Reflections on the Revolution in France

by Edmund Burke and Edmund Burke III

Book Overview

This new and up-to-date edition of a book that has been central to political philosophy, history, and revolutionary thought for two hundred years offers readers a dire warning of the consequences that follow the mismanagement of change. Written for a generation presented with challenges of terrible proportions--the Industrial, American, and French Revolutions, to name the most obvious--Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France displays an acute...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0199539022
• ISBN13: 9780199539024
• Release Date: January 2009
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Length: 352 Pages
• Weight: 0.58 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.7" x 5.0" x 7.6"

Customer Reviews

Burke's evils of the French Revolution

This was required reading for a graduate course in the history of the French Revolution. In Burke's book Reflections on the Revolution in France, he penned a diatribe against the evils of the French Revolution, believing that there was a pernicious cabal of philosophes and politicians joined by money-jobbers whose aim was to topple not only the old regime in France, but to export their "plague" throughout Europe. Thus, Burke astutely understood and abhorred the influence that Radical Enlightenment ideas had on the French Revolution. One instantly detects, in Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, a conservative philosophy by which he not only understood his own society, but the entire human civilization. Much of his work was an appeal to a politically conservative notion of a "created order" of the world, which from this reading seemed to be universal to all European nations. This reader sensed that Burke's Reflections were written as a warning to the rest of Europe not to follow the model of change embodied in the French Revolution, and to adopt the steady reforms that took place in England. Burke found no social redeeming value in the French Revolution and when he wrote Reflections, the worst of the "reign of terror" had yet to come. In fact, if one used Georges Lefebvre's notion of "four acts" to the Revolution, Burke poured out all his criticism against the first two acts, the aristocratic and bourgeois revolts. This reader found Burke's long sections on British history used to buttress his case; that change should have come to France within a more staid social order as either ignorant of the complex socio-economic and political factors that led up to the Revolution, or as a naïve belief that that the French people were so culturally close to the English that they should both react in similar fashion to socio-political upheaval. Burke delivered a literary "tongue lashing" to the French for how easily they turned their backs on their socio-political traditions. "You had all these advantages in your ancient states; but you chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society, and had everything to begin anew. You began ill, because you began by despising everything that belonged to you" (31). This reader found Burke's argument on this point a little disingenuous. He lectured how Britain's "Glorious Revolution" in 1688 should have been the model for reform. However, he barely mentioned the bloody English Civil War that Cromwell staged, including the regicide of Charles I. In addition, one's impression of Burke's information is that he had received a very narrow view of the history leading up to the Revolution and its opening days, which seemed confined to correspondence from a small circle of friends. Burke had high praise for the First and Second Estates. His opinion of the nobles he knew was that they were, "...for the greater part composed of men of high spirit, and of a delicate sense of honou

A Warning to Those in Love with Unbridled Power and Vulnerable to Anything New

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)wrote REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE in 1789 which was four years before the rise of the fanatical Jacobins and the execution (murder)of Louis XVI. This book was not only well written but very prophetic on the tragic events that were part of the French Revolution. Burke showed historical insight and warned both the British and the French what was going to happen. Burke cited conditions in France prior to the French Revolution. He certainly did not give a false representation of the economic and social conditions in France, but he was clear that, while not perfect, the French had advanced culture and tolerable living standards. He also warned the French that abrupt changes without recourse to tradition and legal norms were dangerous and would end in tyranny. Readers should be aware that Burke's assessment of the French political system was that the French had reasonble politcal freedom and prosperity. To destroy this political system would end in political disruption, social and political violence, lack of law-and-order, and the rise of tyrannical military leaders. One should note Burke's assessment of the members of the French National Assembly which was vacilating and subject to the whims of any "political interest group" was serious. He suggested that military officers would be among those "pleaders" would be military officers who would be difficult to control. He also warned that when someone who understood the art of command got control of the military officers, the days of the French Republic and the National Assembly were over. The military commander would be in total control, and this is exactly what happened when Napolean I (1769-1821)started to exhibit military genius, he quickly got power by a coup d' etat in 1799 and became the French Emperor by 1804. Burke's warnings of disaster and tragedy were fullfilled. From at least 1792 until 1815, the French were almost constantly at war with most Europeans. While the French Empire expanded beyond anything prior French monarchs ever dreamed of, the collapse of the French Empire came quickly, and the French empire was ended by 1815 at terrible cost in both blood treasure. Burke warned of these dangers, and his predictions were accurate. Burke lived just long enough to see the rise and fall of the maniacal Jacobins which included the Reigh of Terror (1792-1794)and the execution of King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie antionette. Had Burke lived a few more years, he could have resorted to remarking, "I told you so." Edmund Burke has been defined as a conservative which is true. However, Burke was not a reactionary. Burke realized that progress, whatever that may mean, is often slow and within the confines of historical tradition, legal norms, and established law. Burke warned his readers, to use modern parlance, against "wipe the slate clean." Burke clearly understood that to "wipe the slate clean, meant mass dislocation of men and ultimately mas

A Classic of Conservative Thought

In 1789, the year of the French Revolution, Burke received a request from a good friend living in France to provide his thoughts on the Revoution. The result- one of the finest pieces of political discourse ever written. For those encountering Burke for the first time, his adament defense of the crown, and of hereditary succcesion, seem to make a hypocrite of this self-proclaimed liberal. Burke, however, was not defending an absolute monarch who ruled under the charter of divine right, but rather, pointing out the danger of a perfect democracy, whose sovereign (the national assembly) was compelled not to a moral authority such as a Church, nor to a fixed consitution. In short, liberty was safer restricted in civil socity, than left unchecked. Whether you find Burke's analysis, consistent with your political leanings, or more likely, you find his writing very offensive, you can appreciate both the efffect of this work on American and European political though, as well as the reason and intelligence with which it was written.

The finest writing ever in English prose!

This small title is actually a letter that the author wrote to a friend in France. When Edmund Burke wrote this letter about the French Revolution (where the king was overthrown and beheaded by the masses aka Jacobins), English scholars agree that the result was the finest piece of prose in the English language; only a few poets have succeeded in writing something finer. Whether you agree with Burke's interpretation or not is not the point; he penned the finest piece of literature ever in the English language. As a historian and social commentator, Burke is a "structural functionalist" decades before that term was dreamed up. He recognizes that the French are not only creatures of their culture, but prisoners. And to compare them to the English colonists and other insurgents in the American colonies who revolted against the British government is to compare apples and oranges. Whereas the Yankee revolution of 1776 was Biblically-inspired and the propaganda for rebellion preached from the pulpits, the French were railing AGAINST the Catholic Church for keeping people ignorant and in their Dark Age. Burke says the French Revolution is a revolution without its moorings, without the necessary principles to guide individual behavior, and without the maintenance of institutions that long provided stability and security. What the French philosophes were writing was mere balderdash, says Burke. Without their traditions, customs, and institutitions that had slowly brought the French out of barbarity and into a civilized manner of living, Burke saw in revolution a rapid decline and fall of the French people into a visciousness of dog-eat-dog. In short, Burke saw the French Revolution as lacking virtue and descending into terrorism; whereas the Yankee Revolution was virtuous and grew into a democracy. Whether you agree with Burke or not, and I do not, his writing in this letter to a friend is the finest example of English writing to be found and should be read by everyone simply for that reason alone.

Why aren't there more books like this these days?

An international political classic. Burke does uses his feelings on philosophy and politics in such a brilliant matter as to suggest it were merely a letter "written to a gentleman."Highly recommended to Pol. Sci. majors, Conservatives, Liberals without pens/tongues, etc etc.5 STARS for classic philosphy.