Talk:Joseph de Maistre/Archive 1

Catholic Encyclopedia appropriation

As this stands, everything seems to be from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 (public domain). Beyond the first two paragraphs is verbatim. -- Jmabel 03:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've now edited a little & wikified. I've done my best to translate the titles of his works; someone may know better about names under which translations may have been published. -- Jmabel 05:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Note to WHEELER: I reverted your edit because "conservatism" is seen as an ideology by virtually all educated people, including most conservatives. Your belief that conservatism is not an ideology, but rather "the truth", is a very biased POV that you are free to hold, but not to introduce here. It is an opinion so far in the minority that, in my opinion and the opinion of everyone else, as near as I can tell, Wikipedia need not address it. Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think the question of whether conservatism is properly an ideology is an interesting one; the article on Conservatism discusses it at some length. My own view would be that de Maistre's breed of conservatism was precisely an ideology, although Burke's (which mainly emphasized institutional continuity and constitutionalism) arguably was not. But in the context the word appears here, I don't think it matters either way. At best it is le mot juste, at worst it is not, but it's not misleading. -- Jmabel 04:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent edit

There was a recent major anonymous edit. Someone who knows more about de Maistre than I should review. In particular, I find is a little bizarre that this removes from the lead, without comment or citation, the statements that he is French, and that he supported not just monarchy but absolutism. Again, though, I don't really know de Maistre's life and work, and I presume someone else here does. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Baudelaire

Why was "the decadent poet Charles Baudelaire" changed to just "the poet Charles Baudelaire"? It seems a useful bit of identification for anyone who might not know Baudelaire well. It should probably be linked to Decadent movement, not decadence, but it is otherwise correct. Barring a good case to the contrary, I will restore it (with the different link). - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave a day or so for reply; I'm editing; if it is in dispute, please discuss here. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

no dispute, just my ignorance. being unaware of the decadent movement, i just took it as an opinion of somebody about baudelaire. sorry. this way the link is fixed and that's good. trueblood 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong to call him "decadent". Take a book on French literary history and you'll read that Baudelaire was a precursor of the Decadent movement, and not actually "decadent". He was a contemporary of late Romanticism. I removing the word, as I believe the labeling is wrong. Any doubt, I repeat, please read a book. 201.19.144.3 15:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Was not French!

I don,t Know why, against history, should be French. Savoy is part of France from 1860, before was integrant part of Kingdom of Sardinia; and after he has never wanted be French: he has written about himself in "Consideration sur la France" that he did't wont be French. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:84.220.216.47}27 November 2006|84.220.216.47}27 November 2006]] ([[User talk:84.220.216.47}27 November 2006|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/84.220.216.47}27 November 2006|contribs]]) .--URBIS 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The body of the article claims only that he was "French-speaking," which is of course true. To label him an "Italian writer" because he was legally a subject of the Kingdom of Sardinia seems to me very misleading. Maistre's ancestors were French, he wrote in French about French affairs, and his intellectual influence was by far the greatest in France. The place where he was born is now part of France, not Italy. Though I agree that the categories of "French counter-revolutionary" and "French writer" are slightly problematic, they seem to me justified, and preferrable to available alternatives (or to their elimination). -- Eb.hoop 01:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He born and he died in Kingdom of Sardinia and has been in Sardinian government; he wrote in Considérations sur la France: « Je ne suis pas français, je ne l'ai jamais été et je ne veux pas l'être, (in en: I’m not French, I never been French and I don’t wont be French). Is true, he was French speaking, but it doesn’t mean anything (at that time was normally for European aristocracy to speak and write French). Not everybody that is English speaking, or English writing, is truly English citizen. I find ordinary that he wrote about French affairs: he was against French Revolution! Savoy is part of France from 1860, before, (with all his history), was integrant part of Kingdom of Sardinia (so… part of Italian history). Doesn’t mean anything if Maistre's ancestors were French: Robert De Niro’s ancestors were Italians, but Robert De Niro is nowadays an American citizen. I think misleading is what you have written.--80.104.249.99 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)--URBIS 19:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, eb.hoop lets discuss first....but.... I'm still waiting for an answer.--URBIS 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's first distinguish two different questions: whether Maistre was Italian, and whether he was French. It seems to me that labelling him Italian is very misleading and quite unjustified. Italy did not even exist as a country until forty years after he died. Do we list as "Italian writer" anyone else who wrote exclusively in French? The body of the article claims only that he was "French-speaking," which is correct. It also describes him as a Savoyard and a subject of the King of Sardinia, all of which are exact. I therefore see no reason to change the body of the article.

The problem comes only from the inclusion of the categories "French writer" and "French counterrevolutionary." If by "French writer" we mean a member of the French culture who wrote in French, then Maistre was one. If we mean a writer who was legally a French national, then he was not. Similarly, if by French counterrevolutionary we mean a French-speaking intellectual who opposed to French Revolution, then he was one. If we mean a legal French national, then he was not. This ambiguity is inevitable because historically European nationalities are ambiguous: the legal definitions often don't match the cultural ones, and the cultural ones are subject to debate. (Was C.S. Lewis Irish or British?) This debate is ultimately unresolvable. But I think it's far more useful, given the available alternatives, to list Maistre as French, since that's the culture and civilization he represented and to which he addressed himself in his writings. -- Eb.hoop 21:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To butt in, knowing nothing of the man other than what is written—well written—in the article, I would say that Category:French writers is highly problematic. It defines itself explicitly as a national category, rather than as a linguistic one:

This is a category of writers of French nationality.

A better choice would be Category:French-language writers, which includes Giacomo Casanova, for instance, and also sub-cats such as Category:Canadian writers in French. I would think that the best choice would be to be explicit and put him in a new sub-cat called something like Savoyard writers in French. —Ian Spackman 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:French Counterrevolutionaries also seems to me to present problems. I don’t see any obvious solution, but I’ll comment anyway. My first thought was: ‘will this category include Edmund Burke? If so, then no problem.’ But the answer is: ‘No.’ Because

This category includes French politicians and intellectuals whom opposed themselves to the 1789 French Revolution….

[Before continuing I had better correct that grammatical howler! Done—aren’t wikis wonderful?]

The parallel category employed in the French Wikipedia article fr: Joseph de Maistre, by contrast, does include Burke: the nationality-neutral fr:Catégorie:Contre-Révolutionnaire, which is a sub-cat of fr:Catégorie:Personnalité de la Révolution française.

The ‘national’ categories the French Wikipedia places him in are fr:Catégorie:Personnalité politique italienne, fr:Catégorie:Personnalité de la Savoie, fr:Catégorie:Histoire de Savoie, fr:Catégorie:Académie de Savoie and fr:Catégorie:Philosophe italien. The German Wikipedia categories are all non-national and non-linguistic. The Dutch Wikipedia describes him as ‘een Italiaans politicus, schrijver en filosoof’ and places him in various categories beginning with ‘Italiaans’. The Spanish Wikipedia puts him under es:Categoría:Filósofos de Italia and the Italian under it:Categoria:Filosofi italiani.

I seem to be getting a picture of someone who is not regarded as French, but who is regarded as Italian. (Describing people as Italian did not begin with the Risorgimento, of course.) —Ian Spackman 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A P.S. which I cannot resist. (Forgive me.) Any thoughts on adding Victor-Emmanuel II de Savoie to a French kings category? He wasn’t born in the Kingdom of Italy, much of his kingdom ended up in France, and I believe that he spoke French much more fluently than Italian. I think I might just convince myself… —Ian Spackman 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should take the current usage of the French version of this article as guidance. The same user who wants Maistre re-labelled in the English version recently had him relabelled in the French version. He used to be categorized as French over there also. I don't know about the Italian version, but that can be investigated. I do know a bit about Maistre, and aside from the purely legal standpoint, it seems to me clear that he was always been regarded as a Frenchman (quite unlike Vittorio Emanuele). -- Eb.hoop 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly what’s the problem with using the Category:French-language writers? Secondly what do you make of the quote above from Considérations sur la France? (It seems pretty telling on the face of it, but I don’t know whether it is accurate, or what the context is.) —Ian Spackman 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the quote given is either fabricated or its source is not as indicated. You can check the full text of Considérations sur la France here: [1]. He does say "Je ne suis pas français," but he never says that he has never wished to be one. The context is him explaining that he is ignorant of the political intrigues within French monarchist circles because he does not live in France.

One point that Maistre stresses greatly (and on which he quotes Hume) is that certain important constitutional principles can never be reduced to perfectly clear universal rules, but that one must instead be guided in practice by delicate notions of decency, common sense, and good faith. I think there is a parallel here with the problem of defining who is French (or, for that matter, who is Irish, German, Italian, Polish, etc.) I can't give you a perfect universal rule for determining who is a French writer. But I think most people who are familiar with him would see that it makes good sense to call Maistre French, as does, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

At any rate, the facts of the case are made very clear in the article. My vote is to keep the categories as they are and I strongly oppose relabelling him as Italian, but if others vote to change the category to French-language writer, I could see myself going along with that. -- Eb.hoop 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Italian history doesn’t start in 1861. Kingdom of Italy is the natural evolution of Kingdom of Sardinia. In 1861 there was not a foundation (ex-novo) of a new State, but kingdom of Sardinia just changed name in Kingdom of Italy and the Statuto Albertino was replaced only in 1948. Kingdom of Sardinia history is part of Italian history like House of Savoy history is part of Italian history: If you got doubts about that, we cannot go on because for Italians and for all historians that notion is elementary. Following your method, Belgians writers should not exist, because Belgians write in French: but Belgians are not French. In Anglo-Saxon world should exist only English writers and not Australians, or Canadians or Americans writers. Above all, De Maistre was a Kingdom of Sardinia citizen and he was loyal to his king: the King of Sardinia, not the King of France. De Maistre was Italian like Machiavelli was Italian, like Leonardo, like Cavour, like King Vittorio Emanuele I, Vittorio Emanuele II , et c… et c…. By --URBIS 09:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I would not object to the idea of placing him in both categories (Italian-Savoiard writer and French writer). But replacing French with Italian? Yes he was born and served a kingdom which later became part of Italy, but in terms of intellectual inclinations, inspirations he was probably more French. Transylvanus 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lanza del Vasto, for example, was an Italian writer in French language, not a French writer! De Maistre was an Italian writer in French language, not a French writer: he was not French. Idem for Casanova...etc. etc. --URBIS 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate a few important points I've made already:

A. Unlike Casanova, Maistre has always been considered by most to be French. The Encyclopaedia Britannica calls him a "French polemical author, moralist, and diplomat." Even if he was not legally a French subject or citizen, he was culturally a Frenchman through and through. I think that in debatable matters like this one, we should adhere to the established usage.

B. The quote from Considérations sur la France provided by URBIS seems to me to have been substantially altered from the original. If I'm wrong please provide evidence to the contrary.

C. Chambéry (and most of Savoy) are presently under French administration. This article is not a good place to push an agenda on whether this is a fair arrangement.

-- Eb.hoop 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A) - I,m sorry, what Encyclopaedia Britannica says, after the study published in the journal Nature last year, I don’t think that it’s a so reliable source. Anyway, Italians know their history as well, (without asking to Britannica) and they know that in 1860, when Savoy was ceded to France, who was agree to keep Italian nationality, was able to keep it, and a lot of people they have Kept it (see for example[[2]]). All Italians even know that House of Savoy heritage is part of Italian history, otherwise they wouldn’t have been crowned kings of Italy! B) - About Considérations sur la France, I just quote fr. Wikipedia and I’ve not write the article. Anyway, as you have already written, he said.. ..I’m not French.. and I think is enough, I don’t need to Know nothing more about his nationality preference. C) - About Savoy, nothing to say: after 1860 is French territory--URBIS 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not continue this debate beyond this point, but will rather let the community reach a consensus. Here are some other mainstream sources which identify Maistre as French:

The Catholic Encyclopaedia calls him a "French philosophical writer" (see [3])

Historian Peter Davies has written a book entitled The Extreme Right in France, 1789 to the Present: From de Maistre to Le Pen (see [4])

The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica identifies Maistre as a "French diplomatist and polemical writer" (see [5])

Books on Maistre by McGill-Queen's University Press are listed under the category of French history (see [6])

-- Eb.hoop 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There at least three good reasons to describe de Maistre as French.

• Scholarly works describe him as such.
• His native place belongs to modern day France.
• His mother tongue was the French language, he wrote in French.

The arguments for an Italian identity of de Maistre arn't so convincing:

• he was born in an area which had many ties with Italy including its rulers, and the language.
• according to URBIS he said ..I’m not French.. but that does not equal "I'm Italian" does it? Transylvanus 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • ..Scholarly works describe him as such.. A) Not all over: scholarly works describe him as Savoyard in Italian books - knowing, Italians, that Savoy was ceded only in 1860.
    • ..His native place belongs to modern day France.. A) His native place in 1753 (date De Maistre born), was placed in Kingdom of Sardinia, and in 1821 ( when he’s pass away), was still in K.oS. People born in Savoy after 1860 they are French, and I’ve nothing to say about.
    • ..His mother tongue was the French language, he wrote in French.. A) In that part of Italy (kingdom of Sardinia) to speake and to write French was quite normal and people leaving in western alpine regions of Italy, such Piedmont and Aosta Valley, actually, they still speak Piedmontese and Arpitan, and they are francophone, anyway at that time, was routine for European aristocracy to speak and to write in French.
    • ..he was born in an area which had many ties with Italy including its rulers, and the language. A) People born in Aosta Valley (Duchy of Savoy and Duchy of Aosta they always have been part of House of Savoy) actually speak French, but doesn’t mean they are French, or that - in the past - they have been French. People leaving in Savoy's States and all Savoy House’s territories, they have always fought (at least from 1031 BC, see County of Savoy) against France to keep their independence: they were not French at all.
    • ..according to URBIS he said ..I’m not French.. but that does not equal "I'm Italian" does it? .. A) K.oS. was an independent State and all people living inside his boundaries, they had Sardinian citizenships - changed after 1861 (40 years later De Maistre’s die) in Italian citizenships. He said ..I’m not French! consequently, because he was not stateless, he was a K.oS. citizen. Honestly I think that Wikipedia should not follow everything Britannica has written an I Think that is useful to create a category of Italian Writers in French language By --URBIS 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I'm going to move the article Joseph de Maistre to the category Italian Writers in French language--URBIS 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus has not been reached, since most of the users who have expressed an opinion oppose the relabelling. It seems to me that all of your argumentation is based on the premise that having been a legal subject of the King of Sardinia implies that one is automatically "Italian." I understand the thinking behind this, but please keep in mind that this is a point of view not shared by many historians. It's not only Britannica that calls Maistre French: all other mainstream sources that I'm aware of do so as well. You state that in Italy Maistre is widely considered Italian. Could you provide documentation of this?

It's always a good policy, I think, to assume good faith. But it disturbs me that URBIS has, for example, edited the article on Lagrange to relabel him as exclusively Italian, even though Lagrange worked most of his life in France, sat in the French Senate, was made a count of the French Empire by Napoleon, and was buried in the Panthéon. -- Eb.hoop 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If - (for example) - Eb.hoop during all his life, declare that him is an American citizen, and he confirm that he desire really to be an exclusive American citizen, for which reason, after his dead, same historians should declare that - Eb.hoop is a Mexican citizen just because Eb.hoop was writing and speaking Spanish? About Lagrange, I was in a good faith when I have changed Lagrange article into category Natives of Kingdom of Sardinia: he’s born in 1736 in the Kingdom of Sardinia. Any italian source say that de Maistre is French, but Savoyard (Savoy = Kingdom of Sardinia until 1860):[[7]],[[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]].--URBIS 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

De Maistre was born in Savoy, where people spoke an Arpitan patois, while French was the language of cultured people. Victor Emmanuel II used to spoke Piedmontese or French rather than Italian, too. Anyway he studied in Turin and died there. While it is highly doubtful he could be regarded as Italian, I think he should be better regarded as Savoyard (or Piedmontese or Arpitan), but not French.

I agree. This question seems moot to me, more than factual. It is related to the common historical error of wishing to fit realities of the past into categories of today. Languages should not be confused with states. This mix-up was created by the nationalistic tendency of national states at the end of the XIXth century (and unfortunately up to now in South-Eastern Europe) to reinvent their traditions and to appropriate heroes of the past. Europe of the early XIXth century obviously had very different states from today. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia was politically neither France nor modern Italy -- which de Maistre may have wished, but was not to be for decades. In the first place this Alpine Kingdom state was profoundly multilingual: it used both French and Italian (from Florence) since time immemorial as written administrative languages, along with the actual spoken dialects which were for the most part franco-provencal and northern-italic.

Upon the other hand, the French of Paris was a formal language (in France and other states) quite in addition of being the native language of a very limited number of French people of the lower classes (the rest speaking dialects which would be hard to understand for our modern ears). French was not yet the largely spoken language that it is today. This explains why De Maistre wrote in French, as the language of culture which could be understood by litterate people in Europe, no more no less. It was certainly not the language he used in the streets of Chambery nor, maybe, when he spoke in private with King Victor Emmanuel at the court of Turin (I have no idea whether De Maistre spoke some Piedmont dialect).

This has little to do with France of today, where every Frenchman speaks standard French, following an energic campaign in order to stamp out dialects, at the end of the XIXth century. The same applies to Italy, though that campaign was not as effective and the dialects still survive. Yet this multilingual reality is extinct for the most part, except in specific areas. If you want to have a taste of what multilingualism was (sort of), you would have to Aosta Valley, on the Italian side of the Alps. Or perhaps to Freiburg (in Switzerland), where you find French, German and a Swiss-German dialect, often with the same group people. If we make comparisons with the current states of Switzerland, Belgium and Luxemburg, then it will become obvious that stating that a Swiss writer is French, German or Italian is nonsense. The only correct statement that would be "a Swiss author"(and believe me, Swiss people are sensitive about this). This is particularly true of the German part of Switzerland where the dialect is so strong that the foreign origin of standard German is strongly felt. So Friedrich Dürrenmatt is a Swiss author not a German author, though he wrote in the German language of Berlin. In order to get a glimpse at how De Maistre felt, we should remember that in this time of Empires and very small states, the concept of nationality was not as clear as it is today, especially immediately after the thorough shake-up that Europe had undergone after the Congress of Vienna.

As a conclusion, language, culture and State may go together, but they should not be confused. De Maistre was a subject of the King of Piedmont-Sardinia and wrote in French (and was among the finest writers of his time). Since the current trend in Europe is to consider art as a common heritage, not the exclusive property a single state, we should no longer delve in such nationalistic and largely theoretical disputes, because IMHO that leads to poor science. To avoid this, the sensible solution would be to categorize authors primarily by language, not by the state to which they belong today (in which case we would end up saying e.g. that Herodotus was a Turkish historian) . Since political states do change in time, but the language an author used is an invariant, emphasizing language over state in Wikipedia categories would be the safe thing to do? Italicus1632 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

De Maistre point of view.

De Maistre has been very clear about his preference: here [13] we find: .....Domando la giustizia. La si deve anche al nemico. Lungi dal volermi far passare per quello che non sono, mi faccio anzi un dovere di dichiarare che nessuno forse ha odiato più di me la Rivoluzione francese e ne ha meglio date le prove. Domando di essere radiato dalla lista degli emigrati, come straniero, non essendo mai stato francese, non essendolo e non volendolo mai essere; e quando anche ci si ostinasse a considerarmi tale, pur non potendo impedire al Governo francese di volere ciò che vuole, io persisto a richiedere la mia radiazione.........in English words:....... I’m not French, I never been French and I don’t wont be French.......... I think - nowadays - (but even in the past time) is (and was) enough to do not consider him as French writer or French counterrevolutionary. --Shardan 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This quotation is problematic, as it is unsourced and translated into Italian by an unknown person. Also, Shardan's translation into English is very tendentious. Maistre surely was never a French legal subject or citizen, and as a staunch Catholic monarchist he clearly did not wish to be a citizen of the Revolutionary French government. But he was also never a citizen of Italy, which did not exist in his day. He was a Frenchman by heritage, culture, and language. As the article states, he considered France to be the most important nation in the world, and God's main instrument for good and evil in the world. His intellectual influence was greatest in France and most sources, as mentioned in the discussion above, label him as French.

At Wikipedia we don't take it upon ourselves to correct mainstream sources on problematic issues of interpretation, and we operate by consensus. As a compromise, Maistre is now labeled both Italian and French in the categories, while the text of the article mentions only the facts: the he was Savoyard, culturally French, and a subject of the King of Sardinia. I think this is how it should remain. -- Eb.hoop 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

....We are not here to correct mainstream sources on their interpretations. Besides, Shardan is open to an equivalent accusation of confusing the K. of Sardinia with Italy...... Ehm..  !! I’m coming from Sardinia, and your words are a little bit offensives !.....I know my region history and I don’t confuse anything at all ! Your words are not appropriate at all !! ........This quotation is problematic, as it is unsourced and translated into Italian by an unknown person...... The source is: I grandi atleti del trono e dell'altare, by : Barone Alessandro Augusto Monti della Corte (Vittorio Gatti Editore, Brescia 1929) and is not an unknown person: .......Monti della Corte Alessandro Augusto (* Brescia 21-1-1902 + ivi 19-12-1974), Nobile Patrizio di Brescia, Cavaliere d’obbedienza del Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta, Cavaliere di Giustizia del S.M.O. Costantiniano di San Giorgio, Medaglia di bronzo al Valore Militare decorato sul campo a Gondar nel 1941, Commendatore dell’Ordine del merito Nazionale Ungherese, Cavaliere Ufficiale dell’Ordine Coloniale della Stella d’Italia, Cavaliere dell’Ordine pontificio di San Silvestro Papa and Professore emerito dell’Università di Pavia....... De Maistre was even writing in Italian, even if for you Italy was not existing at that time.......(what a nonsense !) Mainstream sources consider him as Savoyard....... not as French ! And Savoy, until 1860, was part of Kingdom of Sardinia.........with or without your agreement ! --Shardan 22:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It has never been my intention to be offensive. But surely just as Savoy is not the same thing France, the historical Kingdom of Sardinia is not the same thing as Italy. Please see the previous discussion in this talk page for a list of mainstream sources that label Maistre as French. In any event, Maistre, even though never a French subject or citizen, is a major figure in the history of France. His role in the history of Italy is very much smaller. -- Eb.hoop 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Italy was the natural evolution of Kingdom of Sardinia, and Statuto Albertino (Sardinian Constitution) was changed solely in 1948 with Republican constitution). In 1861 kingdom of Sardinia just changed name in Kingdom of Italy, but the State has remain the same State. About de Maistre, officially was born in Kingdom of Sardinia, officially was a Sardinian citizen; officially he went to study in Turin University; officially he was a Sardinian magistrate, a Sardinian diplomatic, writer, philosopher, until his death, officially happen in Turin, Kingdom of Sardinia capital. If you got official documents or official sources that show he was officially French, please show them on Wikipedia. If you quote Britannica (IMHO, in that case, non reliable source, show as well official sources that allow Britannica to state that Joseph de Maistre was officially a French subject. About de Maistre culture, that one was the same culture of Sardinian Royal House..... not more not less....and kings of Sardinia - later kings of Italy - there weren’t French at all, but simply Italians. By--Shardan 18:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything that can be usefully added to this debate. I think it should be quite clear by now that the issue of labeling Maistre as "Italian" or "French" is controversial. Shardan's edits tend to increase rather than reduce this controversy. Furthermore, by calling him "Italian" in the lead, rather than "French-speaking Savoyard," and by removing the categories that link him to France, Shardan is reducing the amount of information conveyed to the Wikipedia reader. I call upon other users to step in on this matter. -- Eb.hoop 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please, Eb boop, show official sources or official papers! …. (Britannica is not enough!)--Shardan 17:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"French" may be problematic, but "Italian" is downright anachronistic. If we want to create a category for Savoyard, fine; if not, I guess we can use the misleading "Italian", though it seems odd to me. But, in either case, I would be inclined to put him in the French category as well, because, if nothing else, he is widely considered to have been so, and someone would reasonably look there to find him, which is what the category scheme is mainly about. - Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I’m Italian and like every Italian, I feel de Maistre part of my history. I don’t understand all this mess: even for French Wiki de Maistre is Italian![14] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.0.165 (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

French categories

URBIS insists on removing the categories "French counterrevolutionaries" and "French writers," even though those categories had stood for a long time before his intervention and no consensus exists for their removal. I realize that this is a minor point and do not wish to continue a protracted battle over it, but it does concern me that Wikipedia should be so vulnerable to persistent individual users pushing an agenda. As I have already documented above, most mainstream printed sources in English and French identify Maistre as French, even though technically he was never a French subject or citizen. (The French and Italian versions of Wikipedia should not be used as guidance, since they have also been edited by aggressive users who have even used false quotations.) This is because Maistre was culturally French, because he addressed himself primarily to the French, because he was completely committed to the superiority of traditional French civilization, and because his influence was by far the greatest in France, where he became the intellectual guiding light of reactionary monarchism. Most people familiar with the history of political thought would expect to see his name at the top of any list of "French counterrevolutionaries," which, as Jmabel says, should be reason enough for the category to be included.

Please bear in mind that the text of the article is scrupulous about describing his national origins and that we are also including categories linking him to Italy. This seems to me the least controversial solution to this controversial matter. I should also add that I have no personal committment whatsoever to France, to French rule of Savoy, or to Maistre (whom I consider an interesting but wildly misguided thinker). Eb.hoop 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. French categories should stay. - Palthrow 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

French counterrevolutionaries and French writers are explicitly national category. France State and Sardinian State were not the same entity, therefore place de Maistre in these categories is completely misleading. We cannot write about de Maistre without take care on his historical contests! He was serving the kingdom of Sardinia and he was proud to do it.. De Maistre role in italian history is extremely important: his counterrevolutionaries’ ideas and his intense critics of the French Revolution, help and induce Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia and after his brother Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia to resists .. and after Congress of Vienna, the kingdom of Sardinia became stronger enough to start Italian unification. History of Tuscany, Venice, Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, Lombardy....etc etc, all together, compose the Italian history and each one are enormously important and integrant part of it. Eb boop want sell on Wikipedia his version of the Italian history to everybody....! Until he doesn’t source his affirmation, I reject his point of view about de Maistre nationality.--URBIS 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I could mutiply at great length the number of published sources that call Maistre "French." Here's another one, from a French military magazine: [15]. I think this should be reason enough to leave the categories. It has nowhere been stated as Wikipedia's policy that only legal subjects or citizens of France can historically be described as "French," and we should defer to established usages and seek compromise. -- Eb.hoop 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

..As well..it has nowhere been stated - as Wikipedia’s policy - that legal subjects or citizen of Kingdom of Sardinia should be describe in this encyclopedia as French citizen...! De Maistre is a French speaking writer, not more not less. If you think that he was a legal subject or citizen of France, please show official papers--URBIS 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed, nor does the article claim, that Maistre was ever legally a subject or citizen of France. Whether the category of "French counterrevoltionary" or "French writer" fits him is not quite the same issue. We also have categories labeling him as a subject of the King of Sardinia and even as an Italian. I don't intend to fight you forever on this matter, but your attitude of refusing compromise and altering the status quo ante without consensus is contrary to Wikipedia usage. Though it probably won't satisfy you, the following might be relevant in establishing the closeness of Maistre's ties to France:

A close and sympathetic observer of developments in France in the years immediately preceding the Revolution, Maistre looked to the magistrates of the French parlements as the natural leaders of moderate reform, and he approved of their efforts to force the king to call the Estates-General. Initially enthusiastic about reform possibilities, he may even have considered seeking election to the Estates-General himself; he owned property across the frontier in France and could probably have met the eligibility requirements. [16]

That is, according to this researcher, Maistre would probably have been eligible to sit in the French Estates-General. The article also mentions that Maistre lived in Chambéry in 1793 while it was under control of the revolutionary French government. - Eb.hoop 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User Eb Hoop persist in labelling de maistre as a France writer, knowing perfectly that France writers category embrace subjects of France nationality. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and everybody can integrate articles, but eb hoop doesn’t accept integrations not France centred: his attitude does not follow the wikipedia policy of neutrality. There is not consensus on keeping de Maistre in that category. Savoyards until 1860 they were Sardinian citizen, and de Maistre during all his life has been a Sardinian citizen and during France occupation (1792 – 1814), has always refuse France citizenship and France nationality! Eb hoop want to change historical data without providing evidence. His last post as been: ....As a landowner in France, de Maistre might have been eligible to join that body (States General), and there is some evidence that he contemplated that possibility... ....but...which possibility? De Maistre has openly affirmed -in a letter send to French’s occupation authority - that...him... was not French, that he has never been French and that he didn’t want to be French... here part of the test: Domando la giustizia. La si deve anche al nemico. Lungi dal volermi far passare per quello che non sono, mi faccio anzi un dovere di dichiarare che nessuno forse ha odiato più di me la Rivoluzione francese e ne ha meglio date le prove. Domando di essere radiato dalla lista degli emigrati, come straniero, non essendo mai stato francese, non essendolo e non volendolo mai essere; e quando anche ci si ostinasse a considerarmi tale, pur non potendo impedire al Governo francese di volere ciò che vuole, io persisto a richiedere la mia radiazione..... In En: I demand justice. It should be given also to enemy. Far from me to qualify myself as a person that I’m not....I declare that nobody has perhaps hated more than me French Revolution and I have clearly proof it . I ask to be cancelled from emigrates’ lists, like a foreign, I never been French, I’m not French at the moment, and I do not want to be French in the future; and when also French government want to consider me as French, also if I’m not able to avoid it, I persist on demanding my cancellation... Source: I grandi atleti del trono e dell'altare, A. Monti della Corte. (Vittorio Gatti Editore, Brescia 1929). --URBIS 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of view not neutral

This article is France centred: doesn’t actually take into consideration that Joseph de Maistre is even an Italian glory, not just because during all his life he was a Sardinian citizen, but even because deeply persuaded about Italian unification (Cavour often quoted de Maistre), and after all, his thought has been deeply influenced by the great Italian philosopher Gianbattista Vico. I don’t desire any edit war, but please, this article doesn’t illustrate a neutral point of view. Here some significant books outlandish ignored in references:

• Gianturco Elio - Joseph de Maistre and Giambatista Vico. Italian roots of De Maistre's political culture, New York, Columbia University, 1937.

• Croce, Benedetto, "Il duca di Serra-Capriola e Giuseppe de Maistre, in: Archivio storico per le province napoletane, XLVII,1922, pp. 313-335.

• Fisichella, Domenico, Giusnaturalismo e Teoria delle sovranità in Joseph de Maistre, Messina-Firenze, casa editrice G. D'Anna,1963.

• Fisichella Domenico- Il pensiero politico di De Maistre, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1993.

• Gianturco, Elio, "Juridical culture and politico-historical judgement in Joseph de Maistre", in: Roman revue, 27/1936,

• Joseph de Maistre et la Maison de Savoie", in: Culture et pouvoir dans les Etats de Savoie du XVII siècle à la Révolution, Genève, Slatkine, 1985

--87.17.214.112 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am completely agreed and user eb hoop persist in labelling de maistre as a France writer, knowing perfectly that France writers category embrace subjects of France nationality. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and everybody can integrate articles, but eb hoop doesn’t accept integrations not France centred: his attitude does not follow the wikipedia policy of neutrality. There is not consensus on keeping de Maistre in that category. Savoyards until 1860 they were Sardinian citizen, and de Maistre during all his life has been a Sardinian citizen and during France occupation (1792 – 1814), has always refuse France citizenship and France nationality! Eb hoop want to change historical data without providing evidence. His last post as been: ....As a landowner in France, de Maistre might have been eligible to join that body (States General), and there is some evidence that he contemplated that possibility... ....but...which possibility? De Maistre has openly affirmed -in a letter send to French’s occupation authority - that...him... was not French at all, that he has never been French and that he didn’t want to be French...here part of the test: Domando la giustizia. La si deve anche al nemico. Lungi dal volermi far passare per quello che non sono, mi faccio anzi un dovere di dichiarare che nessuno forse ha odiato più di me la Rivoluzione francese e ne ha meglio date le prove. Domando di essere radiato dalla lista degli emigrati, come straniero, non essendo mai stato francese, non essendolo e non volendolo mai essere; e quando anche ci si ostinasse a considerarmi tale, pur non potendo impedire al Governo francese di volere ciò che vuole, io persisto a richiedere la mia radiazione..... In En: I demand justice. It should be given also to enemy. Far from me to qualify myself as a person that I’m not ...I declare that nobody has perhaps hated more than me French Revolution and I have clearly proof it . I ask to be cancelled from emigrates’ lists, like a foreign, I never been French, I’m not French at the moment, and I do not want to be French in the future; and when also French government want to consider me as French, also if I’m not able to avoid it, I persist on demanding my cancellation... Source: I grandi atleti del trono e dell'altare, A. Monti della Corte. (Vittorio Gatti Editore, Brescia 1929). The article about De Maistre in not NPOV --URBIS 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let us not confuse time frames: Maistre might have wanted to join the French States-General in 1789, as claimed by the reference I've provided. This is not inconsistent with his desire after 1793 not to be considered a citizen of the First French Republic, since he opposed the Revolutionary regime. In Considérations sur la France he approvingly quotes Grotius as judging France to have been the "most beautiful kingdom after that of Heaven." [17]. At any rate, the emphasis on Frenchness is not my doing. This article started as a transcription of the public-domain article on the Catholic Encyclopedia, where this is stressed even more. [18] I have provided various other standard references in which Maistre is described as French. But if you or anyone else can add suitable referenced information about his intellectual and personal connections to Italy, then please go ahead. That would certainly enrich and improve the article. -- Eb.hoop 04:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Did this person have any kind of sex life? Wouldn't think so, judging by his writings or opinions. One of the immdediate benefits of the French Revolution was a certain emancipation of women, something Christianity did not encourage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)