Talk:Joseph de Maistre/Archive 2

Influences
I noticed an "influences" section was added, and the only person cited therein was Isaiah Berlin. I have taken the liberty of adding these people, upon whom de maistre's influence is fairly undisputed: E. M. Cioran, Charles Baudelaire, Juan Donoso Cortes, Carl Schmitt, and Julius Evola. Please tell me if any of these is a problem. 128.164.215.157 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem would be that Maistre's influence on the aforementioned figures appears to be unreferenced, whereas Berlin's is cited to his works. If you have access to reliable sources which support your claim, then it would be a fine addition to the article. Regards, Skomorokh  01:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh seems to be under the impression that the De Maistre article is his own personal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.127.89 (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No more mine than any other. Are you the IP-hopping fellow who refuses to indulge us lowly editors with the rationale for your alterations? Skomorokh  21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh seems to be under the impression that the De Maistre article is his own personal page.

Unexplained alterations
Anonymous IPs have repeatedly attempted to alter several factual claims and remove references in the article without explanation. This is not tenable as it could comprise the quality and factual accuracy of the article. I again ask that major non-stylistic changes be proposed here on the talkpage first, or at the very least explained by an edit summary so that consensus can be reached and page protection is not required. Skomorokh 21:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Skomorokh seems to be under the impression that the De Maistre article is his own personal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.171.102 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute.

This case is somewhat unique in that "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." In this case we have one editor and one or more anonymous editors. I would encourage the person who has been editing without an account to create one. That being said Wikipedia does encourage bold major edits from everyone and is open to everyone to edit. It is not reasonable to ask someone to take every edit immediately to the talk page. The caveat to this is that when such editing in controversial, it is important to talk it out on the talk page when a conflict arises. Skomorokh asserts that Anonymous IP has "repeatedly attempted to alter several factual claims and remove references in the article without explanation. This is not tenable as it could comprise the quality and factual accuracy of the article." At this point the ball is in Anonymous IP's court to discuss the merits of this assertion. To simply reinsert the edits without discussing them begs an edit war or page protection as you are editing without an account. So I would encourage Anonymous IP to come to the table and discuss the merits of the edits. It is not enough to accuse Skomorokh of having ownership issues without having discussed the edits with him or her.

At the same time, there is nothing I dislike more than a sense of ownership over an article. Skomorokh you seem to have handled this dispute amicably. However, I strongly discourage you from directing all substantive edits to the talking page before they are made. The effect of this is to maintain the status quo of the article and raise ownership issues. I hope that consensus can be reached. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just saw this article was delisted from WP:3O, and I think I have to comment and/or give another opinion. Skomorokh isn't owning the article here; he's undoing unexplained deletions. The anon IP is blanking out sections that are referenced; see this edit, in the section that starts with "Isaiah Berlin counts him, in his Freedom and Its Betrayal". If there was some discussion going on here it'd be one thing, but as it stands now, it's no more than IP vandalism. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we agree. Skomorokh is not owning the article and at this point it looks like IP vandalism as the anonymous person has been unwilling to discuss the edits. My comments on ownership were meant to be a general caution. I would, however, encourage the anonymous editor to come talk about the edits because the changes you link to do not seem to be intentionally vandalizing the article. They seem to be style changes, much of them slight rephrasing. If the anonymous editor reverts the page again without discussion it would seem time for temporary page protection. However, it would be much better if they came and explained their edits. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your opinions offered. I propose that we give the IP editor a week to come forward and discuss their edits, and if they are not forthcoming, restore the longstanding version. Skomorokh  13:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue
The text:

"According to Maistre, only governments founded on 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 that of the 1789 revolution. Maistre was an enthusiastic proponent of the principle of hierarchical authority, which the Revolution sought to destroy; in the State he extolled the monarchy, in the Church he exalted the privileges of the papacy, and in the world he glorified God's providence."

was changed to

"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."

Clearly this vicious vandalism needs extensive discussion. Should it be "on" or "upon" and should the phrase "in the State" and "in the Church" and most controversial of all "in the world" be retained. I appreciate that some may believe them to be minor stylistic improvements, but the fact that Sokmorokh is offended by such changes clearly requires that we fill up our otherwise empty lives attempting to mollify his hurt pride.

"His family was of French origin and had settled in Savoy a century earlier, attaining a high position and aristocratic rank. "

was changed to

"His family was of French origin and had settled in Savoy a century earlier, attaining an aristocratic rank. "

Does the deletion of the redundant phrase "high position" merit discussion in a talk page? Well clearly is does. Yet more attacks upon the text by somebody who does not even give his name, unlike Sok Sokmor Sokmoroh, that well known authority on De Maistre.

The text

"...probably educated by the Jesuits. After the Revolution, he became an ardent defender of their Order as he came increasingly to associate the spirit of the Revolution with the spirit of the Jesuits' traditional enemies, the Jansenists. After completing his training in the law at the University of Turin in 1774, he followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a Senator in 1787."

was changed to

"...probably educated by the Jesuits. After the Revolution, he became an ardent defender of their Order, increasingly associating the spirit of the Revolution with the spirit of the Jesuits' traditional enemies, the Jansenists. After completing his training in the law at the University of Turin in 1774, he followed in his father's footsteps by becoming a Senator in 1787."

More vandalism contracting "as he came increasingly to associate" to Maistre "increasingly associating" more evidence, evidence surely that there ought to be a wholesale deletion of all the changes.

Then of course

"Maistre fled Savoy after a French revolutionary army invaded the region in 1792. He briefly returned to Chambéry the following year, but eventually decided that he could not support the French-controlled regime and departed for Switzerland, where he visited the salon of Germaine de Staël discussing politics and theology with her."

was outrageously changed to read

"Maistre fled Savoy after a French revolutionary army invaded the region in 1792. He briefly returned to Chambéry the following year, but decided that he could not support the French-controlled regime and departed for Switzerland, where he visited the salon of Germaine de Staël and discussed politics and theology with her."

brutally slaying the redundant word "eventually" and replacing "discussing" with "discussed". I am sure we all appreciate by this stage just how important it is to discuss these changes on a talk page. Sorry I could go on (not having anything better to do in my life) but I will jump past the rest of this editing train crash, such as deleting "as" and the wilful addition of "had", and jump straight to the reason why Isaiah Berlin declaring that Emile Faguet is [De Maistre's] fairest critic is mysteriously deleted. I suppose it must have something to do with the fact that nobody in a short article on De Maistre ought to care what Isaiah Berlin (a second rate and partisan commentator at best) said about another commentator on De Maistre. It would be like I suppose including the view of Harvard political philosophy Michael Sandel's view of Isaiah Berlin's view of Marx in a short article on Karl Marx.

As for the last section "American Conservatism", the fact that the edit shortened it was (in my humble opinion) a welcome development, but since it is not about De Maistre, it would be hard to find anybody (outside the USA) who gives a damm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.214.248 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I had to edit your comment because of the broken refs so I could actually read it. Second, stop attacking Skomorokh. Personal attacks aren't allowed here. You're really blowing these edits out of proportion. I don't really see how removing a redundant word "enventually" is a "[brutal] slaying". Skomorokh's edits are just fine, as far as I can see. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting and vandalising the text Annyong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.60.128 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not allowed to edit other people's comments. Your IP is 88.110.60.128; it was originally posted by 89.168.214.248. Different users, as far as I can tell. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting and vandalising the text Annyong - Do you seriously think you are making a positive contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.171.190 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's another. Per WP:TALK, you are not supposed to edit other people's comments. This isn't difficult. We now have three potentially different IPs on here, and they all keep editing the big comment. The first one was left by 89.168.214.248, and only 89.168.214.248 can edit their own comments. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting and vandalising the text Annyong - Do you seriously think you are making a positive contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.50.205 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

American conservatism - suggest deletion
It's trivial to contain information about what Pat Buchanan and, even worse, Jonah Goldberg, thought about De Maistre, and therefore suggest their deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is undue weight; I'd support trimming it down to one sentence. Skomorokh  03:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Palthrow (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Trimmed it down to just one sentence on Buchanan's approval -- Palthrow (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Citizen of the Kingdom of Sardinia

 * Hello, I'd like to add an historical notion: de Maistre was a citizen of the Kingdom of Sardinia. I have to ask a permission to somebody or I can add it by myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.228.155 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand! somebody got problems whit history? De Maistre was a citizen of the Kingdom of Sardinia. I'll rollback again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.185.47 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Maistre's Frenchness
I cannot understand why there are people who dedicate such time and unrelenting effort to reverting the mentions of Maistre's Frenchness in this article. The issue is of only limited encyclopedic importance, I think, but it bothers me that people with narrow agendas like this should always get their way, simply by dint of insistence and ignoring all previous discussions of this issue. (See the archived discussion in this talk page.)

Maistre was, for most of his life, a subject of the King of Sardinia. He was only briefly a subject of the French Republic (around 1793, before fleeing to Switzerland), but culturally he was completely French. All of his ancestry was French, he wrote all of his works in French, he owned land in pre-revolutionary France, he considered joining the French States General as a representative of the French aristocracy before the revolutionaries took control of the situation, he wrote of France as the most important country in human history and "the most beautiful kingdom after that of Heaven," and every non-free encyclopedia I've seen labels him "French" (cf. Britannica and the Catholic Encyclopedia). Most scholarly books also identify him as French (see here or search Google Books). Anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the history of European political though will also immediately recognize Maistre as an intellectual in the French tradition, and his influence was always the greatest in France. There's a major street in Montmartre, in the heart of Paris, named after him.

The only evidence offered here against saying something about Maistre being culturally French, is that in Considerations sur la France he wrote that "Je ne suis pas français" ("I am not French"). But those who bother to actually read the passage in question will see that Maistre was simply saying that he could play no direct part in overthrowing the French Republic and restoring the Bourbon monarchy, because he did not live in France. The idea that Maistre was more "Italian" than French seems completely unsupportable to me. A certain Albert Blanc of the University of Turin, is the only authority cited in this connection, but this goes against both logic and what everyone else I'm aware of has said in print. - Eb.hoop (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I should add that the quote from Considerations sur la France currently given on a footnote, "Je ne suis pas français, je ne l’ai jamais été et je ne veux pas l’être," is a fabrication. It's simple to check on Google Books that he only wrote "Je ne suis pas français," and that he meant only that he did not live within the political jurisdiction of the French Republic.  See here.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the true historical falsification is the pretension to frenchify the Count de Maistre. I quote two irrefutable and authoritative sources against this attempt. The first one is by the Count de Maistre himself. You are completely wrong, Sir: the quote « Je ne suis pas français, je ne l’ai jamais été et je ne veux pas l’être » is not a "fabrication", but it is quoted in the preface of the Works (Œuvres complètes de Joseph de Maistre, vol. I, p. XVIII), written by Joseph de Maistre's son, Rodolphe. This quote was originally in a letter of protest for the French invasion and annexion of Savoy, that the Count de Maistre sent during 1802 to M. Alquier, the ambassador of the French Republic at Naples. The second quote is from the Correspondence diplomatique de Joseph de Maistre published in 1860 by Albert Blanc, professor of law at the University of Turin; in the preface Blanc write: « ... ce philosophe [i.e. Joseph de Maistre] était un politique; ce catholique était un Italien; il a vu les destinées de la maison de Savoie, il a souhaité la chute de la domination autrichienne, il a été, dans ce siècle, l'un des premiers défenseurs de notre indépendance » (Correspondance diplomatique, Paris, 1860, vol. I, pp. III-IV). Moreover Sir, you are wrong also in other two ways: firstly, French was the official language of the aristocracy of the Kingdom of Sardinia; not only in Savoy, but also in Piedmont all nobles spoke French and not Italian. Moreover, the Count de Maistre knows and spoke a fluet Italian. For example, the aristocrat poet Vittorio Alfieri (who Maistre knews very well, as he tell in his corrispondence with his son), learned Italian only after he was 20 years-old; until this time Alfieri (who was born in Asti) knew only French and Piedmontese dialect, and he wrote and read in these two languages. As you can see, Sir, French was the cultural and bureoucratic language of the Kindom of Sardinia: so, should you assert that the Kingdom of Sardinia was a French country? Not at all. Also in Russia, the aristocrats spoke only French, and knew very little Russian native language. So the Empire of Russia was a French country? Not at all! Secondly, Sir, it is completely untrue that Joseph de Maistre culturally was completely French: he spoke Italian as well as French; he read, for example, the works of Giambattista Vico (notably the Scienza nuova, that Maistre quote in the Considérations sur la France) when the Neapolitan philosopher was nearly completely unknow abroad Italy. Maistre knews very well the dramas of Alfieri, the Giorno of Parini (that he quoted negatively in a note of the Essai sur les principes générateurs des constitutions politiques); he read also, and quoted in his works, Dante, Ariosto, Tasso. In his late correspondece he wished a unification of Italy under the moral authority of the Pope and the militar authority of the King of Sardinia (his King). He was a defender of the Holy Father during all his life, and in Du Pape there is a whole chapter dedicates on the freedom of Italy (that Maistre correctly attributs to the efforts of the Holy See). Yes, Maistre was really interested in the fortunes of the House of Bourbon; but also Edmund Burke had the same great intrest and he was a supperter of the French Monarchy. So is Burke a Frenchman? Not at all! Moreover, in the preface to the second edition of the Considérations sur la France (published in Basel in 1797) the French writer Mallet du Pan said openly that the author of the work, for his expressions, is not a Frechman: « Son Auteur nous est inconnue; mais nous savons qu'il n'est point François: on s'en appercevra à la lecture de ce Livre » (Considérations sur la France, Londre [Bâle], 1797, p. I). Do you want other proofs, Sir, to show that Maistre was not at all French? P.S. Moreover French was a language widely used also by writers like Casanova (he wrote his Histoire de ma vie in French), Algarotti and Goldoni: are they Frenchmen? No, they're Italians.--Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: If you read the archive for this talk page, you will see that this issue has been extensively discussed here before.  You are unilaterally making controversial edits, without regard for the consensus of opinion of other users, which is incompatible with Wikipedia policies.  We've established that the quotation that you and whoever else has been waging a years-long campaign to get Wikipedia to label Maistre as "Italian" rather than French, is not in Considerations sur la France.  You are now giving a different source for it, which I cannot verify.  Furthermore, the context of the quote should be established.  If Maistre is simply protesting the invasion of Savoy by the French Republic, this wouldn't argue against his cultural ties and personal to France.


 * Whoever Prof. Albert Blanc was, his opinion on this subject is contrary to that all other commentators I have encountered. It is most emphatically not the job of Wikipedia to "correct" the standard scholarly view on any subject.  (That is the province of scholarly research, not of encyclopaedias.)  The fact that most sources call Maistre French should be reason enough for us to at least mention Maistre's ties to France in the text.  In your response above, you provide no response to the facts, which the article mentions and documents, that Maistre's ancestry was completely French ---indeed, his grandfather, André, was a draper from Nice--- or that he owned land in France and considered joining the French Estates General before the outbreak of the Revolution.  Why then is it wrong to point out the Maistre spoke French and had close ties to France, even if he was not a French subject or citizen? - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's untrue and slanderous the statement that I have tried to established without sources that Maistre was not a Frenchman. I'm surprised, Sir, that you talk as an expert of Maistre philosophy and bibliography, but you can't verify the sources of my quoting. Differently, I own a copy of the volumes of Maistre's Œuvres complètes (in Olms' anastatic reprint) where I have verified the auteticity of these quotes. Fortunatly the archives of the American Libraries has an on-line photocopy of the works. This is the link where you can find the first quote I have written: http://www.archive.org/stream/oeuvrescomplte01maisuoft#page/xviii/mode/2up. I have never argued against Maistre's intellectual laisons with French culture, for it should be impossible to deny them. But Maistre had at the same time an equal intellectual tie with Italian culture. Nobody can deny that Maistre, born in the Kingdom of Sardinia, have spent all his life in Italy, Russia and Switzerland, but not in France: he set foot in France only in 1814, during his journey home to Turin form St. Petersbourg. A presumed Frenchman, born not in France, that was in France only some days during his life! It is ridiculous. It is also untrue that most sources called Maistre French; Maistre is almost ever commonly qualified as Savoyard. Secondly, if the opinion of Prof. Blanc is contrary to your sources, Sir, doesn't mean that the true is on your side. I read extensively Maistre biographical sources, and I can proof the contrary. Neither Berlin, nor Fisichella for example qualify Maistre as a Frenchman, but a Savoyard; and Savoy was part of the Kingdom of Sardinia (an italian state). But the best testimony are Maistre's himself contemporaries: nobody of them qualify Maistre as French. Having a particular tie with the culture of a nation doesn't means at all to be a man of that same nation. At last, it's also untrue that Maistre's ancestry was completely French: only his paternal ancestry had truly French origins. However, it isn't a good proof to qualify Maistre a Frenchman. Than, the fact that Maistre was French-speaking doesn't prouf at all he was French: a Swiss born in Geneva or Lousanne is a French-Speaking man, well so he's a Frenchman? Not at all! I do not understand as it's possible to conceive it. Moreover Maistre spoke a fluent Italian. And French, as I already said, is the common language of Sardinian aristocracy. I give you three quote (the first of Maistre himself, the second of Prof. Blanc, the third of Mallet du Pan, contemporary of Maistre), and all these quotes have reliables sources that testimony Maistre was not a Frenchman. I do not pretend at all to deny Maistre's ties with French culture, but I can't tolerate the illegitimate historical falsification to qualify Maistre as a Frenchman. P.S. Please, I have a question for you, Sir: you say that I would have organized a campaign to get Wikipedia to label Maistre as Italian rather than French; well, and why other people, like you Sir, organize a campaign at any price to get Wikipedia to label Maistre as French? --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: First, it is not my intention to have this article identify Maistre as "French," even though, as I have said, many sources (and most encyclopaedias) do just that.  I only want to keep the "French-speaking" qualification to his identification as a Savoyard (just like Madame de Staël is identified as a "French-speaking Swiss"), to keep a sentence in the lead that talks of his ties to France, and to retain categories such as "French counter-revolutionary" at the end (along with, e.g., "Italian writers in French").


 * Second, I have now read the passage that you quote, from the biographical notice in his Œuvres complètes and I should point out that anyone who can read the French will realize that Maistre was simply objecting to being counted as a citizen of the French Republic, which he detested not for its Frenchness, but for its democratic, anti-monarchical character. His main concern in the actual passage quoted in that biographical notice, is that if he was considered a French émigré by the Republic, then he was liable to be imprisoned and worse if he ever set foot on a territory controlled by France, whereas if he were considered a foreigner, he could go back to Savoy freely.  Furthermore, the passage in the source that you have now provided does not match the quotation you have given in a footnote.  So that quote ("Je ne suis pas français, je ne l’ai jamais été et je ne veux pas l’être") is still, as far as I can tell, a fabrication.  I could be wrong, of course, and that quote might still turn up somewhere in Maistre's works or correspondence, but none of the sources so far given actually contains it.


 * I have never identified myself as an expert on Maistre. That is not the issue.  And I have not personally organized any campaign on the subject of Maistre's nationality.  My concern is to make this article as non-controversial and as close to mainstream scholarship on the subject as possible.  It seems to me that, too often, a controversial and narrow view ends up on Wikipedia, simply because its defenders care so much more about putting it into the article and keeping it there. - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear enough. The "French-speaking" qualification is TAUTOLOGICAL. Maistre, as all the Savoyard/Piedmontese aristocracy was born as French-speaking. Differently M.me de Staël needs "French-speaking" because there are also German-speaking and Italian-speaking Swisses. Moreover, Maistre (as I already said) was also an Italian-speaking. So we should write in the introduction that "he was a French-speaking and Italian-speaking Savoyard"? It will be ridicouls. The "French-speaking" must be removed. I'm unshakable on it. And I am also completely contrary to qualify Maistre as "French counter-revolutionary": he was not a Frenchman, so I wasn't a French counter-revolutionary. Differently by the Frenchman Vicount de Bonald, for example, who had influence nearly only in France, Maistre was very influential both in France and Italy (notably on Count Monaldo Leopardi), and also in Russia. Maistre's efforts for Bourbons Restoration and influence on it doesn't mean at all he was a French! Also the Duke of Wellington was a great supporter and defender of the restoration of the House of Bourbon; he was for that a Frenchman? Also the Count Monaldo Leopardi, during the Restoration, in his works supports King Charles X and the House of Bourbon; he was a Frenchman?
 * Secondly, in the passage I quoted, Maistre wasn't simply objecting to being counted as a citizen of the new French Republic; he was objecting it because he was not a French tout court (for example, when Maistre visits France for the first time in 1817, he was consider a foreigner and he was received by King Louis XVIII as a foreign diplomatic and minister). The French Republic invaded and attached Savoy to France: so the Republic considered unilaterally the Savoyards as its subjects, and who fled from its territory as a émigré. But Maistre objected that "he was never born French", because Savoy was not a French territory. So, if Maistre considers himself as not French-born, so he didn't consider himself a Frenchman at all! Considering Maistre a French is a true historical falsification and fabrication that was denied by Maistre himself! Maistre was not an émigré because he wasn't a French. Having a great tie with French culture and speaking fluently French or being French-speaking was not a proof to qualify a person as French. An United State-citizen who is an English-speaking with a great tie with British culture, could be qualify British? Not at all. So adding Maistre into "French counter-revolutionaries" category is historical untrue. Than, I could add him also into "Italian counter-revolutionaries" category, due to his tie with Italian culture and policy (don't forget, Sir, Maistre was a minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia!); if we want to be more clear, we should qualify him as a "Savoyard counter-revolutionary", but not French.
 * Concerning the first quote I can admit you are right that it isn't completely the same one. But, if you can read the French, you can understand that it is a quote in third person of a Maistre's letter made by his son, the Count Rodolphe; the contents of the quote, as I said previously, is the same of Maistre's letter, but in third person. So the quote is not at all a "fabrication". However, I can modify it, setting in the footnote the literal quote from the Œuvres complètes, vol. 1, p. XVIII. It's not a problem. However, I shall search also for the original document, that I'm sure is in the correspondence. Concerning the quote Maistre wrote of France as "the most beautiful kingdom after that of Heaven", it's true, and I wholly subscribe Maistre's statement: so am I a French for it? No, I'm not. P.S. For example a 19th-century Maistre biography, written in French by a French authors, qualify Maistre as Italian: Jean Mandoul, Un homme d'État italien: Joseph de Maistre et la politique de la maison de Savoie. Paris, Alcan, 1899. --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have for you, Sir, another important news proving Maistre's ties with Italian culture and that he was a perfect Italian-speaker. There are two Maistre's unpublished documents on economics quoted in Richard Lebrun's work on the Savoyard philosopher: one, relatively long (54 pages manuscript) edited at Turn, Aosta and Venice between 1797 and 1799, is written in Italian: this is the Memoir in Italian on Paper Money which is mentioned in Maistre's journal. (See: Richard Lebrun, Joseph de Maistre's life, thought and influence: selected studies, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001, p. 85 (chap. Joseph de Maistre Economist). You can find the book at this link). I have found also the title of this Maistre's Italian work: "Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alla carta moneta" (On the state of Piedmont concerning paper money). It is quoted in: Cara Camcastle, The more moderate side of Joseph de Maistre, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2005, p. 118 (this is the link).--Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: I respectfully submit to you that declaring yourself "unshakeable" on some issue cannot be sufficient to determine the content of a Wikipedia article, since you are not the sole author or owner of it. You insist that all Savoyard aristocrats in Maistre's day spoke French.  Is a Wikipedia reader supposed to know that upon looking up this article for the first time?  Are we writing for our own benefit, or for that of people who want to learn about a subject new to them?  In any case, it's certainly not true that all Savoyards were French-speaking at the time, even less that all Savoyards have historically been French-speaking (only then would it be tautological to label someone as a "French-speaking Savoyard").  The linguistic qualification is relevant and provides useful information.


 * Concerning the quotation form Maistre's correspondonce, its plain, literal meaning is that he did not want to be listed as an émigré by the French Republic, since it meant that he could not safely set foot in French-controlled Savoy. That's something quite different to having him say that he had never wished to be French.  Furthermore, the quotation that you've provided by Mallet du Pan does not seem useful to me, since it's merely a statement that he knows nothing of the author of Considerations sur la France, other than that the book itself says that he "is not French" (meaning only that he did not live in France).  This adds nothing to the discussion of the facts of his birth and career that are already in the text.  I don't think that the editing of this article can be reasonably conducted on the principle of digging up every single instance of somebody calling Maistre "not French," or "Italian," and ignoring every single instance of other people identifying him as French.  Our work is to transmit uncontroversial information to casual readers, not to make polemical points --regardless of how convinced one might be of their validity-- or to redress some perceived "historical falsification."


 * Furthermore, I think it is very useful to keep Maistre in the category of French counter-revolutionaries. There's a very long and important tradition of French post-revolutionary monarchism, which includes such major figures as Bonald, Barbey d'Aurevilly, Baudelaire, and Maurras, all of whom took the work of Maistre as the basis of their view of the world and of politics.  No comparable tradition exists in Italy.  You will notice that the one Italian follower of Maistre that you cite, Monaldo Leopardi, does not even have an entry in the English Wikipedia.


 * I don't object to documenting that some Italian monarchists have claimed Maistre as Italian. I do object to presenting this opinion as a fact, or as a non-controversial interpretation, since it's in fact a minority, partisan view.  And I would not object to adding him to a category of "Italian counter-revolutionaries," if such a category existed. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the most large mistake is to wholly identify an author with the language he used in his writing. I understand the mistake that some encyclopedies (like Britannia) have made: they have labelled Maistre as French, because they have condidered him only according the language he has used in his works. But it's an erroneos reasoning. What should we say about Leibniz? he wrote all his works in Latin and French: was he a French or a Roman? Secondly, it is not untrue that Savoyards and a large part of Piedmonteses spoke French, or to be more precisely the Arpitan diaclect (that is speaks also nowadays and it's part of the Romance language, the same family of French and Italian languages). However, I say again that all the Kingdom of Sardinia's aristocracy and ruling class spoke French as their mother tongue; and there was the same situation in Russia, for example, where all nobles families spoke almost only French and know very little Russian language. Yet neither Savoyards/Piedmonteses nor Russian nobles are Frenchmen.
 * Furthermore, I think it's not fair tring to turn the true sense of a quote. Asserting that Mallet du Pan says that Maistre "is not French" meaning only that Maistre did not live in France, is simply a falsification of the true sense of the quote. You say, Sir, that the first quote should be read in a literal sense, but you explain the other in a not literal one? Please, which is your exegetic criterion? If you read better, Sir, Mallet du Pan's Avertissement doesn't say simply that Maistre was not live in France: he say, literally, he was not a French! Sir, you can't interpret quotations as you like!
 * Than, it's also untrue that no comparable traditions exist in Italy about Maistre: Maistre works influenced Rosimi, Gioberti, Leopardi (father of the most noted Giacomo), Balbo, Solaro della Margarita and all the Neoguelphisme (Neogualfismo) during the Risorgimento. Rosmini, though on liberal positions, declared he owed Maistre philosophy holding him in high esteem. Than, what does it mean, Sir, that Monaldo Leopardi has not an entry in en.wikipedia? It is a problem of the English encylcopedia: what does it mean this, that if that isn't an entry should we deny an historical fact? And it is completely falso that only some Italian monarchists claimed Maistre as Italian. There are a street in Turin named in his honour; all the Italians who know Maistre consider him as Italian: ask you to any Italian who knows Maistre, he will reply you he consider him an Italian. If there is an historical falsification, than it is to label Maistre as a Frenchman.--Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: I should start by explaining better what I meant about the quote by Mallet du Pan.  It literally says that he knows nothing about Maistre, other than that he's the author of Considerations sur la France, and that the book itself says that its author "is not French."  I think that this already implies that the quote is hardly a useful one for establishing any facts or interpretations about Maistre.  I had previously argued that if you go to the part of Considerations where Maistre says he's not French, it will be clear from the context that he means he's not living in France.  At any rate, a quote from someone who says he knows Maistre only as the author of a book is not, I believe, a useful thing to include.


 * I can't, of course, speak for all Italians or all the French. I am merely sticking by the scholarly consensus of our time, and trying to keep this article neutral on contentious issues.  If you don't believe me about Maistre's cultural Frenchness, I suggest you read the experts, such as this, which is already in the sources for the article (emphasis mine): "[Maistre] was a major theorist of the Counter-Enlightenment whose writings stimulated such thinkers as Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and Charles Maurras, and inspired generations of French royalists and ultramontane Catholics. Although he was French in language and culture, and wrote in French, Maistre was never a French citizen. Born in 1753 in Chambéry, the capital of Savoy, then part of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, Maistre always remained a subject of the House of Savoy [...] In addition to his native French and the Greek and Latin he acquired as part of an excellent classical education, Maistre read English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German (with difficulty). &mdash;  Richard LeBrun's website"


 * I have tried to describe the debate about Maistre's nationality in a even-handed way. But I think we should stay close to the modern scholarly consensus.  Anything else risks violating Wikipedia's policies on original research. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I said again, Maistre was also Italian-speaking and he had a deep tie also with Italian culture, not merely a man who knows a little of Italian. I quoted a long work, reported in reliable source, that Maistre wrote in perfect Italian language and published in Turn, Aosta and Venice: the Intorno allo stato del Piemonte riguardo la carta moneta (1797-1799). If you read, for example, the so called Five Paradoxes (that was included in the Maistre's correspondence in the quoted Complete Works), you can find also some parts written in a perfect and fluent Italian. I say again, ALL Savoyard/Piedmontese aristocracy was native French-speaking, also the Royal House of Savoy (the future Royal House of the Kingdom of Italy) was French-speaking: nevertheless, they are not French as nationality. Probably I was not clear enough. I do not dispute for example the inclusion of Maistre among the "18th-century French writer": if that category for "French" means authors who use/used French language in his writing, no problem; but if that "French" means the nationality of the authors, well it's to remove, because Maistre was not French for nationality: he was born in the Kingdom of Sardinia by a family Savoyard by generations, he was a subject of the Kingdom of Sardinia, was a minister, magistrate and diplomat of the Kingdom of Sardinia, he died as subject and minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia, he was buried in Turin and here he is nowadays (you can visit, Sir, his monumental tomb in the Chiesa dei Santi Martiri). You could object that Maistre was not actually Italian, because Italy, as national State was born after about 40 years Maistre's death. But ALL historians consider the Kingdom of Sardinia an Italian pre-unitary State; so also all its subjects are considered Italians, also who was born in Savoy and Nice before 1860. Garibaldi, for example was born in Nice: he was a French because after 1860 the city became French? Not at all! To be more clear, I have never denied Maistre cultural ties with France, I denied Maistre's national ties with France. Mr. LeBrun's quotation I think admits I'm right to remove Maistre by category such as "French Counter-revolutionaries", because, as sais LeBrun "Although he was French in language and culture, and wrote in French, Maistre was never a French citizen. Born in 1753 in Chambéry, the capital of Savoy, then part of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, Maistre always remained a subject of the House of Savoy". I have never denied Maistre was French in language and culture, and wrote in French, but he is also equally Italian in language and culture, and wrote also in Italian, even if his major works was written in French (clearly because French was a universal language in that age). So, I don't understand why some people try at any price to hide that Maistre was Italian-speaking as French-speaking, cultural Italian not less than French. And it is the common "fate" of all people from the Kingdom of Sardinia, a state in culture and languege Franco-Italian, but politically and historically wholly Italian and not French at all. P.S. I esteen your intervention on the footnote, by I think it should be add again the quote of Mallet du Pan, in which the French journalist didn't say that the author simply didn't live in France but (rightly) that he wasn't French tour court (meaning as nationality). --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Maistre learned Italian just as he also learned English, Spanish, Portuguese, and German. French, on the other hand, was his native tongue.  You say that this was true of all Savoyard aristocrats of his time.  Frankly, I don't know if that's true or not.  But I do know that not all Savoyards have been native French speakers and that it's very significant that Maistre was.  And we can argue forever about his ties to Italian culture, but the fact remains that virtually all modern scholars consider him to belong to French culture.  Since this is an encyclopedia article, and not a piece of original historical scholarship, we should be guided by that.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really fed of your manners, Sir. You claim informations without any sources, you roll-back like you are the supervisor and the owner of the article and of the encyclopedy. I can see, you know little of Maistre's bio-bibliography, I don't know if you have read Maistre's original works. Modestly, I deeply studied all Maistre's Works (including the monumental correspondence) and a great numbers of critical and academic works on him. I can say that you has not true argomuments but a very great conceit. First, you denied all Savoyard/Piedmontese nobles were native French-speaking: than, which is your sources to support this statement? I quoted in support of it the example of Count Vittorio Alfieri, who, as he tell in his Life (Vita di Vittorio Alfieri scritta da esso), say openly that he was born (in Asti) as a native French and Piedmontese speaking (his mother was a Savoyard), but he learnt Italian only after he was 20 years old in a journey in Tuscany reading the classics of the Italian literature: and yet Alfieri was one of the greatest Italian poets of every times. Maistre, on the contrary know perfectly Italian language by young age and he was also an Italian-speaking: certainly a long time before he was 20 years old. He didn't learnt at all Italian as a foreign language (like English, Spanish, etc.). Even if he used in large part French, he wrote also in Italian: I quoted you, with authoritative sources, Maistre's Italian works on economics, the Intorno allo stato del Piemonte rispetto alla carta moneta; and there are examples of Maistre's use of Italian also in the correspondence. Moreover, Maistre studied law at the University of Turin, and the Universitary Library keeps also his original degree thesis. This is only a you point of view, not supperted by any sources (LeBrun himself doesn't write what you say). You interprets documents as you like according to your point of view: you invents odd meaning for sources contrary to your point of view, but you attributes litteral meaning to the sources that support your opinions. I quoted a lot of sources to support my statements. The modern scholas don't consider Maistre at all to belong only to French culture. Have you ever read the works of Domenico Fisichella (professor of law at the Universities of Rome and Florence, eminent scholar and politician) on Maistre? Have you ever read the works of Berlin, who point out the connection between Maistre and Giambattista Vico, talking of a Maistre learned reader of Vico's works? (See expecially also: Elio GIANTURCO, Joseph de Maistre and Giambattista Vico (Italian roots of the Maistre's political culture), New York, Columbia University, 1937). Have you ever read a Maistre's works, in which he quoted a lot of Italian poets and writers like Dante, Petrarca, Ariosto, Tasso, Vico, Muratori, Parini, Alfieri? Probably not, you haven't read them. So, Sir, you go on quoting vaguely "original historical scholarship". I think I should put a lot of quote without source on your posts. However, no problem, finally I learnt that en.wikipedia prefers historical falsification rather than documented truth. I shall add again Mallet du Pan's quote, having you no rights to removed a well documented source. Furthermore, I propose you to remove French and Italian categories related to Maistre and named him as Savoyard in the categories; I think it is the most neutral solution. I hope you'll agree at least on this. If you not agree, well I'll included Maistre also in other Italian categories as "18th Italian writer" and "Italian Counter-revolutionaries". I wait for your opinion. P.S. Here you are a quote by LeBrun: "Joseph de Maistre was born on April 1, 1753, at Chambéry in Savoy, which is now part of France but was then part of the kingdom of Sardinia. His family had for generations been among the leading families of this state, where they served as virtual hereditary magistrates" (Richard Lebrun, Joseph de Maistre: an intellectual militant, Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988). The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia is considered by all scholars as an Italian state. So, without doubt by law, all its subjects, including Maistre, must be regard as Italians (as well as Savoyards/Piedmonteses/Sardinians). Besides Maistre was Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus, one of Sardinian and than Italian most prestigious chivalric orders. --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: I cannot, of course, unilaterally determine what the article should or should not say. But neither can you.  I have, in good faith, tried to accommodate your contributions without allowing the article to reflect what I believe is a partisan and controversial point of view.  I apologize if any of this has come across as bad manners or high-handedness, which certainly has not been my intention.


 * Our discussion have never been about whether Maistre was a legal citizen of France, which clearly he was not, or about whether he was a subject of the King of Sardinia, which he clearly was. All of the facts about Maistre's legal national status were already spelled out clearly in the article when you first began to edit it.  Also, I think that if you re-read my comments, you will see that I've never claimed that Savoyard aristocrats in the 18th century were not native French speakers.  I have said only that I don't know if that was the case, but that I know not all Savoyards (tout court) have been native French speakers, like Maistre was.


 * I also don't know at what age, or to what degree of proficiency, Maistre learned Italian. I have given a quotation by Richard LeBrun, an expert that you yourself have invoked previously, which states very clearly that French was Maistre's only native tongue.  Similarly, I think that you can verify that I've provided sources and links to support all of the concrete claims that I've made on this subject.


 * I've already explained why I object to including the quote by Mallet du Pan, since he explicitly says he does not know Maistre and is just repeating something that his books says. If you absolutely must add another quote about Maistre's non-Frenchness, I suggest a much better choice would be simply the "Je ne suis pas français" from Considérations sur la France, which is what Mallet du Pan was basing his comments on anyway.  (It was only because you'd written something that did not correspond to the actual text in Considérations that I removed that to begin with.)


 * Also, you must accept that scholars have written quite a bit about Maistre's cultural Frenchness (just read LeBrun!) even if you think that their arguments are wrong. Wikipedia's policy therefore requires us to give at least equal time to the arguments for Maistre's Frenchness (see NPOV).  This, I have to say, is not negotiable, and is not something I came up with.


 * Finally, I will object strongly to removing the category "French counter-revolutionaries," for the reasons already discussed. I think it's not sensible to replace it with a category that you created for "Savoyard counter-revolutionaries," since Maistre would be the only person in it.  The purpose of categories is to aid ordinary readers in learning about a subject by linking together related articles.  It is not to aid the editors in making some point about their subject.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, Sir, you don't understand my principal objection, or you pretend not to understand it. I have never denied either Maistre's ties with French culture, or I have required to omit them; I have only pretended to point out also Maistre's equal ties with Italian culture, that I proved quoting authoritative sources. Now, I read in the article only Maistre's ties with French culture, but no signs on Maistre's ties with Italian culture! So the article is neither neutral, nor completely truthful. I think that Wikipedia's policy requires us to give equal time also to the arguments for Maistre's Italianess. Or are there double standars?
 * In addition I raised a problem that you have puntually overlooked: Maistre is included in categories like "19th-century French writer" etc. Well, if the word "French" means a person who writes in French language, no problem, the category is right; but if the word "French" means writer of French nationality is evidently a problem (not only for Maistre but also to all the other non-French writers who write in French language). Secondly, my other objection is against the problematic category "French counter-revolutionaries": this category assemble clearly all French-born people who opposed revolution. But Maistre was not French neither by birth nor by nationality, so he can't stay in this category. He was born as subject of the King of Sardinia, as all the other Savoyards, and he was trough all his life a loyal subject of the House of Savoy, he was minister, diplomatic and judge of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia; his first counter-revolutionary work is titled Letters of a Savoyard royalist addressed to his compatriots (not French royalist, but Savoyard royalist = i.e. loyal subject of the House of Savoy). So, including Maistre in the category of "French counter-revolutionaries" his an historical falsification. If it is impossible to create a "Savoyard counter-revolutionaries" category, well we must put Maistre simply among "Counter-revolutionaries" personalities, not among "French counter-revolutionaries". If you are really a defender of the truth as you claim, Sir, you should agree on it.
 * Finally, there is an error concerning Maistre class among the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus: he was not a Knight Commander, but a Knight Grand Cross. You can verify it reading the title page of the first edition of Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg (1821), published by his son Rodolphe: this is the link: here there's clearly written Chevalier Grand Croix de l'Ordre Religieux et Militaire de S. Maurice et S. Lazare. --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Last things first: Maistre might well have been a Knight Grand Cross in 1821, but both the portraits currently in the article show him wearing a necklet, which is the insignia of a Knight Commander (see here).


 * About the category: there is no reason, I think, to presume that "French counter-revolutionaries" must narrowly mean "counter-revolutionaries who were citizen of France." That category contains people who had a close intellectual kinship with, and were influenced by, Maistre.  And I have documented that modern sources, though aware of the legal circumstances of Maistre's birth and career, do in some cases refer to him as "French."  This is why I believe that the category should stay.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, I'm really surprised by your last answer. Probably you have not read (or you pretend not to read it) the article related to the "French counter-revolutionaries" category; because if you'd had read really it, you'd had know that at the top of the page there is written in very large letters: This category includes French politicians and intellectuals who opposed themselves to the 1789 French Revolution and worked in favor of a "Restoration" of the Ancien Régime, including after the "Bourbon Restoration" (1815-1830). If you want to pull my leg, I don't allow it. This category expressly contains French counter-revolutionaries by nationality, not only people who had a close intellectual kinship with Maistre, because this is not a category dedicated to Maistre alone; moreover, following your reasoning, we should include Maistre among the "English counter-revolutionaries" because he had a close intellectual kinship with, and was influenced by, Edmund Burke. I think your reasoning is quite imperfect, and it's also proved wrong by the sentence I quoted. So, I think there are all reasons to presume that "French counter-revolutionaries" must narrowly mean "counter-revolutionaries who were citizens/subjects of France". It is clearly evident also for a blind. I ask again for removing Maistre by this category including him simply in "Counter-revolutionaries" category. P.S. Some cases are not a rule, expecially if these cases are erroneous. All authoritative modern sources refer to Maistre as "Savoyard", underlining he was not a French but a subject of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia.
 * Concerning the knighthood, Maistre was appointed Knight of Grand Cross in 1802. I don't know why in the pictures he looks wearing the insigna of Commander; however in the portrait by Vogelstein I see that near Maistre's hand there's a thing like a little crown, possibly the badge on the sash of Grand Cross. Perhaps he wears both insignas of Gran Cross and Commander (even if it's a little strange). Frankly, I don't know.--Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About Maistre's grade of knighthood, I don't know either. My guess is that he must have been promoted to Knight Grand Cross after those portraits were made, probably towards the end of his life.  In any case, we should probably just avoid this issue and say he's shown wearing the insignia of the Order.


 * About the category, I'm afraid that my last response might have not been sufficiently clear. What I meant is that "French" is not necessarily the same thing as "a subject of the King of France (before 1792) or a citizen of the French Republic (after 1792)."  I have shown you various examples of reputable sources that call Maistre "French," even though they are also aware that he was not French in the legal sense that you insist in attaching to the term.  And please bear in mind that the reason for having a category on "French counter-revolutionaries" is not simply to classify counter-revolutionaries by nationality, as an exercise in taxonomy.  It is that there was a rich and historically influential tradition of French conservative reaction to the French Revolution of 1789, to which Maistre very much belongs.  You'll notice that there is no Wikipedia category for "English counter-revolutionaries," which would not be a historically relevant category. (And Burke himself might not qualify, at least by your standards, since he was Irish!).  - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little fed up, Sir, you're going on to pull my leg. Categories are not strictly an exercise in taxonomy, but they don't be too ambiguous: and this second case involved the category in question. You attempt with all efforts to support your point of view, turning the simply meaning of the sentence at the top of the category; but the sentence is adamantine in its elementary clarity: This category includes French politicians and intellectuals who opposed themselves to the 1789 French Revolution and worked in favor of a "Restoration" of the Ancien Régime, including after the "Bourbon Restoration" (1815-1830).: even a blind and deaf person would understand that this category expressly contains French counter-revolutionaries by nationality; it is useless and a little ridiculous to deny it: in the category are assembled all French-born authors, excepting naturally Maistre. I see in it a cryptic will to show Maistre as Frenchman. However, if you are so persuaded of your alternative interpretation of the sentence, it would be yet necessary to make it less ambiguous, adding maybe after French politicians and intellectuals also and other foreign people tied with French affairs: it could be a good solution. However, I decided to create also an "Italian counter-revolutioneries" category, in which include the Cardinal Ruffo, Count Monaldo Leopardi, etc. and so also Maistre.
 * P.S. By the way, in spite of your scoffing assertion, Burke is rightly qualified as "Anglo-Irish" (also in the en.wikipedia article) and not simply "Irish", for he himself said to be an Englishman (and he was member of the English Parliament, not of the Irish one), though he never denied he was an Irish-born.
 * Concerning Maistre's grade of knighthood, I think to remember he was appointed Knight of Grand Cross in 1802, but I'm not sure. I agree with you about the solution, saying simply he is shown wearing the insigna of the Order, without any specifications. --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Lord Nelson: I has never been my intention to quarrel with you personally. Let me give you an example of Wikipedia's use of the adjective "French" in a broader sense than that of legal citizen or subject of the government of France: French people.  I sincerely believe that a Wikipedia reader new to the subject would have something useful to learn by seeing Maistre's name tied, for instance, to Bonald's, because Maistre is a very important part of the French counter-revolutionary movement and tradition, long seen by other French counter-revolutionaries as one of their own (unlike, say, Burke).  I can speak only for myself, but my purpose is not to confuse anyone about the legal status of Maistre's residence, which, I insist, has long been clearly explained by the article.  It is, rather, to give an instructive and balanced overview of the subject at hand.  (As for Burke, he was legally British, but his personal background was entirely Irish.  He was certainly not English.  Anglo-Irish refers to a social class in Ireland during the British rule of that country, not to a nationality in the usual sense.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single one of the (mostly very minor) changes made by Eridu-Dreaming to the article should be deleted, because they obscure the originality of De Maistre's thought
Evidence in favour of this rather bold claim by "Eb. Hoop" would be nice. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of your edits are indeed minor, but not obvious improvements. Some actually make the corresponding sentence ungrammatical (e.g., "came from Provençal" makes no sense, since Provençal is not a place, but rather a demonym).  The most serious problem is with you taking out explanations of why Maistre did not simply assert the Divine Right of Kings, but in fact made an original sociological argument about the need for political authority to rest on absolute, non-rational grounds.  That seriously compromises the quality of the article. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Most of your edits are indeed minor, but not obvious improvements."

You need to make up your mind. Either the changes are so minor it hardly justifies your mass deletion, or there are significant errors. The best (actually as I am sure you have noticed the only) evidence you have come up with to back up your mass deletion is "came from Provençal" should read "came from Provence".

Well spotted! Now corrected.

"The most serious problem is with you taking out explanations of why Maistre did not simply assert the Divine Right of Kings, but in fact made an original sociological argument about the need for political authority to rest on absolute, non-rational grounds."

Try reading it again. I think you will find that this point is clearly explained. I have moved the Armenteros reference as you suggested.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read your edits again, and my objections remain. For instance, you have taken out the clause in the lead that explained that de Maistre regarded monarchy not only as divinely-sanctioned, but also as the only stable form of government.  Why?  And why did you take out the adjective "modest" to describe the social background of de Maistre's paternal grandfather, even though it is documented in the reference by Triomphe?  Why did you take out the explanation, in the body of the article, that unlike earlier Catholic monarchists he did not merely invoke the Divine Right of Kings?  And what is the point of making all the other minor edits, none of which are necessary, and some of which actually make the corresponding sentences less readable?  Surely there must be some more worthwhile use for your time and efforts as an editor.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"you have taken out the clause in the lead that explained that de Maistre regarded monarchy...as the only stable form of government."

De Maistre does not argue that monarchy is the only stable form of government, he is not an utopian (given his belief in "original sin" that is rather the point!) he viewed monarchy as the arrangement which is most likely to achieve political stability. You make a fair point however and I have changed it accordingly.

I took out "modest" because the text clearly states that his grandfather was a draper. I think we are all capable of drawing our own conclusions about the "modesty" of such a job. We do not (Victorian style) require somebody to supply the appropriate social description for us.

The article clearly explains that Maistre not only believed that the authority of Christian kings derives from God, he also claimed that attempts to justify political arrangements via an appeal to reason leads to unresolvable arguments about the legitimacy of every existing government. This is not an original argument, it is however entirely characteristic of his rejection of the "Enlightenment" project of political reform.

You claim that my changes make the article less readable. Many thanks for your concern about what you consider to be a worthwhile use of my time, but of course I am tempted to reply that if you stopped deleting each and every one (of what you consider to be my trivial changes) this might be a better use of your time. I believe that my changes (slight as they are) contribute to the clarity of the article. You deny this, but given that Wikipedia is an open society and not an absolute monarchy (it is clear that Maistre would not approve) I suggest that it is better if the article evolves via numerous specific contributions, rather than a single ex-cathedra mass deletion.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)