What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Rousseau: On the State of Nature and On the Sovereignty of the People
On the State of Nature and On the Sovereignty of the People are Maistre's most comprehensive treatment of Rousseau's ideas and his most sustained critique of the ideological foundations of the revolution. On the State of Nature, a detailed critique of Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality, focuses on Rousseau's belief in the natural goodness of man; On the Sovereignty of the People, a critique of Social Contract, explores Rousseau's theory of popular sovereignty. In Maistre's eyes Rousseau encouraged the socially destructive individualism that lay at the heart of the French Revolution. However, the essays reveal some surprising ambiguities in the relationship between two seminal thinkers who are usually thought of as polar opposites, suggesting that Maistre's vision was more akin to Rousseau's than he would have admitted. Against Rousseau offers valuable insights into the evolution of Maistre's counter-revolutionary ideas during the crucial years of 1792-97 and illustrates his remarkable insights into society and politics. It is vital to any consideration of his thought or the counter-revolutionary movement in eighteenth-century France.
248 pages, Hardcover
First published January 23, 1996
About the author
Joseph de Maistre
495 books206 followersA Savoyard lawyer, diplomat, writer, and philosopher. He was the most influential spokesmen for hierarchical political systems in the period immediately following the French Revolution of 1789. Despite his close personal and intellectual ties to France, Maistre remained throughout his life a loyal subject of the King of Sardinia, whom he served as member of the Savoy Senate (1787–1792), ambassador to Russia (1803–1817), and minister of state to the court in Turin (1817–1821).
Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. According to Maistre, only governments founded upon a Christian constitution, implicit in the customs and institutions of all European societies but especially in Catholic European monarchies, could avoid the disorder and bloodshed that followed the implementation of rationalist political programs, such as the 1789 revolution. Maistre was an enthusiastic proponent of the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy; he extolled the monarchy, he exalted the privileges of the papacy, and he glorified God's providence.
Xavier de Maistre was his younger brother.
Maistre argued for the restoration of hereditary monarchy, which he regarded as a divinely sanctioned institution, and for the indirect authority of the Pope over temporal matters. According to Maistre, only governments founded upon a Christian constitution, implicit in the customs and institutions of all European societies but especially in Catholic European monarchies, could avoid the disorder and bloodshed that followed the implementation of rationalist political programs, such as the 1789 revolution. Maistre was an enthusiastic proponent of the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy; he extolled the monarchy, he exalted the privileges of the papacy, and he glorified God's providence.
Xavier de Maistre was his younger brother.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
March 31, 2014
Ce petit livre contient un texte posthume de Joseph de Maistre qui s'en prend à la philosophie de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, mais plus particulièrement au discours sur l'origine de l'inégalité parmi les hommes. Joseph de Maistre est un franc-maçon Suisse, dont je ne connaissais que le nom et le fait qu'il n'était pas franchement un thuriféraire de la Révolution Française, ce qui ne me disposait pas non plus très bien à son égard. Finalement, la lecture de ce petit livre n'a pas été aussi pénible que je le craignais, bien au contraire.
La cible principale du livre, c'est la fiction de l'état de naturel de l'homme, que Rousseau invoque pour fustiger un état social corrompu. C'est un lieu commun depuis Jean de Léry de faire appel au bon sauvage. Maistre démonte cette fiction: l'homme sauvage auquel Rousseau se réfère n'est pas cette créature innocente et bonne, mais parfois une créature féroce et brutale, altérée de sang humain, et dont la compagnie nous ferait horreur. A cela, Rousseau répondrait que ce sauvage est déjà corrompu par la société. Mais alors où trouver cet homme naturel? Peut-il vivre? Il faut, pour Maistre, s'en remettre à l'histoire, qui est la science expérimentale de la politique: si jamais on n'a vu cette fiction de l'homme à l'état de nature, c'est donc que c'est une chimère à abandonner.
Egalement, poursuit-il, comment faire en l'homme la part entre ce qui est naturel, et ce qui est artificiel? La critique prend alors un tour métaphysique et théologique: Rousseau semble nier la providence, et invoque sans arrêt le hasard. Argument insupportable pour Maistre, chrétien convaincu, qui invoque la convergence et des écritures saintes, et des païens comme Homère, Platon et tant d'autres, en faveur de la téléologie et de la royauté de droit divin. Je sais qu'il a fait une traduction des "délais de la justice divine" de Plutarque, et il cite avec plaisir la tirade d'Ulysse qui met fin à la sédition des grecs en leur expliquant qu'il leur faut un seul chef. Les anciens se plaignaient déjà qu'on leur rebattait les oreilles avec ce vers. Ainsi, la vision de Rousseau semble à l'auteur parfaitement naïve, populaire, contradictoire, et manquant du plus élémentaire bon sens. Il se range plutôt à cette formule de Burke: la nature de l'homme, c'est l'art.
Derrière cette critique, c'est un combat politique contre la révolution française, car Maistre fait de Rousseau l'inspirateur de l'esprit d'égalité qui lui fait horreur. De manière amusante, Maistre n'hésite pas tactiquement à s'appuyer sur Hobbes ou Voltaire pour saper Rousseau. Il reprend à son compte une vision pessimiste de l'homme, naturellement mauvais, et qu'il faut corriger et maintenir sous l'empire d'un gouvernement, sous peine que sa nature corrompue ne s'épanouisse, et que l'état de guerre anarchique latent ne se révèle. Il ne faut pas se laisser abuser. Hobbes visait justement à fonder un pouvoir politique qui subordonne la religion et les opinions religieuses à sa puissance supérieure: je doute que ce soit là l'idée de Maistre. Également, il ne reprend de Voltaire que les bons mots et l'esprit caustique, mais envoie au diable ses combats contre les abus de l'intolérance, et voue aux gémonie l'esprit philosophique de son siècle, qu'il pique avec des citations sceptiques de Cicéron: encore une alliance tactique amusante!
J'ai finalement bien apprécié cette lecture, soutenue par un bon appareil critique, même si je ne partage pas vraiment les vues de l'auteur. Son esprit caustique et franc, son érudition intéressent, et ses critiques sont vraiment stimulantes. Pour autant, elles n'embrassent, à mon avis, qu'une partie de la vérité. Maistre a raison de nous mettre sous les yeux le côté déplaisant du sauvage, et sa critique a l'avantage de nous présenter le plus clairement du monde le fond de sa pensée. C'est qu'il me semble que l'homme, sauvage ou civilisé, n'est ni ange ni démon. Également, je ne vois pas pourquoi la politique devrait se limiter a ce qui a été, sans jamais s'aventurer à examiner ce qui pourrait être. Elle est surement plus assurée dans le premier cas, puisqu'elle est soutenue par l'expérience. Maistre à raison de le souligner et de louer l'étude et l'érudition, mères de la prudence et de la sagesse. Alors on risque évidement de tomber et se faire mal, si on s'écarte imprudemment du chemin tracé par nos pères. Mais l'on ne ferait également jamais aucun progrès, si l'on se bornait à ne jamais répéter que ce qui a déjà été fait.
January 23, 2026
Maistre is a good writer and witty with pretty good point overall. That is to say, he thinks authority is inevitable. Yet, I think Maistre misreads Rousseau, a thinker the right has always despised. They will pat themselves on the back for refuting and then complain when Rousseau's ideas continue to resonate. As an admirer of Rousseau, it is schadenfreude for me that they end up with pie in their faces, but I will admit Maistre is a better critic than most, and at least he is a fine writer.
June 25, 2019
An enjoyable dunk on Rousseau, with realist insights on constitutionalism and political philosophy. Recommended.
August 22, 2025
Super based
March 28, 2023
Overall a good book coming from the counter-enlightenment and anti-French Revolution movements. Maistre establishes in this book that Rousseau was wrong about everything. The state of nature, as proclaimed by Rousseau, is not a practicable state for human beings. Maistre emphasizes realism and demonstrates that even "savages" had a hierarchy in some form or another. Nevertheless, Maistre also relies heavily on his religious conviction. His underlying Catholisticm can be seen throughout the book.
April 15, 2026
Joseph de Maistre’s Against Rousseau—a polemical engagement with the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau—stands as a forceful articulation of Counter-Enlightenment thought in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Written by the Savoyard diplomat and conservative theorist Joseph de Maistre, the text is less a systematic treatise than a sustained critique of Rousseau’s philosophical anthropology, political theory, and moral psychology. It offers a revealing window into the intellectual resistance mounted against Enlightenment rationalism and its revolutionary consequences.
At the heart of de Maistre’s critique lies a rejection of Rousseau’s conception of human nature. Rousseau’s idealization of the “state of nature” and his belief in the fundamental goodness of man are treated by de Maistre as dangerous fictions. Against this, de Maistre posits a deeply pessimistic anthropology: human beings are inherently flawed, marked by original sin, and incapable of sustaining moral or political order without the guidance of tradition, authority, and divine sanction. In this respect, Against Rousseau is not merely a rebuttal of a single thinker but a broader indictment of Enlightenment optimism regarding human perfectibility.
De Maistre’s opposition extends to Rousseau’s political philosophy, particularly the notion of popular sovereignty and the “general will.” For Rousseau, legitimate political authority arises from the collective will of the people, expressed through a social contract. De Maistre counters that such abstractions ignore the historical and organic foundations of political order. Authority, in his view, is not constructed through rational agreement but inherited through tradition, embodied in monarchy, and ultimately sanctioned by providence. The attempt to ground politics in human reason alone, he argues, leads not to liberty but to instability and violence—a judgment clearly informed by his interpretation of the French Revolution as the catastrophic outcome of Enlightenment ideas.
Stylistically, Against Rousseau exemplifies de Maistre’s rhetorical force. His prose is incisive, often aphoristic, and marked by a sharp polemical edge. Rather than engaging in dispassionate analysis, he employs irony, invective, and theological argumentation to dismantle Rousseau’s claims. This approach gives the work a distinctive vitality, though it also limits its philosophical precision. De Maistre frequently substitutes assertion for demonstration, and his reliance on theological premises may alienate readers seeking secular argumentation.
From a methodological standpoint, the text reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of Counter-Enlightenment critique. De Maistre is at his most compelling when exposing the tensions and ambiguities within Rousseau’s thought—particularly the paradox of a “general will” that can demand absolute obedience while claiming to express collective freedom. However, his alternative rests on an equally problematic foundation. By grounding political authority in tradition and divine will, he forecloses the possibility of rational critique and reform, thereby risking the justification of arbitrary or oppressive institutions.
The intellectual significance of Against Rousseau lies in its role within a broader reaction against Enlightenment modernity. Alongside figures such as Edmund Burke, de Maistre contributed to a tradition that emphasized the limits of reason, the importance of historical continuity, and the necessity of authority. His critique anticipates later conservative and even existential concerns about the fragility of social order and the dangers of ideological abstraction. At the same time, his uncompromising defense of hierarchy and his theological determinism place him at odds with liberal and democratic traditions that have come to dominate modern political thought.
Against Rousseau is a powerful and provocative work that encapsulates the Counter-Enlightenment response to one of the eighteenth century’s most influential thinkers. Its enduring value lies not in the persuasiveness of its arguments—which are often overstated and insufficiently substantiated—but in its capacity to illuminate the fundamental tensions between rationalism and tradition, optimism and pessimism, freedom and authority. For contemporary readers, it serves as both a critique of Enlightenment ideals and a cautionary example of the potential excesses of their rejection.
GPT
At the heart of de Maistre’s critique lies a rejection of Rousseau’s conception of human nature. Rousseau’s idealization of the “state of nature” and his belief in the fundamental goodness of man are treated by de Maistre as dangerous fictions. Against this, de Maistre posits a deeply pessimistic anthropology: human beings are inherently flawed, marked by original sin, and incapable of sustaining moral or political order without the guidance of tradition, authority, and divine sanction. In this respect, Against Rousseau is not merely a rebuttal of a single thinker but a broader indictment of Enlightenment optimism regarding human perfectibility.
De Maistre’s opposition extends to Rousseau’s political philosophy, particularly the notion of popular sovereignty and the “general will.” For Rousseau, legitimate political authority arises from the collective will of the people, expressed through a social contract. De Maistre counters that such abstractions ignore the historical and organic foundations of political order. Authority, in his view, is not constructed through rational agreement but inherited through tradition, embodied in monarchy, and ultimately sanctioned by providence. The attempt to ground politics in human reason alone, he argues, leads not to liberty but to instability and violence—a judgment clearly informed by his interpretation of the French Revolution as the catastrophic outcome of Enlightenment ideas.
Stylistically, Against Rousseau exemplifies de Maistre’s rhetorical force. His prose is incisive, often aphoristic, and marked by a sharp polemical edge. Rather than engaging in dispassionate analysis, he employs irony, invective, and theological argumentation to dismantle Rousseau’s claims. This approach gives the work a distinctive vitality, though it also limits its philosophical precision. De Maistre frequently substitutes assertion for demonstration, and his reliance on theological premises may alienate readers seeking secular argumentation.
From a methodological standpoint, the text reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of Counter-Enlightenment critique. De Maistre is at his most compelling when exposing the tensions and ambiguities within Rousseau’s thought—particularly the paradox of a “general will” that can demand absolute obedience while claiming to express collective freedom. However, his alternative rests on an equally problematic foundation. By grounding political authority in tradition and divine will, he forecloses the possibility of rational critique and reform, thereby risking the justification of arbitrary or oppressive institutions.
The intellectual significance of Against Rousseau lies in its role within a broader reaction against Enlightenment modernity. Alongside figures such as Edmund Burke, de Maistre contributed to a tradition that emphasized the limits of reason, the importance of historical continuity, and the necessity of authority. His critique anticipates later conservative and even existential concerns about the fragility of social order and the dangers of ideological abstraction. At the same time, his uncompromising defense of hierarchy and his theological determinism place him at odds with liberal and democratic traditions that have come to dominate modern political thought.
Against Rousseau is a powerful and provocative work that encapsulates the Counter-Enlightenment response to one of the eighteenth century’s most influential thinkers. Its enduring value lies not in the persuasiveness of its arguments—which are often overstated and insufficiently substantiated—but in its capacity to illuminate the fundamental tensions between rationalism and tradition, optimism and pessimism, freedom and authority. For contemporary readers, it serves as both a critique of Enlightenment ideals and a cautionary example of the potential excesses of their rejection.
GPT
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews