

224

The More Moderate Side of Joseph de Maistre

that convertibility not only places in jeopardy the usefulness of paper money but also destabilizes the economy and the state. He also explains how the quantity of money could be increased gradually with benefit to the economy, as steps would be taken to maintain confidence in the paper notes. Paper currency is managed more effectively if the public is told when it is issued that it is fiat money, inconvertible, not created to repay public debt, and that the market will henceforth determine its value. The new ideas and mechanisms with which he proposes to replace the old ways of obtaining revenue for the government - for example, a progressive system of taxation and effective management of the issue of paper currency - illustrate his courage to break with tradition when the alternative is more constructive. On the other hand, Maistre wants to retain those aspects of the past that could still be valuable, such as a hereditary aristocracy to provide stable leadership. The group is the primary unit of analysis for Maistre, both within a nation and at the international level. Every such unit has specific rights and responsibilities, as well as powers that it can exert upon others. The monarchy tempered by an aristocracy has its counterpart in political economy: the policy of free trade with some exceptions. In the economic as in the political sphere, the influence of government is valued but circumscribed, so that its power cannot be abused. During the ancien regime, the effectiveness of countervailing forces domestically was limited by the overpowering position of the French monarchy. A French monarch had even sent in the army to force the parlements to submit. Internationally, during Maistre's lifetime, the mechanism of counter-forces had been stymied for a time by the overpowering position of Napoleonic France. Nevertheless, Maistre is optimistic that humankind could devise ways and means to harness the natural virtues and vices of human beings to the benefit of all. Maistre elaborates on the theory of the balance of power; he supports the position that, although states act out of raison d 'etat, war and anarchy need not be the outcome of international interaction. Against such a state as Napoleonic France, a defensive alliance could be formed by appealing to the self-interest of other states for the creation of a balance of power to prevent the outlaw state from dominating all of Europe. A more effective balance of power would be achieved with the participation of the smaller powers. Yet he recommends that when the offending state has been vanquished, it should not be utterly destroyed, as that would merely again disturb the international balance. Capital punishment and inflicting pain for vengeance never hold precedence in his aims in either the international or the domestic sphere. He tolerates the practice of torturing and execution of criminals, as most of his contemporaries do, to prevent criminality.

Conclusion

225

Maistre understands that justice would not be served and prosperity and well-being would not be enjoyed by everyone as a matter of course under capitalism and a market economy. He points to the continued existence of the many under-privileged in the world and indicates that not enough is being done to meet their needs. His enthusiasm for free trade is restrained by the need to consider exceptions according to particular circumstances. He favours a diversified and more progressive tax system that would distribute the impact widely on the upper classes and citizens living in urban areas as well as on those in the countryside, so that all would provide their fair share of the revenue needed by government. Maistre wants a dynamic society in the sense that, although the economic and political elite would still mostly remain based on heredity and wealth, advancement should also be open to those with the necessary personal merit, talent, and qualifications. In addition to warning that the physical needs of the working poor were not being met, he also explained that for their well-being individuals need to be members of groups. Should Europe come to be dominated by a single empire the diversity of national groups would be diminished. This is not only unjust but also such an empire would be unstable, because it would be unnatural for various nations with different cultures to be forced to amalgamate under a single ruler. He does not conceive the state exclusively in terms of the vertical relation between the ruler and the people. He is one of the few in the late eighteenth century who recognizes as well the horizontal relation defined by the feeling of belonging to a cultural group. Language, the vehicle of culture, binds individuals together, satisfying this natural human need. Maistre arrives at these conclusions as he claims that cultural and physical factors are the determining causes of the kinds of political and economic institutions that would be established in any given state. Since humans are social beings, individual identity is shaped by the characteristics of the cultural group. To the extent that society nurtures, for example, self-control and respect for the rights of others within groups, less government is needed to counteract the weaknesses of human nature. Maistre is a proponent of restraint and flexibility in both the polity and the economy. His goal is to maximize the beneficial not only for his class, but for society as a whole. Aware of the destruction and suffering that characterized the periods prior to and in the aftermath of the French Revolution, Maistre points the way to a new Europe, where citizens would not need to turn to violence and bloodshed to optimize liberty and prosperity.

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDICES

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX l

Report on the commerce of grain between Carouge and Geneva A Report to His Majesty the King of Piedmont, written in French by Joseph de Maistre, 25 October 1790

The undersigned, having been taken to Carouge [beginning as a colony of Piedmont; today a suburb of Geneva, Switzerland] by an uprising which had occurred in this town the 28th of last August, and on which he had been charged to make an inquiry that would provide information on the situation, took advantage of this opportunity to examine diverse things pertaining essentially to the service of the King and the well-being of this new settlement, of which one of the most important is the trade in grains, which the major part of the inhabitants demand be set free. This question envisaged in a general way is without doubt one of the thorniest presented in the science of political economy. One has so much argued about pro and con on this very interesting matter that it must be painful for an enlightened ministry to have to make a decision

that touches on the subsistence of the people, and that has been espoused on one side or the other by so many great statesmen.

Fortunately, it appears that the question simplifies itself considerably in applying it only to the commerce between Carouge and Geneva, because it is quite possible that there are circumstances that absolutely need free trade between one city and another. A wise ministry obeys the consequences [empirical evidence] in similar circumstances, without pretending that one can assume the particular case as one applicable [universally] to the trade of grains in general. One must, therefore, examine principally the particular circumstances of Geneva that - without absolutely excluding, nevertheless, the general notions that can [perhaps justify a different solution] -justify the desires of Carouge in the eyes of the government. The Council of Carouge, in its deliberation on the third of this month, has declared solemnly its opinion on free trade, and it approves

230

Appendix i

it for two principal reasons. One, Savoy, not having any manufacturing, can trade only in commodities. Two, Geneva, at least for the southern provinces, is the only outlet for this commerce. Numerous letters and memoirs have developed these two ideas; one can only present them in a new light and strengthen them by a few observations capable of calming the anxieties of a well-intentioned government. If one considers the aggregate value of the purchases that Savoy imports annually, in drapery, textiles, silk, furniture, jewellery, clothing, and books, that is, in all of the articles of consumption possible If we add to this the thirteen or fourteen hundred thousand pounds [£] that we send each year to Piedmont, tax that is certainly very moderate, and that we [Carouge] must pay with joy and gratitude but which nevertheless constitutes a considerable sum If to these one adds also the sizeable export of specie by a whole legion of nationals that do not abandon Piedmont, by the Savoy officers distributed in the other regiments, by the young people that keep coming year after year to the academies, to the college for the nobility, to the college of the provinces, and to the private schools of Turin, and a large number of other young people, even more numerous, who, unfortunately deprived of all assistance for their education, are forced to go to acquire it at Belley, Tournou, Saurere, Lyon, July, Forentrio, and as far as Geneva If we put together all these considerations, I say, the most moderate estimate cannot value at less than four million the total sum exported annually from Savoy. To balance this exportation, enormous in relation to a population of at most 400,000 people, there are only two sources, agriculture and the mining industry, which is still a sort of agriculture. It is necessary here to notice how much we are all mistaken about what we call the balance of [payments] trade. Every day we hear that there is a balance of a certain number of millions pro or con for this or that nation, but it is just as impossible for a nation as it is for an individual to buy (at least at a certain rate of exchange) more than it sells. Otherwise, there would not have been since long ago an ounce of silver left in Savoy. And, reciprocally, the French would be walking on gold, as Mr Necker [a minister of finance of France] has courageously proposed, if France had an annual favourable balance of 70 millions in her favour. The truth is that a nation can only sell as much as it purchases; in this way, it becomes wealthier, as when an individual possesses a large enough income to be able to save annually, in a way that, over and above what is consumed there remains a surplus, which accumulates each year the stock of national capital. But just as an individual would suddenly

On the Commerce of Grain

231

lose a part of his fortune if the authorities were to prevent him from disposing of his goods as he would judge appropriate, in selecting the purchasers who give him the best offer, all prohibitions diminish on the spot the national revenue and for the same reason the means for augmenting the capital. To know, also, whether there may be occasions where it is preferable to submit ourselves voluntarily to this normally undesirable consequence, to avoid an even worse result, is a question beyond the scope of this memoir. Let us focus instead on where we can avoid exaggerated opinions, which are nearly always false because if these [exceptional] cases exist they must be quite rare, and it is only in extreme situations that a sovereign could decide voluntarily to execute an order of which the inevitable effect would be to diminish the income of his people, that is, [the source of] his own revenue. Geneva being then literally a gold mine, always responding to His Majesty's wishes, and the neighbouring provinces that have no other resources whatsoever, having only the commodities to offer the Genevese in exchange for their gold, this commerce deserves to be favoured in every way by the Government. If some subjects of Your Majesty were to establish at Carouge, or elsewhere, a watch factory, a lace manufactory, or others of this genre, capable of providing annually a net benefit from exports of only 30,000 tr [gold coins], no doubt they would obtain the most flattering encouragement from the government, and they would well deserve it. But when one considers that rural areas of Savoy around Geneva export daily to this city more than sixty Louis of milk (I do not include the dairy products derived from it), and that the market of Romilly alone sends weekly to Geneva worth forty Louis of poultry, one knows how much agriculture, considered only as an industry, deserves to be favoured above all the other [industries]. Here is introduced the great objection founded on the need for wheat in the subsistence of man. We are told that we must not consider the profit when survival is involved; but it appears that this fear is a pure illusion. To prove it with some evidence, one would have to repeat what numerous excellent men have elaborated in their voluminous works, and this would require us to exceed the capacity of a good memory. However, one cannot resist one observation which appears to have some power. Let us consider another commodity than wheat; milk, for example, of which we have just spoken. Let us suppose for a moment that it becomes suddenly necessary to the subsistence of man. The authorities would believe, perhaps, that one must inspect its commerce and regulate it with laws. One could say to the government that a daily

232

Appendix i

export of many barrels of milk exceeds all measures and it should not be permitted to expose in this way the subsistence of the King's subjects. That even if only one should die of hunger this loss could not be compensated by another thousand people being made rich. Also, that the lure of profits attracts each day more vendors to Geneva where a better price is obtained; Savoy would soon find herself impoverished, etc. In one word, one would say everything that one says about wheat, in such a way that regulation would appear unavoidable. Let us suppose, then, that we put into effect that prohibitive regulation; from that point each cow would become an object of inquiry. Inspectors would be necessary, as well as extra workers, deposits on containers used for shipments, quotas, and finally procedures, incarcerations, and fines. The agriculturalists, continually harassed, and sometimes ruined, would cut back on the number of their animals. The monopolists, exciting the fears of the people, in order to profit from it, would add to the confusion. An imaginary misery, more terrible than the real one, would embitter the people. In their blindness, the law would become odious. There would be riots, demonstrations of dissent; at the end one might have people killing each other for a few drops of this beverage. None of this occurs at the moment because, milk not being a prime necessity, one has no fear, since no one is involved in this business except the ones that transact it. Geneva is consuming quantities of coffee and tea that surpass what can be imagined, and the beasts of Savoy are naturally involved in this consumption. The cows multiply and are improved, the pastures grow larger, the manure also; all the products are affected and the price of milk is low precisely because we sell so much. Nobody could imagine that milk could become scarce, and while the milk of Savoy makes fall into the hands of the Savoy agriculturalists an enormous sum that is financed by the Genevese, the most humble worker of Carouge is able to take daily his cafe au lait, and considers with reason that he is getting it at a good price. It does not seem possible that one can oppose such a deduction; the illustration is conclusive, since it does not matter that wheat is a need and that milk is not. The example proves it and that is enough: that the export of a commodity tends to increase the quantity produced and to lower the price of this good in the country that exports it, and it is also true although it is the opposite of what is commonly pre-conceived. An illustration from wise England supports this fundamental truth. In the last century Parliament was much involved with legislation on grains. The Kingdom suffered periodic famines; effective ways were sought to prevent exports while the most severe measures were undertaken. A member of parliament stood up and proposed a recompense for

On the Commerce of Grain

233

all Englishmen who would export wheat. One began by ridiculing this idea and finished by admiring it. In truth, England suppresses the recompense and even requires permission to export, when the price of wheat has risen to a certain level. However, it may be that this restriction is also an homage to the old prejudices; very famous writers and the most illustrious of all (Mr. Smith) thought of it this way. Second, England is an island, and consequently it is possible for the government to have itself obeyed on several points that on the Continent would lack any authority. That is a consideration especially pertinent regarding our position on Geneva. When we have established that prohibition is generally useful, it is also necessary to examine if it is possible to make it applicable with regard to Geneva, and the contrary appears to be demonstrated. The most assiduous perusal of the best map does not give a clear idea of the great ease that the layout of the land gives to contraband: a lake and a river offer a thousand ways to evade the law, great meandering shorelines along the frontiers, and a multitude of little paths everywhere in the territory of Geneva that lead to this great highway [the lake and the river]. Some boundaries are poorly delineated, such that they pass through enclosures, which means that a backyard or a garden of several toises [1,949 m] square is shared by two political powers. To prevent contraband in such a location, one would need an army, and, moreover, regulations most opposed to your paternal government. You would have to demolish habitations and enclosures that conceal the boundaries, provide procedures that would permit responding with dispatch to contraventions that would make it less difficult to prove, facilitate the seizing of the contraband goods, deploy the military forces with less effort, and in short, need to make the government unpopular without enjoying the consolation of an assured success because it is quite possible that the most rigorous measures would not succeed regarding the Genevese. With regard to the commerce in grains, the nation that requests is always stronger than the one that refuses, but Geneva has also a special advantage towards us; the undersigned hopes that one will pardon a familiar comparison. A greyhound of iron has more power than a greyhound made of wood of equal strength because having much less volume it is easier to handle. Similarly, Geneva, possessing immense capital, gathered in one spot, having all of her strength in hand, and using it with as much freedom as ability, Geneva, I say, has an astonishing effect on her environment and much more strength than a whole province as rich or even richer than she. Consequently, with any measures that we take to prevent contraband, we will always find in our way Geneva and her speculations, her intrigues, and her millions [money].

234

Appendix i

From that currently results a very serious inconvenience, that of exposing public servants at the lower levels of government to an almost inevitable corruption. The evil is especially deplorable with regard to the soldier, with whom it is so important to maintain spirit, honour, and selflessness, and who finds himself regularly tempted by seduction, while the weak laws declare no conviction to most of the seizures, which might encourage the soldiers to enforce the law. This point is one that the undersigned has examined carefully; he has collected on site numerous anecdotes, discouraging for us, which are in Geneva a subject of interminable discussions [embarrassing to the Savoyards]. It is also essential to observe another important inconvenience that results from the current state of affairs. Instead of the sort of fraternity that should exist between the people of Geneva and those of Carouge, and that is absolutely necessary to the latter, they are currently in open warfare;h a retailer from Carouge cannot appear in Geneva without be ing ridiculed and insulted. He hears that Geneva is giving chanty to the Sa voyards, that she [Geneva] gives them wheat on credit, and in return the Genevese are being bothered in Savoy, etc. They [the Genevese] go so far as t seize the goods that the retailers of that area [Savoy] bring to Geneva, as happened when the undersigned was at Carouge. Such a violent state of affairs is intolerable for Carouge, which is in absolute dependence on Geneva, to the point that in ordinary usage there, Geneva is called The City par excellence, as if Carouge is only a suburb [in the nineteenth century Carouge did become a suburb of Geneva]; to go to town in Carouge signifies to go to Geneva; and the expression is accurate. It is not practicable to disrupt commerce between a city and its suburbs; either these barriers to trade are destroyed or Carouge will be. Finally, an important consideration in the matter, and one which can contribute to peaceful governance following the freeing of the commerce of grains, is that the army of individuals running contraband at the moment, working against our interests, will suddenly be in our favour the moment commerce becomes free. When no longer finding employment in Savoy, they will move to our border with France and will bring in wheat at any price, despite the new laws that are, one would say, terrible, because they carry the death penalty against contrabandists of grains, and despite the frenetic activities of the municipalities the grain will leave France. Even something shocking has occurred in this respect: one subject of the King has made an offer to the municipality of Chambery, and offers even yet they say, to charge a very reasonable price to return to Geneva all the wheat which that city has loaned us, and to furnish proof that the wheat will all have originated in France.

On the Commerce of Grain

235

The undersigned has nothing to say about this proposition which does not concern him, he notes it only as a useful source for reflection. To continue, even if it is a subject that has been debated pro and con for a long time and which he has carefully studied, the undersigned is in favour, above all in the present case, of the freedom of commerce in grains. Nevertheless, he does not offer his advice without suitable restraint and he is far from certain that this system is perfect and does not involve inconvenience. At least one must give it time to get into proper working order because in the first period of freedom wheat will move to Geneva, raising its price in the market of Carouge, and it is possible that the public will at first complain. It will be wise to inspect more attentively at that time because as the undersigned must disclose, several persons of this group came to him during his stay in Carouge, expressly to tell him that they did not share the general opinion on this question. That is, as this policy involves the extraction of grains from Savoy, it will inevitably suffer famine, possibly some people will be fearful and will cause others to feel the same, but after a few balancing movements an equilibrium will re-establish itself between the market in Geneva and Carouge and everyone will be peaceful. That which has much contributed to maintaining the uncertainty of this important matter is that one has rarely possessed the courage to await the effects of freedom to work themselves out, especially in the territory of our neighbours. The permission to export inevitably bringing with it a short-term rise in prices and following it objections to this rise in prices as an inconvenience arising from freedom that is not reasonable; one has always permitted oneself to become fearful on the first complaints of the public. The government should not permit the export of grains, unless it has a firm resolution to maintain it despite the complaints that may follow it, and which probably arise in such cases, and it would only be after reasonable time would have passed that one could usefully judge the new system. If this system is of great interest to His Majesty's subjects, it does not interest less the people of Geneva. The undersigned has every reason to believe this as during his stay at Carouge he was made to feel the importance of the subject; in any event he was offered the opportunity to get together to discuss it with the Secretary of State of Geneva. But taking such a step appeared to the undersigned to involve at least the inconvenience of making us appear too anxious to reach an understanding with Geneva, and he thought that it would have been in some way taking the first step without authorization such that he believed he had to scrupulously avoid any step in that direction. A subject of the King especially

236

Appendix i

connected to the Genevese has said to the undersigned (perhaps on purpose) that these gentlemen would have no difficulty to speak first if that were needed. Whatever it is, if they do not offer very advantageous conditions to the subjects of Your Majesty, the undersigned dares to think that it would be useful to let them suspect intentions completely opposite to what they desire and actions against them even more severe. One could, in fact, imagine, regarding the trade in wheat, a legislation that without surpassing the margin of a severe law, would nevertheless have the capacity to intimidate Geneva. If the barriers [to trade] are removed as one wishes at Carouge, its inhabitants would expect, they said to the undersigned, to be treated at Geneva as though they are Genevese, and this wish appears perfectly just. The Savoyards should be able to go, at will, to the market of Geneva, and moreover they should find wheat available to them there at stores in Geneva. In short, Geneva must consider itself in this regard as a province of Savoy. The undersigned questioned the people of Carouge to discover their attitude towards free trade with France and Switzerland; but in the short time that he carried on this process, he did not meet anyone who could provide clear ideas on this subject. Since it is one of these who appeared to be the most doubtful [about the idea of free trade] at the senate, and that in the remonstrance that he addressed to His Majesty was doing nothing more than examining the pros and cons expressed in this article, the undersigned is, on the same basis, taking the liberty to express his own opinion presented humbly to Your Majesty. First, that in politics numerous things, essentially beneficial, may become harmful due to specific circumstances. Second, that all sudden, or too large, changes are followed by undesirable consequences. Third, that absolute freedom along all of the points of the frontiers would present too much opportunity to the bad-intentioned to lead the people, and especially those of Carouge, to some considerable [undesirable] excesses. Fourth, that the government forces, when no longer needed on the border with Geneva, could be better utilized on the border with Switzerland. Fifth, that the Government is always able to give commerce its liberty with regard to Switzerland, if this appears useful for the future, and by dealing with the problem a little at a time, gradually there will be fewer shocks [challenges to the established order], there will be less with which to cope, and less inconveniences.

On the Commerce of Grain

237

These are the thoughts that the undersigned had, or were suggested to him, during his stay at Carouge. He would like to be able to say also that he had arrived at the truth, rather than that he intended to find the truth, but he can only assure You that there is nothing more urgent than to remove the good subjects of Your Majesty from their uncomfortable position, and even humiliation, that they find themselves in with regard to the Genevese, and of which one would have to be a witness to be able to form an accurate picture. Chambery 25 October 1790 Maistre

APPENDIX 2

Letter to the King of Piedmont regarding the export of grain Letter to His Royal Highness, King of Piedmont, written in French, 22 May 1800

Sir

When I was in Florence last September, the Reverend Father Pellegrini, Provincial of the order of St Jean de Dieu and Director of the hospital at Leghorn, came to implore to His Majesty to be so kind as to grant him the favour to be permitted to purchase in Sardinia and to have exported a thousand bushels of wheat for the aforementioned hospital: and he obtained from the King a favourable response, but it was not put in writing. My trip coincided with his; we came together at Leghorn where I received from him a thousand favours. After some time, he keenly pleaded with me, in concert with the Marquis Dosi, zealous administrator of the hospital at Leghorn, to write to the Count of Challembert on the subject of this requested export. I did it and the reply was such as these men desired, inasmuch as the needs of Piedmont were not opposed to the idea. From that time on, the circumstances known to Your Royal Highness have delayed the decision on this business. I have shown to His Royal Highness Monsignor the Duke of Geneva that if the public interest would be opposed to an unlimited export, this same interest would not appear to permit that it would be suppressed absolutely, that what it consists of could deserve an exception because it was about another plea favoured by His Majesty and, therefore, without consequence; I would add that I would be full of gratitude if He would take into consideration the kind of personal commitment that would make me want to see this business end as a success. His Royal Highness [Monsignor the Duke of Geneva] kindly gave me attention to these considerations and so, the shipment, if it is permitted, has to happen through the government of Your Royal Highness. I have taken to Him the same request beseeching Him to observe that the soldiers, subjects of His Majesty, have

Regarding the Export of Grain

239

been received and cared for in the hospital in question as well as the Tuscans themselves, and I have even seen five or six there myself. If I had some personal interest in this matter, I know enough the kindness of Your Royal Highness, to persuade me that in my situation and after the unhappiness that I have experienced, He would like as much as I to see me enjoy this advantage as any other subject of His Majesty, but I have the honour to assure Him before God that I have conducted myself in all of this only for the pleasure of pleasing others and for the point of honour quite natural, to succeed in a matter for which one has promised to do all that he can. It would be too late to renounce the principles that have led me happily to this day, without money or reproach. I remain with a great and profound respect Sir For Your Royal Highness Cagliari 22 May 1800, Your very humble, very obedient and very devout servant, The Count Maistre

APPENDIX 3

Regarding paper money in the State of Piedmont Torino 779 8 - Intorno allo stato delPiemonte rispetto alia carta-moneta; agiuntevi alcune riflessione generali sovra quelpunto di economia politico. Turin 1798 — regarding paper money in the State of Piedmont; including several general reflections on that aspect of political economy.

[The draft of this report that has survived, written in Italian and addressed to his King by Count Joseph de Maistre, has many words and paragraphs crossed out or revised. It was begun in Turin in 1798 and completed intermittently, while he was on the move through the war area, on horseback and in small boats, and in exile in Italy in 1799, during the invasion of Piedmont by the French Revolutionary army and the counter-attack by the army of the Czar and Piedmontese forces.] Paper money is nothing other than a draft payabk on sight drawn on the Public Treasury. There is bankruptcy, either completely or in part, on each occasion that the Treasury is not in position to pay [that is, to honour the promise to pay]. But, since if one wants to speak accurately there is no bankruptcy until one has been declared, it may be that the credit of the state, although it is short of funds with which to purchase the paper money, can still be good, since the opinion of the public is sufficient to preserve credit standing, in the long run at least; the general conviction that the Treasury is preparing funds with which to pay equals the ability to pay. Of this England provides us with an example: not even one Englishman imagines that in the Bank [of England] there is in money more than the one thousandth part of the nominal values that circulate in the Kingdom and on this base the Bank remains solid in front of the most severe attacks that until the present it has sustained from internal and external (domestic and foreign) enemies. Every creditor of the state having an interest in that the credit standing will be maintained, it is agreeable to the possessor of the bill that the

Regarding Paper Money

241

illusion that paper is worth money be continued. Therefore, he also works at deceiving himself (that is, convincing himself that it is so, even if he really knows it is not). Wishful hope pushes the limits of possibility to mould the shape of the future. Of the state it can be said literally Potest quia posse videtur [It possesses the power when it is able to see that it has]. In the contrary vein, a sinister opinion, whatever may be its origin, is strong enough to discredit entirely and also take the paper money out of circulation, even when the treasury is in a better condition than it might need to be preceding that unfavourable opinion. Here is found, then, for all governments in the world, reason together with temerity and hope, if they reflect on the influence of opinion: since that great enchantress tactician possesses the ability to scheme, and, if it can be said so, to paralyse the forces they possess or to get them to restrain their own power. Failure regarding paper money can occur in two ways. Either by reason of an extraordinary calamity it can be rapidly annihilated, or due to the excessive immoderate manufacture of the paper money. The result is that the [metallic] money leaves the country and is concealed, and the value of the paper money may depreciate in the same proportion, but there is no assurance that the money will not disappear at the rate that will overtake and pass the correct level of such value. It is then impossible to have a correct idea that will come to terms with the tacit judgment required. In the minds of a great many people it is attempted with regard to the paper money, and the end result is that it is discovered that few people understand such political things as affairs of state; few have the ability to ponder with a reasonable accuracy the strength of the government and the probability that the paper money will or will not be honoured by the government. Also, almost all would weary of such a tribunal and, with the most profound knowledge of the matter, after having communicated their thoughts, would deliver formal judgment. The paper money loses its value not by one round but little by little; no one knows by what internal force that has neither substance nor name. Of this we have a very curious experience in the assignats, and who did not marvel to see this very strong paper gradually lose its value quite apart from any error or misdeeds and the activities of a nefarious government, and with equal movements to fall from par to zero? Also, we remember the stupefied observers when they saw that the conquests of Holland did not appreciate even a bit the value of the assignats. Without involving ourselves more in the metaphysical considerations, it suffices to observe: i That despite the overabundance of the paper money, it could at least for some time sustain itself at par with the [metallic] money.

242

Appendix 5

2 But that once the paper money of the state arrives at that unknown point where depreciation begins, it declines continuously, little by little, with a movement sometimes equal and sometimes accelerated, in a way that no one can foresee; nor can anyone estimate what the approximate limits of the loss of value will be. For whoever does not reflect on it, it would be a thing similar to the fall of the paper money, after something having pushed them to that value where they can support the true wealth of the country - but you had better stop right there. If that government, for example, has the strength to support at par the money, then, regarding 100 million of bills that were worth 200 [million] when first issued, it would appear that the depreciation should not go further than 90 per cent of this 200 million, and if it allowed the drop, they should then remain equal to 100 million at par [if the government were to wish that]. But such reasoning does not apply, because opinion, as long as it remains an ally of the government, sustains the par, even when there is not in the treasury sufficient metallic money that can be exchanged for the paper money. However, when that great Queen of the world Opinion turns its back on the situation, the universal diffidence removes the values representative of the equilibrium value so that it is not even possible to recognize any limits. Let us consider a man who is well learned in geometry and in politics and has a deep knowledge of the circumstances specific to Piedmont. One would think that with all of these advantages, it would be possible for such a man to evaluate in figures the risk that the paper money entails of not being paid out in metal currency with a certainty; but if I were asked to estimate his chances of success I would not have the heart to reply. But Opinion does not doubt at all, it operates like a God, but with refined discernment (the marvellous result of thousands upon thousands of individual opinions) evaluates the risk in this moment, say 33 per cent, so that a bill of 100 lire is no longer worth more than 67 per cent (to one following). It appears besides (and this can encourage us) that the paper money in a few months will become stable and it almost oscillates around that point of 67 L to every 100 L. Perhaps this is an indication that it has arrived at the limit of the natural devaluation of the paper money, which would give us a very happy possibility to make a prediction then. If for some time the depreciation of the paper is arrested, we can deduce that there is a significant probability that it is promising to appreciate and this eventuality in a thousand ways can be favoured by the Monarch [opinion].

Regarding Paper Money

243

If we can give credence to those who studied this, the specie circulating in Piedmont, before the calamity in the Kingdom, rose to about 35,040 million. But first, nothing is less accepted than these calculations, and it is well stated by the father of the famous son, the Marquis of Mirabeau, that counting the number of swallows in spring would be less tiring than calculating the quantity of money circulating in the state. If we consider then that in France in the last period of the last King, the income (it is true though that the taxes were very great) was not higher than a quarter of the specie circulating in the state, we can venture to believe that in Piedmont the revenue of the state rose up to approximately a half of all the money in the state. It appears, therefore, that it would be close to the truth to think that, in the times that were prosperous and happy, there were 50 million [biglietti] in Piedmont and from that we could recognize also that the superabundance of paper was not, then, as excessive as is thought. It is heard from many sources that we are burdened by an immense amount of ready cash and we do not want to deny it, but also we can doubt whether the intentions of those who go on repeating so many lamentations are good. Do they actually speak of specie or perhaps of paper money at par? This does not appear probable, especially since it would be to complain of too much wealth, and the several inconveniences that result from a too strong specie with regard to other nations; in any event, these are so far from having bearing on our condition that we have no need to pay heed to them. We repeat, because it is an important thing, it is not always understood what pressure is suffered due to too much specie. One says that the prices of everything rise; and I answer what does it matter if you have the means to make enough income or profit. Money, as it has already been said quite correctly, can operate in accordance with the rules of the game, either a few or many does not matter, one needs only to be aware of the value that they represent. If that weight of wheat that yesterday cost us 12 L, today costs 18, you are not poorer if the quantity of specie has increased in proportion; the margins are worth less but the game is the same. If you reply that the prices rise more than the quantity of money even this is not understood. It is something truly astonishing to see how much even in the moral and political sciences there are "mother and priest" words that without reason circulate also among men, such as false money with winning ways, given and accepted in the end as making good sense and being distinct ideas. What does this mean, this rise of prices? Then what is the proportion of the specie? It is actually impossible to know with precision how much

244

Appendix 3

money is circulating in the state; nor is it possible to know accurately of the manufacturing of the various kinds of money that is done at the mint. It is a difficult thing to do an accounting of all the prices and of all the wages to make a comparison to the former state of things, and those that have perhaps attempted to clarify this have stumbled on the difficult road of all those that speak in terms of proportions. But this is not sufficient, one must get more inside [the problem]. The circulation of money is a movement, and in movement two things must be considered to get to the total outstanding magnitude, that is to say, the quantity and the velocity. These two elements compensate [offset] each other; with less quantity and more velocity the movement can remain the same. We concede then that the specie has risen one-quarter and that the prices increase by a third; we conclude, perhaps with too quick an imagination that the proportion has been destroyed? No, gentlemen: because the general running around has ended by favouring the increase of money and the representative values multiplying themselves by means of the circulation, it might be that the means of payment grow, not similar to the quantity of money, but in whatever proportion is necessary to maintain the balance [as illustrated in the equation of exchange MV=PT, the velocity of money, V, and the quantity of goods exchanged is also increasing, decreasing, or unchanged] although this is not readily apparent; and in consequence it may be that the increase of one third in prices may be the correct re-equalizing of the increase by a quarter [change] in the quantity of money. The following reflection presents itself again almost spontaneously. All of the bills of exchange that circulate in the state without interruption, increase, and are renewed at values that are frightening; and also who has ever complained that these papers should not be part of commerce, themselves introducing imaginary values, causing increases in wages and in prices of commodities? It might be said that the bills of exchange and other paper of business do not have forced circulation but those of the paper money do, and this does not support the comparison. But this point illustrates the evidence that the evil is not in the quantity of that paper but instead in the forced path of the same. Actually if we want to ask ourselves, candidly, who grieves over the superabundance of paper, we find that no one does. We will see that the quantity of bills does not matter at all, and that the only suffering as a result of this error is that it becomes most important in sustaining at par the imaginary value against the nature of things and thus shakes and destroys commercial relations. That is the great evil, which if it is not recognized is not curable. If we do not reflect on what means can be used

Regarding Paper Money

245

to lessen the state of that evil to destroy it, it will be proven that we do not recognize the signs that we have received. It is noticed first that the king causes the remedy to depend on the state of desire of the citizen, the sovereign attempting to obtain revenue by selling confiscated properties [such as those of religious orders] and crown lands, even through credit schemes that spread payment over long periods, when demand for such properties is weak or non-existent. In the century of cold egoism and in a country where so many calamities have for too long made normal so much mistrust, it is necessary that the sovereign find in himself the means to re-establish health or it will not turn out well. There is no money without confidence but without trust there is no money; it is necessary to get out of the vicious circle. Regarding the sale of goods of mortmain [lands or tenements held inalienably by ecclesiastical or other corporations], it is desired more than it is believed possible that it has the expected effect. It is true that, from the instruction that history gives us, these sales have been of little or no advantage to the public. We have had experience with this in our day from the property of the Jesuits [sales during the revolutionary French occupation]. This religious order gave gratuitously education and religious instruction all over Europe. There were mandarins in China, legislators in Paraguay, businessmen in California, but their [confiscated] goods of which we were speaking, similar to the Ten of Tamerlane, never produced much in the hands of a sovereign - either nothing or a mere trifle. Today the sale of those goods is very popular (as one says from there over the mountains [France]), being the revolutionary method, or more or less practised by all the leaders, but the time will come and it will be soon when the goals will change colour and all of the impartial spirits will appear to have been logical, such as the Emperor Charles V when he said / do not eat the hen that lays the golden egg. In every way it is certainly a great disgrace for the state when the government finds itself forced by unpleasant circumstances to sacrifice permanent resources to the needs of the moment. Also one must not deny that by the statesman there must not be consideration given [only] to the [currently] most dominant judgments and that in our circumstances the sale of such a quantity of inalienable properties, for example, of the Church [that could not have been taken away by succession and remained with the order even when the members of the order died], should not be done merely to promote advantageous public opinion [of the government]. It is necessary instead to refuse to use and not trust to such methods of regeneration. Regarding the sale of crown lands, with such property the thing changes appearance, it not

246

Appendix 3

being inconvenient to anyone either in morals or in politics; this is evident to everyone. As to the loans [obtained by the state], given that the 85 million requested by the Sovereign, in 15 days were available to Him in the Royal Treasury, it would be a lamentable thing to see the confidence of his subjects become for the Sovereign an instrument of ruin [through violence] , and the government to be toppled by the weight of a real and immense debt, instead of almost imaginary debts which would not necessitate extraordinary methods, working little by little to cancel them. Does the paper money of the state perhaps remain at par? No, certainly not. It loses and loses much; it is necessary to admit this. This is the first step and the condition sine qua non that the sovereign must use all the means possible to raise the bill in value. It will do very well, even if it cannot be valued up to the par of the [metallic] money. And the sovereign must not neglect any means whatever to achieve that desired end while it [the biglietto di banco] is spent or when it is gotten back, depending on the state of things. To stem the overflow on the dam of infinite evils that for us result from the real or presumed superabundance of paper money; to reduce the problems in one stroke of the Treasury and the nation, to restabilize the equilibrium of [monetary] values, and to begin the liberalizing of finance necessary to stabilize the market value of the biglietto instead of the par: it suffices to order that there will be no more discussion thereafter of false values, that all the stipulations will be done in money, all payments also in money, or in biglietti at market value. Some will scream at the paradox and to these it will suffice to reply that the truth is not always the credible, but others will reprove the insolvency and this tremendous word of bankruptcy requires a very accurate explanation. If by rigid accuracy we mean by insolvency the inability to pay at the present moment, bankruptcy occurs and all reasoning is superfluous. But the sovereign cannot be judged and gives to himself the time he needs to repay, and the self-interest of the creditors counsels them to hope, and this hope is valuable and also a valuable to reconsider, since it is valued yet today up to 67 per cent approximately. [The biglietto had depreciated to 64 per cent of the nominal value that the government obtained when it purchased products and services with this paper money.] The question is primarily to know whether the sovereign should be considered in a given moment as the debtor in real value of all the nominal value of biglietti circulating in that time? Now, if there is truth in the universe, it is certain that the conversion of such nominal values into royal debt as a weight on the state is not only an act of injustice towards

Regarding Paper Money

247

the same, but of solemn madness. It requires a little analysis - it is suspected that the excessive creation of a paper money has caused a drop gradually in the value from the par to zero - and we shall see what would be the damage suffered by the possessors of biglietti. The big paralogismo [fallacy] on that interesting point is produced from confused ideas. It is caused by their leaving out of consideration, without their realizing it, the division of the paper money and of its circulation. Hundreds of millions of that money are reflected on in total and almost in mass. The nation is considered abstractly almost actually a real entity, an individual, a person that has received those obligations for real value. One sees that mass spread little by little in the hands of the Queen of public opinion and one tells oneself and one believes that the sovereign is their debtor of all that is missing, thanks to the discredit of the paper money, and one concedes liberally to the nation the right to claim from its sovereign the payment of all the nominal value in so much real value of pure metal. But in all this there is no good sense of reason. It is necessary to analyse the movement of circulation and get out of the world of abstraction. Let us consider one individual alone, the possessor of 1,000 biglietti of 100 Lib [£ioo] each, during the time that the paper remained yet at par with specie. The loss of confidence in paper began and it loses value by 1/2 per cent [0.005]. In that time under those circumstances, if the possessor of biglietti acquires a property of 100,000 Lib royal, the effect of the drop will be that the vendor will receive 500 Lib less or the purchaser will pay 500 Lib more, or the detriment, or (what happens most commonly) the difference is divided between the two of them; but in every case, the loss is not felt and they, the two parties to the contract, will not even think about it. Now these 100,000 Lib thrown into the circulation will divide themselves and subdivide into a thousand small parts and that sum that yesterday represented small landed property and castles today would represent clothing, vegetables, shoes, nails, safety pins, and whatever else you want to imagine of the most minute needs of men. Now, from these infinite turns-around and adjustments in the midst of that very rapid movement of the circulation, excited and almost inflamed by the fear of depreciation, who takes up the difference with respect to every individual who possesses one, between the value of the biglietto when he gets it and when he gives it to someone else? All of these little things put together in time produce a final and also immense value; also revised [accounted for] one by one, so that the differences are of no general consequence and may be neglected.

248

Appendix

Assume that the government finds itself owner of 100 million in money, would it decide perhaps to pay the biglietti at par? With a little attention it is easy to see the ridiculous nature of this proposition. It is not easy to conceive a debtor without a creditor. This is a case of someone, the state, telling himself that he needs to pay to someone that does not need to be paid. Selecting an example in Piedmont at the moment when these observations are being made, if it is assumed that the state is a true debtor of the 33 per cent that paper money is losing in value, it is necessary that the defenders of that opinion show us the creditor. The biglietto of i oo L that is presented to the Treasury is perhaps not reduced from the 2 danari value during the time in which the presenter has had it in his hands and perhaps also it has not depreciated at all during that time; then the presenter does not have right to the excess rate of exchange; and what is said regarding this case is true of all. It makes one laugh and also it is ridiculous that having received a biglietto at the exchange value he accepted, one would want now the value at par of the specie equivalent? This supposition also would be effectuated by the deadly project of [financing the redemption of] the biglietti by means of borrowings with promises to the lenders to repay them at a future date in money at par. A famous English physicist (Desaguillers) imagined a few years ago, to cover the body of a man from head to feet with certain bandages to which he attached small weights and gradually augmented the weights, observing the weight in proportion to each part of the body beginning with the hair. He managed to have that man carry a total weight that is surprising (more than 80 rubi [a measure of weight, rubo, of 8 to 9 kg in central Italy] if I remember correctly). This experience represents in physical terms the effect of the deterioration of the value of paper money, used like a weight that by means of its circulation is distributed among all the parts of the political body. To recall all the biglietti into the Treasury, uniting all these minute losses that successively, in amounts that were not felt, have diminished the value of the paper money from the time of its issue, giving them in the reunion that existence that they did not have in the state of being infinitesimal, finally creating and charging to the Treasury with an infinity of nothing (pardon the expression) the frightening weight of 85 million of debt in money; this would be at that point equivalent to the uniting of all the very small weights of Desaguillers and gluing them onto the head of the man in one pile alone to cause the man's head [the king] to fall forward onto his body and the body to earth. To conclude, to free the state of all damage that the biglietti give it, it suffices to abandon them to their natural weight, to receive them, and

Regarding Paper Money

249

to spend them according to their true value in exchange, that takes into account their depreciation, for example, 50 percent; the extent does not matter. Two biglietti of 100 then equal a 100 in money value; those two values remain in equilibrium and change successfully on the market as they exchange one Scudo [metal]; two Testoni [paper]; no one loses, no one suffers as long as the government does not interfere with prohibitive laws in the free transactions of men and does not attempt to be more powerful than nature. It could happen that what we have been saying is reproved by the system as contrary to the public trust and since such objection, also put into the field by error and ignorance, has I do not know what holy saint sponsoring it, that does not permit it to be ignored. It is necessary to stop at that point and act. 1 To be correct is not always possible. The merchants with whom debtors go bankrupt or whose ships are submerged by the tempest also fail and ruin their creditors, and also they are not guilty. [In the same vein one could say that] the present government is itself, perhaps, the cause of the French Revolution, of the past war, and of so many calamities produced by extraordinary circumstances that escaped every human procedure. Also from these tyrannous circumstances it could become necessary to have recourse to certain measures that could make us suffer from that source of justice; so that in the tribunals between two litigants, well protected by a military helmet, would sit the one who would scold them and who would tell them they are guilty because he was unhappy. 2 The same action can be just or unjust according to the circumstances. It is enjoyable to see the foreigner, who from his security has suffered the loss in many "sovereigns," in many "Louis," in many "scudi," being justly authorized by our tribunals to receive from his Piedmontese debtor a small number of biglietti of the state at par. The moralists produce many examples from it. The sovereign can in this critical circumstance employ methods that in times of peace and of abundance would have had the odour of injustice. 3 This justice that could be called judicial is no longer in the hands of the sovereign [he has forfeited the power to bring it into play]; more or less, it is necessary that he uses it either for his own advantage or for his loss. It is the only choice left to him and this is not an unimportant choice. It is enjoyable to hear the defence of the nominal justice decide without hesitation that the immense number of the debtors, contractors, and leaseholders have a right to free themselves of half or a third of the sum actually owed and also that the sovereign has a

250

Appendix3

responsibility to pay servants to whom he has solemnly promised. There is a reason of state; (so they say) there is no alternative. Good! But what is not spoken, you of so much loyalty and justice? To sin to save oneself is excused in nature; but to sin to ruin oneself is too simple. Reason tells us that instead of biglietti of state it could be written biglietti of credit towards the finances of government, but if you read it clearly you see these other words: Credit from the nation to the nation. The debt is wealth. It is virtually extracted from the personal wealth in a manner that the public credit in the common system can be reduced to obtaining money from the nation to pay it to the nation. Means until now employed to liberate the state have only appeared to promise to possessors of biglietti the actual values instead of nominal values, but to satisfy this promise it is necessary to increase the debt and impose some new ones. It is necessary to employ in almost a revolutionary way, hand by hand, the holy law of property, to destroy in one immense and permanent blow resources of the state, damage innocent creditors, and trustworthy servants of the crown, to make wealthy the imprudent debtors, and force these same tribunals to protect with their sentences very evident injustices; this is called public trust. It is an error to believe that for the state to proclaim and stabilize the value of the biglietto, instead of permitting the market to decide its par value (buying power) is a step on the path of our political regeneration. The gradual devaluation of the paper money does not always bring damage to the state even after the great abuses of this resource; [similarly and with more reason] depreciation, if it were to come to be considered a sound and courageous public policy, would become looked upon as a natural and necessary consequence that does not have great inconveniences. However, because the government does not understand nature and superstitious systems, it does not envision that in the current situation it is a willing but unnecessary debtor for the value of the paper money. If the banknotes appreciate, good! It is a sign that credit is being strengthened. If they depreciate, good also! With a few dollars the government will buy many banknotes and will destroy them and so by another route one will arrive at the same conclusion. In conclusion, another benefit from this approach: the government would not govern too much. Of this truth we have the demonstration in the example of the assignats that hour by hour lost their value and in France caused so much harm. It was not the already active depreciation of that paper that produced the painful cries of the nation, but the very ruthless obstinacy of a government that repaid its debtors with assignats at par while the Louis was valued at 10,000 L and which, giving thus example

Regarding Paper Money

251

and interested curiosity to the immense legions of debtors and contractors, ruined the owners more than the rascals who owned nothing. The same occurs if the legislator attempts to stabilize a false and violent relationship between paper money and money in general. If invincible nature has set the proportion of i to 2 and other inferior to par, as between paper money and money, the sovereign cannot stabilize the par without driving out the money: and since the gold in the first supposition would reappear brand new when the natural proportion that exists between gold and silver would be restored, in this way, in the second hypothesis, money in general, from the most dark of the caverns dug by av arice and from mistrust, would spring up into circulation. Then the pledge of the paper money giving indication of moving mainly in the market is a force that reinvigorates confidence and with it credit; and in consequence inevitably it is a force also that raises the value of the paper money, because they both reduce the doubts about value. Therefore, to raise up the biglietto or to prevent it continuing to fall, is to violate natural limits with great danger to public calm. It is sufficient to admit the actual depreciation: it is enough that the law keeps a steady eye on the biglietto in the same way as commercial usage; it is enough that the sovereign receives it and spends it in accordance with the value of the exchange rate, but never attempts to set the prices and never interferes in private transactions, leaving it legally permissible for everyone to buy and sell biglietti as they do grain or wine, and that all the stipulations are intended always to let people do with money what they wish, which is to refer to it every other valuation [as a medium of exchange], because its characteristics do not vary from one unit to another and its par value is created by the impersonal power of the market [unlike the power of the monarch]. In this matter it is not worthwhile to use reason for any except a solitary law prohibiting, in effect assuring, that it is not permissible to refuse biglietti in the market in exchange for [metallic] money, since these two values are in perfect balance, so that to refuse to receive them in exchange would be the same as refusing two pieces of something for a pair. The value in the market having been established, it is possible that it might diminish up to certain limits that cannot be set a priori. Money regulated by exacting and prohibitive laws, timidly at first, will be seen in circulation. It is not known how much money there is in the country nor what time is needed for commerce to recall it, nor is it known which and how much moral influence is united to the physical causes and with what claim and with what desires causes operate. A hundred anomalies probably exist and one hundred that escape the eye of the most experienced and the most penetrating observer of such phenomena. But we

252

Appendix 3

are well assured that after several hours of oscillations on one side and the other of the point of equilibrium soon enough the [generally acceptable] value of the paper money will have been achieved; and the metallic money not being anymore disturbed by its uncomfortable rival [paper money], together will flow through commerce, and with the exchange assisting, will enjoy each other's company. Alterius sie alterapossit opem res, et conjurat amid [The one and the other interact to establish a relative position and finally operate together as friends.] Then the government will know how many representative nominal values it will be capable of sustaining and will no longer have to proceed like a blind person, groping and feeling its way, but instead it will be able to move rapidly and more and more of the questions will be resolved with perfect certainty. Many would be deceived if we said it hurriedly. Who would think that in Piedmont there would be current such great scarcity of money. It is reduced and almost all concealed [removed from circulation] due to the egoism and the lack of trust; and only by renewing confidence can it be brought again into the light. For the rest it is almost unnecessary to state that it would not be possible to accomplish something so important as a change in the financial system and not occasion any inconvenience. Certainly there would be some unforeseen inconveniences, as it is not humanly possible to provide in advance for everything needed; but once the king has heard, understood the principles, placed hands on, and begun to do the job, he must no longer take heed of the inconveniences, only of what is damaging and censurable and for what it is necessary to obtain a remedy by means of the specific laws required by the circumstances. Then move forward resolutely towards the chosen end, and there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Being, the King, Carlo-Emanuele III of wise and glorious memory, resolved after mature reflection to give certain dispositions for the good of his subjects, if certain of his counsellors attempted to interrupt erroneously with a solemn "but," "I," the good King would say to him "I did not call on you to put objections forward but precisely to cut through any possible obstacles." The "but" would find itself dissolved by a wonderful resolve originating [from on high] from a third heaven. Although it is not possible to foresee every eventuality, nevertheless, it is possible to indicate in advance some secondary ideas on which to base the answers to the main question. i The legislator should save himself from the [probably undesirable] consequences of presenting the law to accomplish the legal revaluation of paper money by appealing to the reason and loyalty of the people, or

Regarding Paper Money

253

to their sense of justice. Instead, it should be done in the way that is best to introduce to the population something that is new but of decisive importance: that is, in every way the law should breathe reassurance and stability. 2 The biglietti bearing interest being the nee plus ultra of the evil that destroys us, it is necessary that the sovereign presents obstacles to it; that is, stops it with quick and decisive means; as would be, for example, the substitution of new paper for it with alacrity, for the gangrene is an incurable vice and it is necessary to use a scalpel. 3 This great surgery being the preferred treatment, it should be favoured and accompanied by the issue of new paper with a new name (by whom is the power of names not recognized?). As it would be a paper of redemption or in other words fausti ominis [favourable prediction], it should be provided with all credibility possible and [well] launched into the market. 4 Gradually, eventually, most of the false values of the old paper, taken out of circulation without much commotion, would disappear, providing the sovereign uses every means to sustain it at par with money, at least at first; and not permitting it to lose its value in the market, but only up to the amount of the true value of paper. Nothing, perhaps, could be more advantageous to the welfare of the state than the gradual diminution of the actual paper, until the certain indication that what is of the same nature would not be discriminated against, and the substitution following the paper of equal value only at the real value of the biglietti redeemed. 5 If there were danger that some turbulence would result from too much depreciation, meanwhile, of the par at the exchange in payments, the remedy is already at hand. One could stabilize in the first year of the new regulation; the debtors of the old values would free themselves paying half in biglietti at par and half in money or perhaps biglietti at exchange. In this way a benefit could be reaped by tightening again and again, and extending, and many variations. 6 As yet it is not within our scope to observe all the possible means that are available to withdraw money from circulation, but it would not be impertinent to indicate the more efficacious of these means. The first would be, if we do not let ourselves be deceived totally, to raise the price of the moneys of France. The true par that in the language of economic science is called the natural par is, from Lire 20 danari 6 of Piedmont for Lire 24 that are returned in exchange. Because it would never need to be adopted, this correct proportion does not appear to possess the ring of reason. Principally in second-rate governing councils there is a prejudice that, in virtue of certain metaphysical [strange]

254

Appendix 3

considerations, excludes the foreign money [from being used to withdraw money from circulation]. It is necessary that money, which is the life blood of the state, may flow at liberty and in abundance in the veins of the circulation. It is enough that it does not miss nor ever stop; of the rest then no one says cujus est imago? [What should it be?]. But then this does not matter to them at all; no one cares, not even the Prince. And it appears yet that it would be something very desirable to utilize the exchange rate of Piedmontese Lire and danari for French monies to reduce the buying power in Piedmont when that change is deemed necessary. It seems, first, that it would be very suitable to our circumstances to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves to us, to adopt a new and improved system of money. If money were to be minted of the same weight and of the same content as that of France, this would be a good bit of prudence, advantageous though of meagre gain. However, one should not stop paying attention to even some small points that appear to have no great merit. The wise republic of Berne did this [adopted money similar to France] and it turned out well for it. And if it did not cause too much difficulty, it would be a very useful operation to mint small coins of silver down to the smallest division possible. It is necessary to coin pieces of 15, 12, 10, 5, 3. The Drachma of the Greeks, weighing 23 grains of mark [pure silver], is divided also into eight and continues to be cut into smaller pieces, until it becomes silver dust; thus the 48th part of the Drachma weighed only i^ grains and was valued at 3 Vt Danari. Turning to the Romans, the Danaro of the same weight of 63 grains (in the time that a Lira of 10 1/2 ounces was being coined) is divided into five smaller pieces, of which the least was the Teroncio, which weighed i^, worth 4-^ Tornesi Danari. Nevertheless, in comparison to such very prudent systems ours is condemned, since the division is stopped from the silver dollar to the piece of 30 cents or Terrone that does not weigh less than 7 danari that are 168 grains! (Not to speak of the 16 cent piece). The remaining grades of the monetary scale are moneys with a minimum of silver content, with exaggerated value, which appeared to be created for the purpose of raising prices of all kinds, to damage national manufacturing and to allow speculation to damage the state. France under the monarchy also understood it very well. It produced at first the division of the dollar down to the piece of 6 cents, which weighed only 29 grains, and, moreover, to this last coin of silver was also added the big coins, as well as a well-intentioned copper money, as it had value that did not leave a place to bullionage. It appears that

Regarding Paper Money

255

this would be a most appropriate time for returning [in Piedmont] to the true principles of the coining of small pieces of silver and copper money. Finally, to give new life to foreign commerce and thus bring back the altered metals, it is necessary to protect the most basic of all the producers, that of wheat. It is also true that to disentangle these prohibitive laws by which the commerce in grain is being very severely restricted and almost suffocated, as has been discussed by many gentlemen on that point of political economy, is of high priority. 7 I should not end without saying something about the coinage with a minimum of silver. Truly it is not believed that there is an evil worse in the state, a problem more neglected; the goal is the liberating of the Mint from creating that money. Let us first assert that accurately speaking the pieces of 20 and of 10 cents are not money. Public opinion has made of them mere good biglietti di Ramo [copper banknotes] and this observation might appear very strange. That these pieces are nothing other than biglietti a Tagliature (this or other equivalent expressions signify the French word coupon) of paper money, is demonstrated fully by the following. If through public use these pieces could come to be considered as money it would follow that neither at appreciation nor at depreciation would they be subordinate, although appearing to be at an immutable point. The relative value of the paper would become comparative, since one never speaks of the appreciation or the depreciation of the Louis, but one says that the Louis (value intrinsic and immutable) is worth 25, 28, 30 Lire relative to the value of the paper money. Now regardless of the value of biglietti with regard to the danaro, the value of the money coin with a minimum of silver appreciates or depreciates in the same proportion, and being that the biglietto is worth 25 or 30, more or less, lire always, 100 pieces of 20, or 200 of 10 coins will exchange with a biglietto of Lire 100. Therefore, the intrinsic value is not held by opinion at all. It is believed then that the situation could become different if the biglietto depreciated a lot. Even up to a third of its original value, we doubt that this would be true. It suffices to observe that in the case of the money with little silver, currently that would be paper money, it appears that one can operate this way one side as on the other, permitting the par to subsist between the money containing little silver and the biglietti, as between the various kinds of biglietti. With regard to the danaro, the money with only a little silver not sustaining the par value precisely, since it appreciates or depreciates similar

256

Appendix 3

to paper money, it appears that no one could sustain it with the new biglietti, inasmuch as wanting to give these biglietti the strength of the danaro through legislation only, and the copper coins not being other than virtually the same as paper money vis-a-vis the danaro, although made of metal, that is to say biglietti of copper regarding the danaro. It is absolutely necessary that the same relationship be sustained relative to the new biglietti. Qua sunt cadem uni tertio sunt cadem inter se. [The same kind of relationship that exists between the silver danari and copper coins will also come to exist between the third, paper money, and the other two, all orchestrated by the market.] If instead of sustaining the par of the biglietto the government were to let it go to market rate, it might become necessary to make certain provisions regarding the payment of the subsidies to cover the debts contracted during the depreciation of the paper, but this settlement being a purely mechanical operation, it should not be an impediment to carrying out this policy. But even if it fosters some powerful superstitions of those who would not want the government to give and receive the paper [money] for what it is really worth, it would be no less convincingly demonstrated that it is not possible to imagine anything more contrary to a healthy political policy than the conversion of biglietti as a debt of the state by way of public borrowing. This writing is analysing a country's natural resources. Second: patience is needed; time alone will permit the carrying out of salvation. It does not require the use of desperate means. Four ingredients would be sufficient: peace, economy, taxes, and extension of territory. Turare Pompon! [Enough said]. Venice 13 March 1799

APPENDIX 4

Memoir on the project for a bank Memoire. Le ComteJoseph-Marie Maistre, Chevalier de I 'ordre Royal et militaire de St Maurice et St Lazare: Regent de la Chancellerie et chefdu tribunal supreme de I 'audience Roy ale en Sardaigne Memoire surleprojet d'une banque proposee dans lajunte du 27 juillet, pour I 'extinction des billets. Memoir written by Count Joseph-Marie Maistre, Knight of the Order Royal and Military ofSt Maurice and St Lazare: Regent of the Chancellery and chief of the supreme tribunal of the Royal audience in Sardinia. Memoir on the project for a bank proposed by the junta of 27 July [1801] with the purpose of removing banknotes completely from circulation.

If I took the liberty to request some time yesterday morning to reflect on the question, it was not that I was not ready then to give immediately my advice, but it was that I thought it would be useful to submit some reflections to the wisdom of His Highness, before he takes a determined position, and, moreover, there are things that are very true, very important, very honourable, to be brought to the knowledge of the Prince, and that, nevertheless, it is not good to express openly, even before a chosen junta. In the first place, a bank note has been nothing but a bill of exchange drawn on the public treasury. As soon as the government can no longer pay, the bill of exchange is protested. It is then at the same time against reason and against morality to want to give by force to a bill of exchange declared, the same price that one would give to a bill accepted; it would be a clear abuse of power that can only produce ill. Also, universal experience has taught us that coercive laws to support the bank notes only accelerated their collapse. Doing away with all the details to be brief, and coming to the bank project, I must first say that it does not suffice that a financial project be worthwhile only of itself. It is not analogous to the spirit and the national character. Therefore, one could be assured that the mass of the Sardinian population does not know what a bank is and only sees in this

258

Appendix 4

that we are considering establishing nothing more than a boutique where one can exchange bills for money. The government would make a mistake if it counted on that public spirit, on that refinement, on that patriotism of certain enlightened nations. In this country [Sardinia, since mainland Piedmont at this point was occupied by Napoleon's army], where the existence of this of which we speak would be and where we would be managing the bank, to support it at this very moment, the project would be joked about without forgiveness. The first correspondence would bring all of the bills of the Kingdom and the bank would collapse. It would perhaps not be impossible to give an advantageous form to the projected institution by giving it to expert managers with all the security necessary. It is from this point of view that one must look at the problem. The persons who are planning a bank must, before anything, give an example of any bank that has succeeded within the hands of any government. There are natural reasons that render the project impossible. The commercial banks and the savings banks are useful when they can have an open counter, but in the opposite case they bring disaster. I see it as it has been demonstrated [elsewhere] that the project contemplated will accelerate the demise of the paper money in a frightful manner. Not to abuse the precious moments in order that they are employed for the common good, I omit to discuss the insupportable contradiction of an agio [the maximum value obtained through a foreign exchange transaction] permitted at the bank and declared criminal regarding the others; of the immense dangers of a new responsibility created, without overlooking dangers no less great resulting from the necessity to distinguish between the people that will benefit from the change; of the protection; of the intrigues; and of the manoeuvres of all types that would result from it, etc., etc. Your Royal Highness must also foresee that public opinion will never serve the bank. The junta of Piedmont is very much against new loans and even more against the return of the last notes to the royal coffers; it will communicate its prejudices to the public, already ill disposed, and the payments will be hindered by this force of inertia that has more of an effect in this country [island] than all of the direct opposition in other countries. When I say the junta, it is useless to add, [I refer to all of its members] with the exception of the two foreigners [probably referring to himself, the Regent Maistre, and the Viceroy, the King's brother, who held the highest positions below the King]. But as it would be useless and even harmful to identify the difficulties without indicating at the same time, each by its own power, the means to

On the Project for a Bank

259

resolve it, I will succinctly explain now my ideas on this point. Everything is reduced to two points: Burn and pay (which means repayable at par). Neither one nor the other of these operations can be done at the same time nor even [singly] in considerable quantities. The means are lacking for that. We need then to operate in small quantities, in the most advantageous manner, and that is what must be given attention. 1 The state must take advantage of the loss of the paper money. The idea of receiving the paper money at par in order to burn them is a childish idea that will make all skilled politicians laugh. With the money that the government will in all possible ways have come into its reserve fund, it should have the bills bought by trusted businessmen partners with whom it will have an understanding, and will have these latter notes burned. All this without a junta or useless discussions. If this operation does not cause the paper money to appreciate, it will not matter, as the government will profit again on the depreciation of the notes to buy a large number at a profit and to destroy easily this inconvenient money. It is infinitely probable that the considerable and sudden research of the notes by the businessmen [as the public becomes aware of it] will have the notes increase in value. Then the operation will have all the advantages of the planned bank and none of the inconveniences. If on the contrary this operation makes the value of the notes rise, the government will be the first to profit because the evil is not to have banknotes but to have paper money that is depreciating. 2 In the meantime it appears that the government must avoid as much as possible all the rigorous means that will only do harm; give money to the poor wage-earners, maintain the use of payments half in coins and half in banknotes, and deliberately not notice the small agio that is inevitable. 3 The exchange of banknotes into specie or cash payment from the coffers of the King will raise them immediately to par; and then it would be useless to labour to destroy them. Whereas one could give them a value, the difficulty consists of the supposition itself that there would remain only a moderate amount of banknotes; it would always bother the Treasury too much because this would anticipate a return to the original state of disrepute and the blame would fall altogether on the Royal Treasury. To avoid this inconvenience and re-establish confidence gradually, here is what one could do. While it is not possible to make [only] new banknotes to substitute for the others, one could find artists capable of engraving a stamp difficult

260

Appendix 4

to counterfeit, for which the model would exist in both Treasuries, designed afterwards. We would choose a certain number of the best preserved banknotes to stamp them on the reverse side. His Royal Highness would then announce that in following with constancy the great object of the destruction of banknotes; he does not at all want to neglect to give all the credit possible to those that subsist, by ordering without delay the exchange at par of a certain number of banknotes, these would constantly increase in value as confidence in the currency would strengthen. He would command then, on the spot, the exchange of all the stamped banknotes in both Treasuries in Cagliari and Sassari, on sight and at par; without prejudice of the legal value attributed to other bills that would continue always to be the same, always being received in all the public and individual payments as in the past. After publication of the announcement, the government would release to the public a very small number of stamped banknotes - for example, 100 or 200 - and then observe the effect. First there would be no doubt that He would reimburse on the spot at the two treasuries (or exchange offices), but the government expecting this would be ready and would pay on sight, and soon would return these very banknotes back into circulation. After two or three goings and comings, confidence would be re-established, the government would have suddenly the proof in that the stamped banknotes would return, but more slowly, to the treasury. This would also be at the same time a signal for the government to make another issue of banknotes, always gradually and with extreme prudence. In this manner one would arrive imperceptibly at that number of banknotes that would be not only useless to burn but also advantageous to keep in circulation. If this operation were to make the value of unstamped banknotes to fall somewhat, the state would profit to buy them at a lower price and destroy them. This idea to profit from the depreciation is no more legitimate than useful. One cannot certainly liberate the state without taxes: or what tax is more natural and more just than that resulting from the depreciation of the value of paper money that is sustained by all with a perfect equality? Is it not equal that a banknote of five ecus would be reduced to four in the hands of its possessor, or that we must obligate him to pay one ecu to put the government in the position to buy back the banknote? Whereas, if this banknote has fallen to four ecus, the owner had received it for such a value [that the market says it has at a given moment]; and it is not just that he should pay off his debt of five real ecus or that the state should give him five ecus to have in exchange for it, and burn the banknote [now worth four ecus}. Cagliari 2 8 July 1801

APPENDIX 5 Letter to Galleni Napione Letter written in French by Count Joseph de Maistre to Galleani Napione, 13 July 1787.

Chambery, 13 July 1787

Sir and my very dear relative, I am very pleased to see that my ideas on your language are yours: I would not have dared to hazard them publicly, but since you find them of merit, I hold them as such that I shall not have the slightest misgivings. When I see your poor Italy on the map, my dear cousin, I feel like crying. It seems that Providence wants it to pay for its past greatness. To cap it all, I do not see any remedy to your problems, since, unless there is an astonishing revolution, never will the politics of Europe permit you to be a nation, and this is what you would need. But since you are condemned for centuries to a political division so fatal for you, it would need at least for you to obtain a kind of unity by the means of a language. And also another strike against you, the common interest in Italy is to reject the pretensions of the Tuscan idiom. It is a wonderful thing, Sir, a language common to a large number of men. In this respect, I think that no other language can be compared to the French. 24 million European men, subjects of the same monarch, all united, and all speaking only one language. The numerous subjects of the same Prince speak it at Pondicheri, in Senegal, in Cayenne, and in San Domingo. All of Europe takes glory in hearing it and speaking it, and the treaty of Bucharest between Russia and Persia is written in French. I was enchanted that my ear did not deceive me on the Venetian. When you become the general-intendant of Savoy, we will work together, if you wish, and I would be happy to be your philosopher-boy. Forgive me for all of these details, but I like very much discussing with you; I see that we are of the same mind on a multitude of points. Accept my greatest congratulations on your new position; I hope that it will be advantageous to you, in all ways, and it is in the first place a very good thing that has happened to you in Turin. I imagine, however, that you are still the intendant of Saluces: Let me know, please, if I need to change your address.

262

Appendix 5

Since you are in Turin, Sir, where certainly one does not lack for antique dealers, do me the pleasure to obtain for me a complete explanation of the inscriptions that I am sending you here enclosed. Last year the Stone which holds them was unearthed at the level of a depth of fifteen feet and I decoded them at first to the very last line, where I came to a sudden stop. It would be useless to tell you more. I refer to the memoir with which I accompany these inscriptions. Perhaps you will manage to complete the explanation of them for me. Would you kindly return them to me since I do not have other copies: I had transcribed them by pencil on a very poor paper. I would still have one more favour to ask you, Sir: it is if you would kindly present the document enclosed left blank to the treasurer of the university for the payment of a quarter of i oo L which is owed to me by virtue of being a Reformateur [overhauling the administration] since the first of the current month. The cash box of the administration only pays here the first Reformateur. As there are never funds for the other two, we pay them in Turin and the coins of small denominations which are in our cash box are sent to Turin currently, since the King does not want the mail to carry money. The treasurer of the university would like that we would take here his payments on account, but you understand that this claim is ridiculous. Never has anyone paid an officer of the King in instalments. In a another case, however, the treasurer scolded me at the last quarter for nearly one month. I would be much beholden to you, Sir, if you this time only would take the responsibility for my blank document, in doing for it as it is necessary if you agree with the comments that I have made. I think it would be feasible to surely send me a note of i oo L. In case of the contrary, I would send a memoir to the Chevalier Lanfranchi: but as the success of it is certain the treasurer might well spare me this bother. I trust completely your prudence and your dexterity in this matter of the Declaration. Please bring it to the attention of M. the Chevalier I Z, if you cannot manage it in any other way, that this piece was my work since all the ideas came from me and that I have deposited here all the necessary records for the Chevalier. I believe that it is just that I obtain the payment that is owed to me. Furthermore, one must not fear any imprudence. Send me the results of your efforts. My wife no longer has fever since this morning and she asks me to give you her best regards and is infinitely grateful for all that you say about her to me. I give you a thousand apologies for the trouble I am giving you and I give you my fervent and grateful best regards. Your very humble and affectionate relative, Maistre.

APPENDIX 6

Letter on the Pala case Letter to His Royal Highness, King of Piedmont, written in French by Joseph de Maistre, Regent of Sardinia, 16 July 1802

Sir Tomorrow we have to execute the man named Pala accused of having engaged in the year 1799 in a conspiracy formed to seize the castle at Cagliari, to cut the throat of several people there, open the prisons, and change the form of government. The accused had been for a long time sentenced to death in absentia, and for such a sentence, one needs only a semi-proof. Arrested after the expiry of the term, he would have the right to defend himself in the other states of your noble family, but in Sardinia he is deprived of it, and the judges have not been able to avoid sending him to his death without a hearing. The law, in all cases, is extremely severe: in this particular case it becomes at a certain point not easy to express. Your Royal Highness is beseeched to distinguish two kinds of crimes: the actions and the projects. The first are clear and determined and the witnesses that are presented are less easily misled or misleading. But in the crimes that are only projects, especially when they can only be based on the fleeting speeches given by dubious witnesses, the danger of error is extreme. This is what happens in the present case. The accused has against him no action or writing. All is reduced to speeches attested by four or five witnesses that are not even co-witnesses. In addition to that, they are without property and without respect, taken from the lowest class of the common people and a few of them are spies: that is, they are such that one can have in these types of occasions. The government, it is true, needs these kinds of men; we employ them with perfect wisdom and often even it could not defend itself without them, but the judge has a thousand reasons to fear them. However, the accused cannot say anything and tomorrow he will die because of such a semi-proof.

264

Appendix 6

At the time of his arrest, he had protested his innocence: he had persisted invariably during the torture: when he was permitted to see the religious to be comforted he constantly maintained the same language regarding his innocence. To a priest sent by his parents who came to console him and exhort him he replied in the presence of a crowd of people "God punishes my other sins, but for that one I am not guilty." Then turning towards the altar, he added "My God! Send me to hell if I have committed it." and he has never changed his statements. The undersigned is far from believing that such speeches are made to determine always the clemency of princes; hardened hypocrites could too easily utilize such statements to escape justice: but when the evidence is flimsy and suspect, one cannot help but be struck by such assertions, firmly and constantly given at such a solemn moment. The public voice is not favourable to the execution of Pala and it is not doubtful his escape from death would be viewed with pleasure. The crime of which he is accused is certainly enormous; but has he been proven guilty? And to what extent is he implicated? That is the great question. Taken before the expiry of the term, he could have been released free, or could have been submitted to only a light punishment; after this expiry of his term, the same degree of evidence makes him die. The undersigned who had been one of the judges, after mature reflection, and having protested to Your Royal Highness on his conscience, that the proof did not satisfy him at all, believes that it is possible to humbly propose that the condemned be granted a pardon regarding the death penalty only. This act of the sovereign power placed in the wise hands of Your Royal Highness would accord, it seems to me, justice and clemency: since it would avoid a great possible misfortune that new light and tardy regrets could not rectify. Life imprisonment after torture and the horrors of being continually threatened with the death penalty during three days are a punishment in themselves capable of satisfying the rigors of the laws of this monarchy for which, moreover, one can only render applause. If Your Royal Highness deign to accept this idea, the undersigned would feel a great satisfaction: if Your Royal Highness rejects, he would think that he was mistaken; but he hopes that, in any case, Your Royal Highness would not condemn this move founded on just alarms and on the impulses of a conscience that he would not think entirely blind. He has the honour to place at the feet of Your Royal Highness the homage of his very profound respect. Cagliari 16 July 1802 Maistre Regent

Bibliography

THE WORKS OF JOSEPH DE

MAISTRE

ARCHIVAL SOURCES

Twelve letters conserved in the Biblioteca Civica Centrale, Torino, Fondo Cossilla, mazzo n. 28, fascicolo 2, sottofascicolo 11. "Memoire sur le commerce des grains entre Carouge et Geneve." 25 octobre 1790. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. Fragments 1793. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. Fascicules et fragments, 1802-1819. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. Melanges: notes et extraits de lecture, 1770-1805. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. Memoires: notes et relations 1790-1820. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de Chambery. "Memoire sur le projet d'une banque proposee dans lajunte du 27 juillet, pour 1'extinction des billets." Cagliari, 28 juillet 1801. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alia carta-moneta; agiuntevi alcune riflezione general! sovra quel punto di economia politica." Turin, 1798, Venice, 13 mars 1799. Fonds de Maistre, Archives departementales de la Savoie. PRINTED SOURCES

Correspondance diplomatique de Joseph de Maistre 1811-1817. 2 vols. Recueillie et publiee par Albert Blanc. Paris: M. Levy freres, 1860. Memoires politiques et correspondance diplomatique. Recueillie et publiee par Albert Blanc. Paris: M. Levy freres, 1859. Oeuvres completes. 14 vol. Lyon: Librairie Generale Catholique et Classique, 1891. Les Garnets du Comte Joseph de Maistre: Lime Journal 1790-1817. Lyon: Librairie Catholique Emmanuel Vitt, 1923.

2 66

Bibliography

De la souverainete du peuple: Un Anti-Contrat Social. Edition critique de Jean-Louis Darcel. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1992. "Lettres de Joseph de Maistre a Louis-Aime Vignet, baron des Etoles." De la terreur a la restauration correspondances inedites. vol. 10 of Revue des etudes maistriennes. ed. Jean-Louis Darcel. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1986-87. 1-135. Joseph de Maistre et Blacas: Leur correspondance inedite et I'histoire de leur amitie 18041820. Intro, notes, commentaires, Ernest Daudet. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1908. OTHER WORKS

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1966. Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000. Bacon, Francis. "Of Empire." Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding et al. London: Longman, 1878. vol. 6. 419-23. Baldwin, Laommi. Thoughts on the Study of Political Economy [1809]. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968. Barnard, F.M. "Introduction." J.G. Herder on Social and Political Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969. Beik, Paul H. The French Revolution From the Right: Social Theories in Motion, 17891799. New York: Howard Fertig, 1970. Berlin, Isaiah. "Two concepts of liberty." Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University, 1969.3-57. - "Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power." Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas, ed. Henry Hardy. London: Hogarth Press, 1979. - "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism." The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, ed. Henry Hardy. London: John Murray,

199°- "The Pursuit of the Ideal." The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, ed. Henry Hardy. London: John Murray, 1990. - "European Unity and its Vicissitudes." The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, ed. Henry Hardy. London: John Murray, 1990. - "Introduction." Considerations on France, trans, and ed. Richard A. Lebrun, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994. ix-xxxiv. - "Herder and the Enlightenment." The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, eds Henry Hardy and Roger Hausheer. London: Chatto and Windus,

1997- 359-435-

- "The Three Strands in My Life." Personal Impressions, ed. Henry Hardy. Prince ton: Princeton University, 2001. Blanc, Albert. Memoires politiques et correspondence diplomatique. Paris: Librarie Nouvelle, 1859. Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount. Letters on the Study and Use of History. [1752]. repr. London: Millar, 1970.

Bibliography

267

Bordo, Michael D. and Anna J. Schwartz. "The Operation of the Specie Standard — Evidence for core and peripheral countries, 1880—1990." Currency Convertibility, eds Jorge Braga de Macedo, Barry Eichengreen, and James Reis. London: Routledge, 1996. 11-86. Boreham, Gordon et al. Money and Banking: Analysis and Policy in a Canadian Context. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968. Bourquin, Jacques. La Liberte de la presse. Lausanne: Librarie Payot, 1950. Bossuet, Jacques-Benigne. Politique tiree des propres paroles de I'ecriture sainte. Intro and notes, Jacques Le Brun. [1670]. repr. Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1967. Bradley, Owen. A Modern Maistre: The Social and Political Thought of Joseph de Maistre. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1999. Burke, Edmund. "Thoughts on French Affairs." [1791]. The Works of Edmund Burke, new ed. vol. 7. London: C. andj. Rivingston, 1826. - The Correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed. Thomas W. Copeland. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958-78. — Reflections on the Revolution in France. [ 1790]. Intro by John Pocock. repr. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987. - "Letters on a Regicide Peace." [1796]. The Portable Edmund Burke, ed. Isaac Kramnick. New York: Penguin Books, 1999. Butterfield, H. "The Balance of Power." Diplomatic Investigations: Investigations in the Theory of International Politics, eds Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wright. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1968. Calkins, Martin J. and Patricia H. Werhane. "Adam Smith, Aristotle, and the Virtues of Commerce." The Journal of Value Inquiry, 32 (1998): 43-60. Cantillon, Richard. Essai sur la nature du commerce en general, trans. Henry Higgs. [1755]. repr. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1964. Capra, Fritjof, Thomas Matus, and Rast Steindl. Belonging to the Universe. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991. Carli, Gian-Rinaldo. "Del libero commercio de'grani lettera di Gian-Rinaldo Carli al presidente Pompeo Neri consigliere di stato del gran-duca di Toscana." [1771]. Scrittori classici italiani di economia politica. Parte moderna, tomo 14. Milano: Destefanis, 1804. Challis, C.E. "The Debasement of Coinage, 1542-1551." Economic History Review, 20 (1967): 441-56. Chaussinard-Nogaret, Guy. From Feudalism to Enlightenment, trans. William Doyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985. Cioran, E. M. Essai sur la pensee reactionnaire a propos de Joseph de Maistre. Montpellier: Fata Morgana, 1977. Constant, Benjamin. De la force du governement actuel de la France et de la necessite de s 'y rattier. [ 1796]. Des reactions politiques, Des effets de la terreur. [ 1797]. Preface et notes Philippe Raynaud. Paris: Flammarion, 1988. - "Principes de politique." Oeuvres. ed. Alfred Roulin. [1815]. repr. Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1957. 1100-49.

268

Bibliography

- Cours de politique constitutionnelle ou collection des ouvrages publics sur le gouvernement representatif par Benjamin Constant. Intro, and notes M. Edouard Laboulaye. Paris: Librairie de Guillaumin et Cie, 1872. tome I et II. Coyer, Gabriel-Frangois. La Noblesse commerfante. Paris: Duchesne, 1756. - Developpement et defense du systeme de la noblesse commerQante. Paris: Duchesne,

*757-

Darcel, Jean-Louis. "Introduction." Consideration sur la France: edition critique de Jean-LouisDarcel. Geneve: Edition Slatkine, 1980. - "Les Bibilotheques de Joseph de Maistre." Revue des etudes maistriennes, g (iQ 8 5) : 43- 118 D'Aurevilly, J. Barbey. Les Prophetes du passe. Paris: Librairie nouvelle, 1865. Davenant, Charles. An Essay upon the Balance of Power. London: James Knapton, 1701. de Bonald, Louis, vicomte. Theorie du pouvoir politique et religieux dans la societe civile. [1796]. repr. Bruxelles: Gerant ChJ. de Mat, 1845. vols i and 2. - "Essai analytique sur les lois naturelles de 1'ordre social." [1799]. Oeuvres de Bonald. Paris: Librairie D'Ad, le Clere et Cie., 1850. vol. i. - Melanges litteraires politiques et philosophiques. Paris: Librairie Adrien Le Clerc, 1882. vols i and 2. De Civarron, Philomathe. "Lettres a un gentilhomme russe sur 1'inquisition espagnole." Oeuvres completes. 14 volumes. Lyon: Librairie Generale Catholique et Classique, 1891. de Condillac, Etienne Bonnot. Le commerce et le gouvernement consideres relativement I'un a I'autre. ed. Oscar Nuccio. [1776]. repr. Rome: Edizioni Bizzarri, 1968. de Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas Caritat, marquis. Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de I'esprit humain. Preface et notes Monique et Frangois Hincker. [1793]. repr. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1971. de Forbonnais, Francois Veron. Principes et observations economiques. 2 vols. Amsterdam: n.p., 1767. de Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de. "Le Droit public de 1'Europe, fonde sur les traites II." [1754]. Collection complete des oeuvres. ed. Guillaume Arnoux. Darmstadt, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1977. tome VI. de Mirabeau, Victor Riqueti, marquis. L'Ami des hommes ou traite de la population. [1756]. repr. Darmstadt, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1970. vols i and 2. - Theorie de I'impot avec supplement. [1760]. repr. Darmstadt, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1972. - Philosophic rurale ou economic generale et politique de I 'agriculture. [1763]. repr. Darmstadt, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1972. Denizet, Jean. "Joseph de Maistre Economiste." Revue des etudes maistriennes, 11 (i99°) : 7-25Dermenghem, Emile. Joseph de Maistre mystique. Paris: La Colombe, 1946. de Saint-Chamans, Auguste Louis Philippe vicomte. Nouvel essai sur la richesse des nations. Paris: Le Normant pere, 1824.

Bibliography

269

de Sainte-Foix, Philippe-Auguste, chevalier d'Arc. La Noblesse militaire, ou le patriotefrancais. Paris: n.p., 1756. des Essars, Pierre. "A History of Banking in the Latin Nations." A History of Banking in all the Leading Nations. Vol. III. New York: Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896. Descostes, Francois. Joseph de Maistre avant la Revolution: souvenirs de la societe d'autrefois, 1753-1793- 2 vols. Paris: Picard, 1893. — Necker ecrivain et financier juge par le Comte de Maistre d'apres des documents inedits. Chambery: Andre Perrin, 1896. Desplaces, Eugene Ernest. Biographie universelle Michaud ancienne et moderne. Paris: Ch. Delagrave et Cie, 1854-65. de Stael, Anne Louise Germaine, Madame la Baronne de. Reflexions sur la paix interieure. [1795]. Oeuvres completes de Madame la Baronne de Stael. Paris: Treuttel, 1820. vol. 2. - Considerations sur la revolution francaise. Presente et annote par Jacques Godechot. [1818]. repr. Paris: Tallandier, 1983. Developpement des principes fondamentaux de la monarchic francaise. n.p. , 1795. di Beccaria, Cesare Marchese. "Dei delitti e delle pene." [1764]. Beccaria e I diritti dell'uomo. Roma: Editrice Studia, 1964. Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Allen Johnson. London: Humphrey Milford, 1928. vol. i. Dictionnaire de Biographie Francaise. eds Rome d'Amat and R. Limouxin. Paris: Librairie Le Touzez etfils, 1967. Dietz, EC. English Government Finance, 1485-1558. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1921. Dimier, Louis. Les Maitres de la contre-revolution au dix-neuvieme siecle. Paris: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1917. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1964. Dobson, Andrew, ed. The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society. Bideford: Green Books, 1991. Dodu, Gaston. Le Parlementarisme et les parlementaires sous la revolution, 77^9-99. Paris: Librairie Plon, 1911. Du Paquier, Jacques. La Population franfaise aux XVIF et XVIIF siecles. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979. Du Pont de Nemours, Pierre Samuel. "De 1'origine et des progres d'une science nouvelle." Londres: Desaint. [1768]. Oeuvres politiques et economiques. vol. i. Nendeln: KTO Press, 1979. Dutot. Reflexions politiques sur les finances et le commerce. Paris: Paul Harsin. [1738]. repr. Paris: Librairie E. Droz, 1935. Egret, Jean. Louis XV et I'opposition parkmentaire, 1715-1774. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1970. Faguet, Emile. Politiques et moralistes du dix-neuvieme siecle. Paris: Francais d'lmprimerie et de Librairie, 1899. 1-67.

270

Bibliography

Faulkner, Harold Underwood. American Economic History. 8th edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1960. Felloni, Giuseppe. II Mercato monetario in Piemonte nel secolo XVIII. Milano: Banca Commerciale Italiana, 1968. Fenelon, Francois de Salignac. "Essai philosophique sur le gouvernement civil." Oeuvres Completes de Fenelon Archeveque de Cambrai. Paris: J. Leroux, 1850. vol. 7. - "Essay on the Balance of Power." [1700]. A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts on the Most Interesting and Entertaining Subjects. 2nd edition, ed. Walter Scott. London: Cadell, 1965. vol. 13, 766-70. - Ecrits et lettres politiques. intro. Charles Urbain. Geneve: Slatkine, 1981. - Les Aventures de Telemaque. ed. J.L. Gore. [1699]. repr. Paris: Classique Gamier, 1987. Fetter, Frank Whitson. Development of British Monetary Orthodoxy, 1797-1^75. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, 1965. Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Die GeschlosseneHandelstaat. Tubingen: T. G. Cottaschen Buchhandlung, 1800. Fisher, Irving. The Purchasing Power of Money: Its Determination and Relation to Credit, Interest, and Crises. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Fratianni, Michele and Franco Spinelli. "Italy in the Gold Standard Period, 1861-1914." A Retrospective on the Classical Gold Standard, 1821-1931. eds Michael D. Bordo and Anna Schwartz. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984. Friedman, Milton. "The Resource Cost of Irredeemable Paper Money." Journal of Political Economy, 94 (1986): 642-7. Gentz, Friedrich von, Chevalier de. Fragments Upon the Balance of Power in Europe. London: M. Peltier, 1806. Gerin-Ricard, Lazare de. Les Idees politiques de Joseph de Maistre et la doctrine de Maurras. Preface de Paul Courcoural. La Rochelle: Editions Rupella, 1929. Giovannini, A. "Bretton Woods and Its Precursors: Rules Versus Discretion in the History of International Monetary Regimes." A Retrospective on the Bretton Woods System, eds M. Bordo and B. Eichengreen. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. 109-54. Glasner, David. "An Evolutionary Theory of the State Monopoly over Money." Money and the Nation State: The Financial Revolution, Government and the World Monetary System, eds Kevin Dowd and Richard H. Timberlake, Jr. London: Transaction Publisher, 1998. 21-46. Grange, Henri. Les Idees deNecker. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1974. Gray, John. Berlin. London: Fontana Press, 1995. Grotius, Hugo. "De jure belli ac pacis." The Theory of International Relations: Selected Texts from Gentili to Treitschke. eds M.G. Forsyth, H.M.A. Keens-Soper, and P. Savigear. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970. 37-87. Guiraudet, Toussaint. Erreurs des economistes sur I'impot et nouveau mode de perception. Paris: Lejayfils, 1790.

Bibliography

271

Gunn, J.A.W. Queen of the World: Opinion in the Public Life of France from the Renaissance to the Revolution. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1995. Habsburg, Otto von. Charles V. trans. Michael Ross. London: Weidenheld and Nicolson, 1967. Hampsher-Monk, Iain. A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Harris, Robert D. Necker: Reform Statesman oftheAncien Regime. Berkeley: University of California, 1979. Hartung, Frank E. "The Social Function of Positivism." Philosophy of Science 12 (1945): 120-33. Hegel, Friedrich. The Philosophy of Right. [1821]. ed. and trans. T.M. Knoz. Oxford: Clarendon, 1952. - Philosophy of History. [1837]. trans. J. Sibree. New York: Dover Publications,

1956- Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, trans. H.B. Nisbet, intro Duncan Forbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975. Herold, Christopher. The Age of Napoleon. New York: American Heritage, 1963. Herder, Johann Gottfried. "Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Mankind." J.G. Herder on Social and Political Culture, trans, and ed. with introduction by F.M. Barnard. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969. 253-327. Hincker, Francois. Les Francais devant I'impot sous I'ancien regime. Paris: Flammarion, 1971. Hirschman, Albert O. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1977. Hitier, Joseph. La Doctrine de I'absolutisme: etude d'histoire public. Paris: Librairie Nouvelle de Droit et de Jurisprudence Arthur Rousseau, 1903. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson. [1651]. repr. New York: Penguin Classics, 1968. Holtmann, Robert B. The Napoleonic Revolution. Baton Rouge: Louisana State University, 1967. Holmes, Stephen. The Anatomy of Antiliberalism. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University, 1993. Holsti, Kalevi J. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Horn, Antoine E. "A History of Banking in the Russian Empire." A History of Banking in all the Leading Nations. Vol. II. New York: Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896. Hulshoff, Maria Aletta. Peace-republicans' manual, or, The French constitution of 1793, and the Declaration of the rights of man and of citizens, according to the Moniteurofjune ijth, 1793. New York: J. Tiebout and sons, 1817. Hume, David. "Of Money." [1752]. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. Eugene F. Miller. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1985. 281-94.

272

Bibliography

— "Of Interest." [1752]. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, eds T.H. Green and T. H. Grose, vol. i. London: Longman, 1875. - "Of the Balance of Power." Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, eds T.H. Green and T. H. Grose, vol.i. London: Longman, 1875. Ignatieff, Michael. Isaiah Berlin: A Life. Toronto: Viking, 1998. - Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton University, 2003. Jamieson, T. John. "Conservatism's Metaphysical Vision: Barbey d'Aurevilly on Joseph de Maistre." Modern Age, 29 (1985): 28-37. Kant, Immanuel. "On the Relationship of Theory to Practice in International Law Viewed from a Universal-Philanthropic, i.e. Cosmo-Political Standpoint." [1793]. The Theory of International Relations: Selected Texts from Gentili to Treitschke. eds M.G. Forsyth, H.M.A. Keens-Soper, and P. Savigear. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1970. 192-9. Kaplow, Jeffry. The Names of Kings: The Parisian Labouring Poor in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Keohane, Nannerl O. Philosophy and the State in France: the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University, 1980. Keens-Soper, Maurice. "The Practice of the States-System." The Reason of States: A Study in International Political Theory, ed. Michael Donelan. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978. 25-47. Klang, Daniel M. Tax Reform in Eighteenth-Century Lombardy. New York: Columbia University, 1977. Kluger, Jeffrey. "Is God in Our Genes?" Time. 25 October 2004: 44-52, 164. Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University, 1995. Lambrichs, Nathalie. La Liberte de la presse de Van TV: les journaux republicains. Preface de Jean Gaudemet. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976. La Sainte Bible. Traduit par Louis Segond. Paris: Alliance Biblique Universelle, i985Laski, Harold J. Authority in the Modern State. New Haven: Yale University, 1919. chapter 2. Lebrun, Richard A. Joseph de Maistre: An Intellectual Militant. Kingston-Montreal: McGill-Queen's, 1988. - "Introduction" to St Petersburg Dialogues. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's,

!993Lefebvre, Georges. Napoleon from 18 Brumaire to Tilsit 1799-1807. trans. Henry F. Stockhold. New York: Columbia University, 1969. Leith, James A. "The French Revolution: The Origins of a Modern Liberal Political Culture T' Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, 2 (1991): 17793Le Poittevin, Gustave. La liberte de la presse depuis la revolution, 1789-1815. Geneve: Slatkine, 1975.

Bibliography

273

Levy, Darline Gay. The Ideas and Careers of Simon-Nicolas-Henri Linguet: A Study in Eighteenth-Century French Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1980. Linguet, Simon Henri Nicolas. Theorie des loix civiles ou principes fondamentaux de la societe. Londres, 1767. Macleod, Henry Dunning. "A History of Banking in Great Britain." A History of Banking in all the Leading Nations. Vol. II. New York: Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896. Maestro, Marcello. Cesare Beccaria and the Origins of Penal Reform. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1973. Malnes, Raino. The Hobbesian Theory of International Conflict. Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1993. Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay on the Principle of Population. [1798]. ed. Philip Appleman. New York: Norton, 1976. Mandoul, J. Joseph de Maistre et la politique de la Maison de Savoie. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1899Maurras, Charles. Mes idees politiques. Paris: A. Fayard et Cie, 1937. - Jeanne d'Arc, Louis XTV, Napoleon. Paris: Ernest Flammarion, 1937. - L'Ordre et le desordre: les idees positives et la Revolution. Paris: Les iles d'or, 1948. Mazlish, Bruce. Burke, Bonald, and de Maistre: A Study in Conservatism. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1955. McClelland, J.S. A History of Western Political Thought. London: Routledge, 1996. McGovern, William Montgomery. From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy. Boston: Hough ton Mifflin, 1941. McKay, Derek and H.M. Scott. The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815. London: Longman, 1983. Mercier de la Riviere, M. L'Ordre naturel et essentiel des societes politiques. Londres: Jean Nourse, 1767. Milward, Alan S. "The Origins of the Gold Standard." Currency Convertibility, eds Jorge Braga de Macedo, Barry Eichengreen, and James Reis. London: Routledge, 1996. 87-101. Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de. "De 1'esprit des lois." Oeuvres completes, vol 2. ed. Roger Callois. Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1951. Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggles for Power and Peace. 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967. Morrisson, Christian and Robert Goffin. Questions financieres au XVIIF et XIXs siecles. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1967. Moulinie, Henri. De Bonald: La Vie, la carrierepolitique, la doctrine. Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan, 1916. Mukherjee, S.N. Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth-Century British Attitudes to India. Bombay: Orient Longman, 1987. Muller von Nittersdorf, Adam Heinrich. Vom Geiste der Gemeinschaft. [1809]. Leipzig: Alfred Kroner Verlag, 1931.

274

Bibliography

Murat, Ines. Colbert. Trans. Robert Francis Cook and Jeannie Van Asselt. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1984. Muret, Charlotte Tourain. French Royalist Doctrines Since the Revolution. New York: Columbia University, 1933. chapter 2. Necker, Jacques. De I'administration des finances de la France. 2 vols. Paris: n.p.,

1785- Sur la legislation et le commerce des grains. [ 1775]. repr. Paris: Edires, 1986. Neri, Pompeo. Relazione dello stato in cui si trova del censimento universale. Milan: G.R. Malatesta, 1750. Nietzsche, Friedrich. A Nietzsche Reader. Selection and trans. R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books, 1977. - Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Trans, and ed. Marion Faber. intro Robert C. Holub. Oxford: Oxford University, 1998. Nicolas, Jean. La Savoie au iS6 siecle: noblesse et bourgeoisie. Paris: Maloine, 1978. Paillette, Clement de. La Politique de Joseph de Maistre d'apres ses premiers ecrits. Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1895. Pecquet, A. L'Esprit des maximes politiques pour servir a I'Esprit des lots de Montesquieu. Paris: Prault, 1757. Plan d'un nouvel equilibre politique en Europe, ouvrage publie en 1798 sous le voile de I'anonyme par Joseph de Maistre. Intro M.R. de Chantelauze. Paris: Charles Douniol, 1859. Pocock, J.G.A. "The political economy of Burke's analysis of the French Revolution." Virtue, Commerce, and History: Essays in Political Thought and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985. - "Introduction" to Reflections on the Revolution in France. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987. Redish, Angela. "Anchors Aweigh: the Transition from Commodity Money to Fiat Money in Western Economies." Canadian Journal of Economics, (Nov. 1993): 777-95Ricardo, David. The Works of David Ricardo. ed. J. R. McCulloch. London: John Murray, 1888. Ripert, Henri. Le Marquis de Mirabeau (L'Ami des hommes): Ses theories politiques et economiques. Paris: Arthur Rousseau, 1901. Roberts, J.M. "Lombardy." The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century: Studies of the Nobilities of the Major European States in the Pre-Reform Era. ed. Albert Goodwin. New York: Harpertorch Books, 1967. Rocheblave, Samuel. Etude sur Joseph de Maistre. Paris: Librairie Istra, 1922. Rosecrance, Richard and Chin-Cheng Lo. "Balancing, Stability, and War: The Mysterious Case of the Napoleonic International System." International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996): 479-500. Sargent, A. J. The Economic Policy of Colbert. London: Longmans, Green and Co.,

1899-

Bibliography

275

Savage, Candace. Wolves. San Francisco: Sierra Club Book, 1988. Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University,

!954Smith, Adam. "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" [1759], "The Wealth of Nations" [1776]. Adam Smith's Moral and Political Philosophy, ed. with intro., Herbert W. Schneider. New York: Harper, 1970. - Lectures on Jurisprudence, eds R. L. Meek, D.D. Raphael, and P.G. Stein. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Smith, David E. The Canadian Senate in Bicameral Perspective. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2003. Stern, J.P. Hitler: The Fiihrer and the People. London: Fontana, 1979. - A Study of Nietzsche. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1979. Sumner, William Graham. "A History of Banking in the United States." A History of Banking in all the Leading Nations, vol. I. New York: Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896. Supino, Camillo. Storia della circolazione cartacea in Italia dal 1860 al 1928. Milano: Societa Editoriale Libraria, 1929. Swann, Julian. Politics and the Parlement of Paris Under Louis XV, 1754-1774. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995. Thornton, Henry. "Two Speeches of Henry Thornton, Esq. on the Bullion Report, May 1811." An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain. [1802]. ed. with intro. FA. v. Hayek. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1939. Venturi, Franco. "Nota Introduttiva," Illuministi italiani. tome III. Riformatori Lombardi Piemontesi e Toscani. a cura di Franco Venturi. Milano: Riccardo Ricciardi Editore, 1958. - "Introduction." Des delits et despeines. Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1965. Vermale, F. "Les Origines des 'Considerations sur la France'." Revue d'histoire litteraire de la France, 33 (1920): 521-9. — "Joseph de Maistre economiste." La Revue universelle, 1929: 243-8. Vianello, C.A. La Vita e L'Opera di Cesare Beccaria con scritti e documenti inediti. Milano: Casa Editrice Ceschina, 1938. Vico, Giambattista. Giambattista Vico Opere. vol. 43. La letteratura italiana storia e testi. Milano: Ricardi Ricciardi Editore, 1953. von Hayek, Friedrich August. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960. - "The Errors of Constructivism." New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978. 3-22. Wellington, Donald C. "French Paper Money, 1790-1797." International Review of Economics and Business, 45 (December 1998): 625-46. Wirth, Max. "A History of Banking in Germany and Austria-Hungary." A History of Banking in all the Leading Nations, ed. W. G. Sumner. vol. IV. New York: Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin, 1896.

276

Bibliography

Woods, Robert. "Population Growth and Economic Change." The First Industrial Revolution, eds Peter Mathias and John A. Davis. London: Basil Blackwell, i989Wrigley, E.A. and R.S. Schofield. The Population History of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University, 1981. Young, David B. "Alternative Ideologies of Law: Traditionalists and Reformers in Eighteenth-Century Lombardy." McGill Law Journal, 34 (1989): 264-85.

Index

Aboriginals, American, 126 anarchy, 48 Arendt, Hannah, 55—6 aristocratic tournante, 12, 17 assignat, 96. See also mandat autarky, 140—2 authority, 5-6, 47-8 Bacon, Lord Francis, 122-3, 199 balance of payments and inconvertibility, 112-14 balance of power, dynamic, 186-7 bank: central, privately owned, 116; first Turin commercial. See Barolo, Carlo Tancredi di Barolo, Carlo Tancredi di, Mayor of Turin, 89 Barolo, marchese Ottavio Failed di, 89-90 Beccaria, marchese Cesare: Maistre connection to, 61, 64, 66 Berlin, Sir Isaiah: fascism and, 48—51; patriotism and, 43; Maistre compared to Tocqueville and Voltaire, 49. See also liberty, negative and positive Bernadotte, Jean Baptiste (Charles XIV of Sweden), 198 biglietto, 102 bills of exchange, commercial, 97 Bodin,Jean. See Davanzati, Bernardo Bolingbroke, Viscount Henry Stjohn, 192 Bonald, vicomte Louis de, 24, 129; on trade, vices of, 130-5 Bossuet,Jacques-Benigne, 20-5 Bradley, Owen, 41 Bretton Woods Agreement, 104-5

buffer states, 48, 129, 201-2 Burke, Edmund, 136-7, 177-8 Galas case. See Voltaire Calvin, John, 150 Canada: monetary system of, 95, 104-5; Senate, 9 Cantillon, Richard, 83-4 Capra, Fritjof, 123 Carli, Gianrinaldo, 74—5 Carouge, strategic importance of, 150-1, 166 Charles V Habsburg. See papacy Churchill, John, Duke of Marlborough, !93 Civarron, Philomathe de, 26 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, 144-5 conflict, rich vs poor, 156 Constant, Benjamin, on liberty, individual and political. See liberty, negative and positive. See also legislature, bicameral constitutions: American, 20; English, 28; French,19,56 convertibility: domestic or international, 81; ingot, 82; rational choice and, 1212; Russia, 105-7 Coyer, Gabriel Francois, 135 credit, monetizing, 115. See also Schumpeter currency principle, 81 D'Aurevilly, Jules Barbey, 19 Davanzati, Bernardo, 83 Davenant, Charles, 191 democracy, early French. See Tiers-Etat

278

Index

depreciation and devaluation, 100 Dermenghen, Emile, 127 Desaguliers, Jean-Theophillus, 99 diversity: cultural, 205; pluralism, 126; relativism, 126 Du Pont de Nemours, Pierre Samuel, 130 Dutot, Treasurer, Compagnie des Indes: on trade as weapon, 142 economies, staple, 152, 154 Einstein, Albert, 123 Enlightenment: despotism and, 66; Beccaria and, 66 equation of exchange, 83 European Union, xv executioner, 40-1. See also Smith, Adam; penitents noirs Faguet, Emile, 43 fascism, 47-5 1 . See also monarque peuple Fenelon, Frangois de Salignac, 22-5, 200 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 93-5 Fisher, Irving, 88 Forbonnais, Francois Veron de, 72, 75-6 forces, countervailing, 39; Figure I-i Fratianni, Michele, 1 10 freedom: of the press, 56-8. See also liberty, negative and positive Friedman, Milton, 108—9 Godwin, William, 86-7 Gray, John, 46 Grotius, Hugo, 184—5 groups, 36—8, 54—5; totalitarianism and, 55 Guiradet, Toussaint, 72, 77-8 Hartung, Frank, 52 Hawking, Stephen, 1 24 Hayek, Friedrich A. von: constructivism, unintended consequences and Maistre, 119-20 Hegel, Friedrich: and his benevolent dictators, 214-16 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 206-7 hierarchy, dynamic, of honour, 13-14 Hitler, Adolf, 50-1 Hobbes, Thomas, 172, 174-5 Holmes, Stephen, 122, 124, 180-2 Holy Bible, 13 Hume, David, 79—80

Ignatieff, Michael, 46—7 inflation: Maistre on, 80, 88—9 interests and power, 173-4 Italian peninsula: Germany, France, and, 210-11; insular Britain and, 209-10 Jones, William, Sir, 208-9 Kant, Immanuel, 46, 189-90. See also monarque peuple King Carlo Emanuele IV, 89 L'Action Franfaise, 20-1 language, influence of, 212-13 law, international. See Grotius legislature, bicameral, 9—11 liberty, individual and political. See liberty, negative and positive liberty, negative and positive, 44-5, 177; liberalism and, 52. See also Gray Linguet, Simon, 157 Locke, John, 48 Mably, Gabriel Bonnot de, 85 McGovern, William Montgomery, 59—60 Maistre, Joseph de: ambassador, iii, 3, 4, 168; analysis, three level, xv; antecedents, see aristocratie tournante; Cross of Saint Maurice, go; economic liberal, political conservative, 165; evolutionary approach, 19; first successful system of inconvertible paper money, 114; library and notebooks, xii, xiii, 70; optimist, 181—2; pluralist, 126; politique experimentale, 20, 121, 172—3; social scientific orientation, 118-19; Socratic writing, 178-9 Maistre, Xavier de, 176-7 Malthus, Thomas, 181 mandat, 97. See also assignat Maurras, Charles, 20 Mazlish, Bruce, 129 mercantilism, 143-5 mercantilists, and middle position, 147 Milward, Alan S., 122 Mirabeau, marquis Victor Riqueti de, 132, 148-9, 153 monarchy, decentralized, 54-5. See also authority, groups, Tiers Etat; fasces; despotic, 21,29-30,32-4 monarque peuple [tyranny of the masses], 16. See also Kant

Index monetary system: American, 100-9; Austrian, 95-6; English, 93; free money market, 98-9; French, 103; Italian, 109-12; Maistre 's proposed inconvertible paper system, 89-90, 96-7, 101-3. See a/so par value Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron, 66, 130, 139; on peace through trade, 142 Muller, Adam Heinrich von Nittersdorf, 93-5 Muret, Charlotte, 28 Napoleon: dominates Europe, 170; strategy, 194. See also Hegel nationalism, Spanish, 45-6, 213. See also patriotism nation-state: horizontal and vertical dimensions, 206 natural law and rationalism. See Grotius nature, human, 36-7, 46 Necker, Jacques, 72, 75-6, 156 Neri, Pompeo, 72 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 43, 50, 199 nominal value. See par value opinion, public, 187—9 Pala case, 18. See also Galas case papacy: and Gallicanism, 34; and theocracy, 196-7 parlements, 21, 32-4. See also venality, Enlightenment par value, 98. See also monetary system: free money market patriotism, 42—3, 139 Pecquet, Antoine, 187 penitents noirs, 41 physiocrats. See Mirabeau, mercantilists Plato, 139, 180 politique experimentale, 20—1, 172-3 poverty: employers and employees, 158-61 powers: great and smaller combinations, 203-5; middle-sized, Maistre's Piedmont and Canada today, xv, 169 price, changes from 1323-1804, Britain, 85-8 Providence, 121 redeemability, of money. See convertibility religion, 120-1, 122-6. See also Charles V, theocracy; papacy

279

reserves, fractional, 91; Piedmont's experience, 92 Ricardo, David, 81. See also convertibility, ingot Rocheblave, Samuel, 22, 25 Rousseau, 37 St Augustine, 40; Augustinian view, 183 Saint-Chamans, Auguste de, 132 Saint-Foix, Philippe-Auguste de, chevalier d'Arc, 135 Schumacher, Fritz, 123 Schumpeter, Joseph, 115-16 Schwartz, Walter and Dorothy, 124 science, new and old paradigm, 140 seignorage, 100 Serra-Capriola, Duca di, 169 Smith, Adam, 37-8, 132, 137-8, 165-6 Stael, Madame la baronne de, 7. See also legislature, bicameral Sledding, Count, 169 taxes, recessive and progressive, 76—7 technology, appropriate. See Schumacher theocracy, 13, 25, 217—18. See also Charles V theorem: equilibrium (Hume, Maistre, Wicksell, and Keynes), 80; quantity, of money. See equation of exchange theory: of comparative advantage, 143; monetary, banking group and currency group, 82; realism, 171 Thornton, Henry, 80-1 Tiers-Etat, 33 Tocqueville, Alexis Charles Henri Cierel de: Maistre compared to, 49 torture, 33; at Savoy, 41 Towner, Roger, 162-4 trade, free, 145 Turgot, Anne-Robert Jacques, 155—6 venality, 22, 30. See also parlements Vendemiaire uprising, 51-2 Vico, Giambattista, 126 Voltaire: Galas case, 66; Maistre compared to, 49. See also Pala case war, 175-6, 179-80 William of Orange, King of England, 192-3 wolf pack, 4, 14-15