1. "The main theme [in Camcastle's book] may be traced back to François Vermale's Notes sur Joseph de Maistre inconnu 1921, but this work is not mentioned, [in her book] nor does it appear in the bibliography."
Vermale's contribution is discussed in my book with three references to two of his other works (275). While two of the four chapters in my book are dedicated to an analysis of Maistre's economic writings, Vermale's Notes sur Joseph de Maistre Inconnu does not mention Maistre's economic writings. Vermale's articles on Maistre's economic writings that I used in my book are more pertinent to my book than the reviewer's suggestion. Similarly, the article that I used written by Vermale on Maistre's political writings is more pertinent than the book of Vermale published about the same time because the article deals specifically with the historical context for Maistre's greatest political work Considérations sur la France. Vermale's book suggested by the reviewer covered different topics than mine: three chapters analyze Maistre's religious thought and another three are on Maistre's military thought. My book is primarily on Maistre's political and economic thought, as its title indicates.
2. "Maistre (1753-1821) is easily recognized as . . . [a] kind of Savoyard doppelgänger [duplicate] for Burke. . . . Ultimately for Berlin, however, [Maistre] was . . . more sinister than Burke could ever be. . . . Maistre . . . elevated war."
There was also a favourable side to Berlin's assessment, for example, "Maistre compares very favourably in ability and accomplishment to other thinkers, such as Voltaire and Alexis Clérel de Tocqueville." Like Berlin's commentary, I also distance Maistre from Burke despite their seeming resemblance. However, I quote a passage from Burke's own "Letters on a Regicide Peace" that shows how Burke like Maistre perceived the inevitability of war as "a sole means of justice amongst nations" (178). "Like Maistre, he [Berlin also] recognized the imperfection of human nature and the constant need for powerful intervention: "extreme measures [war, even by liberals] may in desperate situations be required . . . [to] preserve an uneasy equilibrium, which is constantly threatened and in constant need of repair" (46).
3. "To do justice to Berlin, Camcastle needs to explain the connection between irrationalism, positive liberty, the teleology of evil, and the doctrine of absolute authority, and this requires that she discuss 'The Decline of Utopian Ideas in the West,' which does not appear." "It is unclear whether Berlin felt that Maistre's political thought 'is not devoid of its own conception of liberty' or . . . had no appreciation for liberty."
As I have a great respect for the writings of both of these great minds Berlin and Maistre; my aim is "to do justice" to both. In chapter 4 I spend an entire section discussing passages from Maistre's writings that some of his political enemies had attempted to make notorious, including the descriptions of bloodshed, war, and death. I analyze in depth the views on these passages of Berlin and others, such as Holmes and Cioran (177-183). While Berlin's The Decline of Utopian ideas in the West is not mentioned, Berlin's essay specifically on Maistre from the same book is discussed at length in chapter 4 as well as chapter 1 of my book. I also show why Maistre was critical of the idealism of some Enlightenment thinkers, such as Condorcet that assumed "eternal harmony and eternal peace . . . founded on the common interests and the natural goodness of man." That is along similar lines as Berlin's essay The Decline of Utopian Ideas in the West. I argue that Maistre is a realist, like Hobbes, and "It is one of the factors that led Maistre to support a monarchical government" (183).
Turning to the question, on liberty - I make it clear in chapter 1 of my book that Berlin wondered whether Maistre does not appreciate individual liberty (called negative liberty by Berlin, but this is because Maistre has more confidence in the usefulness of political liberty (called positive liberty by Berlin). Both concepts individual and political liberty were originally developed by Constant. I discuss specifically Berlin's own essay on two concepts of liberty to help clarify the point. Berlin was concerned, with reason, that positive liberty could be defined in such a way that the higher self goes beyond the person to include the social whole of which the individual is but an element or aspect. This could result, see the quotation below - as Maistre also recognized - in this higher self imposing collective will upon members and encroaching upon, diminishing the area within which individual members may choose without interference (43). I show that Maistre values individual liberty also.
The view of Berlin and Maistre regarding liberty does not differ as much as may at first have been anticipated by some critics. "Passages such as the following with reference to the Vendémiaire 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 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." 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.' Berlin did not name the Vendémiaire 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" (51-2).
"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 most 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" (52).
4. "There is only one Maistre, Camcastle writes, and that appears to be Maistre the bureaucrat, the servant of the House of Savoy. . . . her analysis explicitly focuses on texts arising from his bureaucratic role – which explains the subsequent temperate image."
Not true – like other great minds Maistre manifests this quality in many facets. Illustrations are his analyses of the trade in grain, countervailing forces to prevent despotic government and fiat inconvertible paper money; all more temperate and gradual in their operation than his contemporaries yet more effective. Another illustration - " There is only one Maistre" (xvi) partly relates to the Maistre that attempts to change the evil and violent dark side that exists in the minds of many human beings. "It is a travesty of logic to associate his aims with his vivid illustrations, as has been done repeatedly by his critics, e.g., regarding violence. Describing violence does not equate ipso facto with promoting and perpetuating it. Do we accuse physicians and psychiatrists of being sick with an illness because they diagnose and prescribe a cure? Maistre describes violence in its many forms to dissuade people from using or associating with it, by exposing its horror and proving that it only results in more conflict" (222). My book relies also extensively on analyses of Maistre's other writings cited in the book (some published and others not), e.g., his many notebooks and personal letters to close friends. Maistre's moderate, not reactionary perspective is revealed in his letter to his friend M. le baron Vignet des Étoles. Maistre tells his monarchist friend that "it is impossible to return to the old regime" and reforms are "a necessary part of any counter-revolutionary offensive."(4)
5. "His [Maistre's] views on the aristocracy as a kind of neglected second house may have relevance for the debate over the Canadian Senate; curiously, however, she [Camcastle] remains silent as to how his outlook on language and nationalism might affect the Quebec question."
Reviewers suggested that I should concentrate on the age in which Maistre lived. Consequently, my explanation of how Maistre's analysis of language and nationalism might apply to the Quebec question was entirely removed, and only brief mention of the Canadian Senate remains: "The dialogue among Maistre, Staël, and Constant about whether a second not elected house would 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."(90)
6. "There are some embarrassing errors: e.g., 'Vico whom René Descartes considered the originator of modern classical philosophy.'"
This refers to the only typographical error in the book; no other has been identified. René Descartes died in 1660, before Giambattista Vico was born in 1668; he could not have commented on Vico's work. The preceding to the subject sentence on page 126 refers to Berlin's accusation that Maistre is "an advocate of deliberate retardation of the liberal arts in Russia." The sentence that followed the error referred to Vico's criticism of Descartes, which I considered of little importance in the Russian case as it would have little bearing on the accuracy of Berlin's criticism. It was deleted, but inadvertently the name René Descartes remained and replaced the name Isaiah Berlin – a typographical/chronological error.
I turn now to the important discussion on page 126. Berlin admired Vico as an original thinker and important contributor to modern classical philosophy. On page 59 of his Crooked Timber of Humanity "Giambattista Vico and Cultural History" Berlin states "Vico is the true father both of the modern concept of culture and of what one might call cultural pluralism" and on page 60 he indicates that Vico is also one of the originators of social anthropology. While Vico appreciated the relevance of the then dominant Cartesian philosophy, he also recognized its shortcomings. He developed his own in Principi di Scienza Nuova [Principles of the New Science] that incorporates both the universally applicable Cartesian philosophy of rational certainty and his own philosophical theme based on the choices by particular cultures for their own particular group from their languages, actions and traditions. Pages 126 – 128 of my book show that Maistre's approach and solution in the Russian case utilize the analysis similar to Vico's so admired by Berlin. Perhaps had Berlin known this, he would not have opposed it. Berlin's position is "contrary to Maistre's pluralistic approach to politics, which rejects an ideal institution for every circumstance or a constitution made for all nations." (126) No evidence has been provided to support the criticism of Maistre "as an advocate of deliberate retardation of the liberal arts and sciences in Russia, and that 'Maistre clearly meant to apply this beyond Russia herself, to the whole of contemporary Europe."
7. "Her historical material also lacks documentation"
As promised in the preface, my book is "a close reading of Maistre's texts within an eighteenth-century context."(xiii) The book cites and refers in the text to numerous monographs written by well-respected historians on the political and economic systems of France and Savoy. All are documented in the 649 footnotes and a dozen pages of bibliography. For the first example of documented historical material the reviewer would need to read no further than page 5 of the subject book. Please see footnote 7 on page 5 of my book: Chaussinard Nogaret, From Feudalism to Enlightenement, 14-15. The attack on Maistre's reputation may be misdirected. For example, both Hitler and Mussolini used the writings of Nietzsche in their horrendous ideology, not Maistre's. "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" (50-51). Nothing has come to light that associates Maistre's writings with a twentieth century dictator, and Maistre risked his life to resist Napoleon's totalitarian regime. Not one item of historical material in my book is specifically challenged by this reviewer.
8. "Her [Camcastle's] understanding of absolutism is over-simplified."
My definition of absolutism coincides with that of many other scholars. For example, I reference a book by historian Joseph Hitier that discusses the doctrine of absolutism of Louis XIV. He explains how Louis XIV "differed from previous French kings in his firmness in rejecting any idea of sharing power with another political body. This king 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 rights of remonstrance" (32). For the book, I constructed a geometric diagram that elucidates my explanation of why Maistre is not a defender of absolutism (39). I discuss in considerable depth the difference in the opinions of Maistre and Bonald on the writings of Fénelon and Bossuet. Most of Maistre's critics have ignored the important role of intermediary institutions in Maistre's thought. I argue that Maistre's frequent criticism of absolutist politics more closely resembles not Bossuet but his seventeenth-century contemporary Fénelon. Fénelon and Maistre stress that the king must obey the law, not simply follow his own will, and that the aristocracy must be permitted to participate in government. Maistre's political enemies and their followers are those who have read little of his writings and who express an over-simplified understanding of his political thought.
9. "Her argument about Maistre's economic liberalism is somewhat tendentious, for this position is usually grounded in a rights-based liberty that Maistre unequivocally rejects. Moreover, a defence of an economics of the market and private property – if it can actually be found in Maistre's writings - is at best discontinuous with a defence of the ancient regime [ancien régime]."
This criticism is based on a stereotype of Maistre iterated and reiterated in the secondary and tertiary literature, without considering whether there may be a viable explanation for the seemingly opposing positions of economic liberal and defender of monarchy. It is possible to defend economic liberalism without having to rely on rights-based theory. The famous English utilitarian Jeremy Bentham of the nineenth-century was an economic liberal, but strongly disliked rights-based theory. One must distinguish a defender of the institution of monarchy, such as Maistre, from one who defends the absolutist ancien régime. While Maistre did not fear an important role for government in the economic sphere on issues of money and trade in grain and other commodities, he was "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 should determine the value of paper money; the sovereign [like central banks in modern democracies] would only ensure that this value is respected by all" (119). Maistre's writings defend economics of the market and property rights. For example, while in Fichte's system "the value of the paper was fixed in an economy where all prices were controlled by the government . . . 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 important causes of problems" (94). In the third chapter of my book I show how Maistre occupied a middle position between the physiocrats, who favoured absolute freedom and their opponents, Linguet and Necker, who favoured the retention of restrictions on the grain trade (164). Maistre favors the gradual liberation of the export of grain and understands the position of grain merchants, but he is also "a conservative with a social conscience” (118). He wants to ensure that the dismantling of trade barriers does not lead to social chaos and starvation for the lower classes. On another occasion in his discussion on paper money, "Maistre argued that if [on emergency occasions] convertibility must be maintained, it would be preferable to work with established businessmen to incorporate a private bank. . . . Maistre is here advising the introduction of a private institution to function [as a central bank] similarly to the Bank of England [owned by private shareholders]" (116).
10. "Friedrich Hayek argued that . . . Maistre's 'moderate' economics would be a splinter, not a 'side' – but Camcastle never addresses this."
Hayek considered himself a political liberal and supporter of democracy. Like this reviewer, he believed that Maistre was a defender of absolutism and a reactionary who wanted to return France to its political state before the French Revolution. But this splinter moderate in economics and reactionary in politics only exists in the mind of some interpreters. I argue in my book and produce sufficient evidence to show that Maistre is a moderate both in politics and in economics. The reviewer presents nothing specific to challenge that Maistre favours gradual change and is not reactionary. Maistre is displeased with both the Savoyard and French monarchies. He wants to restore the power of the 'parlements' so that they could counterbalance the king's power and act as intermediaries representing the views of the people. He also believes that the consent of the Etats-Généraux that includes non-nobles was necessary for the establishment of taxes and other variables, but that body was no longer being allowed to intervene in the regime that had become dominated by the king and his ministers (33). Despite this major misunderstanding of Maistre's work, Hayek did praise Maistre's understanding of spontaneous institutions, such as representative government, which are not the product of rational deliberation (119-20). In a chapter on Maistre's writings on economics, I did not want to introduce Hayek's other less relevant comments on Maistre's writings – arguments that I had already refuted in the preceding chapter where I discuss other critics who had made the same error.
11. "If she is right that Maistre was an economic liberal then it is indeed instructive to be reminded that such moderation can be defended by an advocate of absolutism, cruelty and irrationalism."
No evidence has come to light that Maistre advocated, although he discussed, crimes against humanity. To the contrary, there is documented evidence that he does not enjoy the thought of a human being made to suffer. For example, he went to great lengths to prevent Pala, likely unjustly accused of having fomented a revolt against the King of Piedmont, from being tortured and killed. This was in the face of the fact that capital punishment and torture were part of the law in eighteenth century Europe and he must perform his duties as a judge of the supreme tribunal. However, Maistre "proudly proclaims that in his native Savoy . . . [even] 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" (41). Since in the Pala case, Maistre felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pala guilty, he advised his king, despite much opposition and personal risk [to Maistre] that the sentence should be at least reduced to imprisonment until perhaps more evidence might be found. His documented behaviour in the Pala case and his writings demonstrate that he was sympathetic to the rights of the individual (68).