Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Oxford University Press, USA (1993), Paperback, 352 pages
Description
The most enduring work of its time, Reflections on the Revolution in France was written in 1790 and has remained in print ever since. Edmund Burke's analysis of revolutionary change established him as the chief framer of modern European conservative political thought. This outstanding new edition of the Reflections presents Burke's famous text along with a historical introduction by Frank M. Turner and four lively critical essays by leading scholars. The volume sets the Reflections in the context of Western political thought, highlights its ongoing relevance to contemporary debates, and provides abundant critical notes, a glossary, and a glossary-index to ensure its accessibility. Contributors to the book examine various provocative aspects of Burke's thought. Conor Cruise O'Brien explores Burke's hostility to "theory," Darrin McMahon considers Burke's characterization of the French Enlightenment, Jack Rakove contrasts the views of Burke and American constitutional framers on the process of drawing up constitutions, and Alan Wolfe investigates Burke, the social sciences, and liberal democracy.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member Kade
An unofficial name for this could be "The Social Contract: A Critique" or "Rosseau Part 2". Edmund Burke's famous treatise is a refutation of the "Rights of Man" declaration, and the populist democracy that emerged in France and eventually turned into anarchy followed by dictatorship.
A common
Again, highly recommended for political science undergraduates. Otherwise unbearably dry for most people.
A common
Show More
misconception among the laypeople is that Burke's Reflections is a defense of aristocracy. Burke actually championed the cause of the American Revolutionaries during the War of 1776, and actually was disowned by Thomas Jefferson (who had participated in drafting the Rights of Man declaration) for his work. Burke's critique of the French Revolution was not a defense of aristocracy, but a refutation of universal rights. It was entirely consistent of him to support the American revolution because the American revolution was a reaction against the infringement of the rights of Englishmen in America enshrined (as William Blackstone stated in his Commentaries) in Engish Common Law. The French system of government had always been autocratic, on the other hand and entirely arbitrary, and the introduction of democratic principles and rule of law to a populace with no concept of the responsibilities that those rights entailed was a recipe for disaster.Again, highly recommended for political science undergraduates. Otherwise unbearably dry for most people.
Show Less
LibraryThing member stillatim
How decayed is contemporary political discourse? So decayed that libertarians and small market conservatives consider Burke to be their forebear, and Marx to be the forebear of Democrats. I imagine that Marx and Burke would much rather have a beer with each other than with any of their lilliputian,
So, just to be clear. Burke claims that a society functions best when it has a completely stable set of institutions as its base: civil society, landed property, and a state/church marriage. Only if these persist will liberty give us worthwhile projects, rather than muck; only if they persist is capitalism and financial speculation anything other than a casino in which the rich get richer and the poor get shafted.
These institutions necessarily require what today we think of as 'government intervention.' The poor should be cared for; the benefits of social life should accrue to all, and not just the rich; the profits of the wealthy should be re-invested in productive enterprise and not frittered away on luxury or the aforementioned casino.
Burke is no more compatible with contemporary, so-called 'conservatism' than Marx is. They both saw the dangers of unrestrained capitalism. They both saw the dangers of 'utopian' revolutionary planning (although neither conservatives nor Marxist read those bits of Marx, for obvious reasons). Admittedly, Burke was a sycophantic, power-hungry hack; and Marx went from being a lunatic pamphleteer to an impressive but ineffectual research academic. Neither of them are role-models. But at least they were willing and able to think - actually *think* - about politics, rather than just spouting party line drivel.
All that aside, Burke's analysis of the French Revolution's violence is tendentious, sometimes slipping over into yellow journalism rather than convincing critique. He's not always wrong, but he is always hyper-polemical, and that's never very constructive. His praise of English political institutions is far more interesting, as is his defense of landed property, although it's hard to distinguish the philosophical claims (need for stability in society) from the class-based ideology (stability is produced by Whig aristocrats). And his rhetoric with regard to the dangers of democracy (and, therefore, the libertarianism of the contemporary right) needs to be taken on board by anyone who cares that we're about to destroy our economic, social and environmental heritage: "The will of the many and their interest must very often differ, and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice… government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints… liberty, when men act in bodies, is power."
The solution for the problems of democracy is not, alas, more democracy, as nice as it would be to think so.
Also, the introduction to this Hackett edition is great, although Pocock doesn't really *show* that Burke wasn't in a rage against a proto-bourgeoisie. He does state it over and over again, but it doesn't seem important enough a point to make, considering that Burke most certainly was in a rage against some people an awful lot like the bourgeoisie of the later nineteenth century.
Show More
soi-disant followers. So, just to be clear. Burke claims that a society functions best when it has a completely stable set of institutions as its base: civil society, landed property, and a state/church marriage. Only if these persist will liberty give us worthwhile projects, rather than muck; only if they persist is capitalism and financial speculation anything other than a casino in which the rich get richer and the poor get shafted.
These institutions necessarily require what today we think of as 'government intervention.' The poor should be cared for; the benefits of social life should accrue to all, and not just the rich; the profits of the wealthy should be re-invested in productive enterprise and not frittered away on luxury or the aforementioned casino.
Burke is no more compatible with contemporary, so-called 'conservatism' than Marx is. They both saw the dangers of unrestrained capitalism. They both saw the dangers of 'utopian' revolutionary planning (although neither conservatives nor Marxist read those bits of Marx, for obvious reasons). Admittedly, Burke was a sycophantic, power-hungry hack; and Marx went from being a lunatic pamphleteer to an impressive but ineffectual research academic. Neither of them are role-models. But at least they were willing and able to think - actually *think* - about politics, rather than just spouting party line drivel.
All that aside, Burke's analysis of the French Revolution's violence is tendentious, sometimes slipping over into yellow journalism rather than convincing critique. He's not always wrong, but he is always hyper-polemical, and that's never very constructive. His praise of English political institutions is far more interesting, as is his defense of landed property, although it's hard to distinguish the philosophical claims (need for stability in society) from the class-based ideology (stability is produced by Whig aristocrats). And his rhetoric with regard to the dangers of democracy (and, therefore, the libertarianism of the contemporary right) needs to be taken on board by anyone who cares that we're about to destroy our economic, social and environmental heritage: "The will of the many and their interest must very often differ, and great will be the difference when they make an evil choice… government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints… liberty, when men act in bodies, is power."
The solution for the problems of democracy is not, alas, more democracy, as nice as it would be to think so.
Also, the introduction to this Hackett edition is great, although Pocock doesn't really *show* that Burke wasn't in a rage against a proto-bourgeoisie. He does state it over and over again, but it doesn't seem important enough a point to make, considering that Burke most certainly was in a rage against some people an awful lot like the bourgeoisie of the later nineteenth century.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SkjaldOfBorea
A classic, perhaps indeed the single classic, of conservative political thought, this book beautifully clarified the difference between Britain & the European Continent. In addition to Burke's original text, this edition also benefits from a good intro, & from 4 remarkable essays by modern
Show More
scholars. Recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member lukeasrodgers
Good story, well told.
I had been wanting to read this book for several years. For a reader interested in Burke's philosophy, and interested in Burke as a progenitor of modern conservativism, the book is definitely worthwhile, but you will encounter much material that can be scanned over, and is
I had been wanting to read this book for several years. For a reader interested in Burke's philosophy, and interested in Burke as a progenitor of modern conservativism, the book is definitely worthwhile, but you will encounter much material that can be scanned over, and is
Show More
probably only of interest to students of that era's history. Slightly similar experience to reading Kapital Volume I -- you only want to read so much wheat prices, or (with Burke) how the National Assembly decided to effect a new, rational determination of France's political divisions. Show Less
LibraryThing member tmamone
Boring, overwritten, and way too authoritative.
LibraryThing member gmicksmith
This classic is not a knee-jerk reactions against the Revolution but a deeper reflection and a realization of the ends of violent revolution. Burke opposed the Revolution from the beginning and as events turned out he was correct in identifying the violence and mayhem brought on by the cataclysmic
Early on Burke correctly identified "The Social Contract: A Critique" or "Rousseau's Democracy Run Amok". Burke counters the "Rights of Man" declaration and the populist democracy that emerged in France which turned ruinously into anarchy followed by dictatorship. It is a sober reflection on democracy without the limitations of a constitutional republic.
Show More
events of the period.Early on Burke correctly identified "The Social Contract: A Critique" or "Rousseau's Democracy Run Amok". Burke counters the "Rights of Man" declaration and the populist democracy that emerged in France which turned ruinously into anarchy followed by dictatorship. It is a sober reflection on democracy without the limitations of a constitutional republic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Pepys
I cannot wait till I have finished this book: Burke's style is horrible, and his reflections are boring. Cannot say more.
LibraryThing member wonderperson
Edmund Burke does NOT like what he sees in Paris-be warned there are graphic descriptions of horrific atrocities being meted out on the Citizens; the phrase 'reign of terror' is a apt description'. He hits out at the political instruments of the Jacobins in the most searing of ways. One to read
Show More
alongside others happening at that time like Mary Wollestonecraft, Thomas Paine Rights of Man (both need to be read by me) Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
Ur-text of modern conservatism. Well, he has a good writing style. I'll give him that.
For all of his self-righteous condemnations, which are so often repeated by conservatives and reactionaries today, I note how so very few of them tend to notice his conspiratorial wailing about international
For all of his self-righteous condemnations, which are so often repeated by conservatives and reactionaries today, I note how so very few of them tend to notice his conspiratorial wailing about international
Show More
finance and the Jews. Show Less
LibraryThing member smallself
Burke was afraid (and I think it was very much the work of fear) that the old would be rejected for being old; his solution was to lionize the prejudiced for being prejudiced.
.... I had a much better opinion of this book before I read it. “Oh, he just doesn’t want a revolution.” More like,
He doesn’t think he needs to explain what anybody owes to the poor, but golly is he going to cavil and fight with anybody who gives them anything. That’s his idea of not needing “theory”, of being “practical”. And gosh, for somebody who doesn’t translate Latin, he sure seems ready to bash people for being dandies every time they try to combine the life of the mind with social responsibility.
.........................
Although certainly this book rests largely upon history or experience, although I do not credit that history as being true— I do not believe, that it was this beautiful transcendental experience, to live under the Old Regime, and I do think that the argument rests largely along those lines, (perhaps a tyrant, gentlemen, but a Christian tyrant!), and not that these are the words of an amicable reformist, which was the reputation and rumor of him that I had heard, before reading his words.
.... In the end it’s neither good history nor good theory. Not good history because it doesn’t even try to be, and not good theory because it doesn’t even *want* to be. Philosophy marshals no armies, and that’s what we really need!
.... And certainly not really gritty and scientific, there’s a laugh. “Labor relations were.... okay.... Legal troubles were.... you know.... not too bad.... Things in general were.... okay.... Is that enough detail, yes?” *walking through a land fill* The smell is.... vague.... I mean.... okay.... Plant life..... oh, abundant.... Hygiene.... not too bad....”
And of course Burke wasn’t a peasant; if you’re rich and white and you go to the Old South in the USA, you say, Wow, these people are nice and aristocratic.... Race relations.... okay.... lynchings.... you know, every once in a while, but a kaffir oughtn't complain....
He just didn’t have the backbone to tell the truth, any more than he had the disposition to be a philosopher, so everything’s vague and “okay”.
Except for when the kaffirs get out of hand: then we’re goin’ to war!!!
.........................
Although I suppose that he also makes these little attempts at making aphorisms, [which in the hands of one who is not an adept, is just, Skip Right To The Part Where I’m Better Than You], although I suppose that we must not consider this to be philosophy. (Philosophy raises no armies.) “Basically you’re a thug. (Ready for the aphorism, ready for it, ready for it....) I’ve always thought that thugs are bad.” You’re right, that’s.... not philosophy.
.... I had a much better opinion of this book before I read it. “Oh, he just doesn’t want a revolution.” More like,
Show More
he’s angry and afraid, and ready for war. He doesn’t think he needs to explain what anybody owes to the poor, but golly is he going to cavil and fight with anybody who gives them anything. That’s his idea of not needing “theory”, of being “practical”. And gosh, for somebody who doesn’t translate Latin, he sure seems ready to bash people for being dandies every time they try to combine the life of the mind with social responsibility.
.........................
Although certainly this book rests largely upon history or experience, although I do not credit that history as being true— I do not believe, that it was this beautiful transcendental experience, to live under the Old Regime, and I do think that the argument rests largely along those lines, (perhaps a tyrant, gentlemen, but a Christian tyrant!), and not that these are the words of an amicable reformist, which was the reputation and rumor of him that I had heard, before reading his words.
.... In the end it’s neither good history nor good theory. Not good history because it doesn’t even try to be, and not good theory because it doesn’t even *want* to be. Philosophy marshals no armies, and that’s what we really need!
.... And certainly not really gritty and scientific, there’s a laugh. “Labor relations were.... okay.... Legal troubles were.... you know.... not too bad.... Things in general were.... okay.... Is that enough detail, yes?” *walking through a land fill* The smell is.... vague.... I mean.... okay.... Plant life..... oh, abundant.... Hygiene.... not too bad....”
And of course Burke wasn’t a peasant; if you’re rich and white and you go to the Old South in the USA, you say, Wow, these people are nice and aristocratic.... Race relations.... okay.... lynchings.... you know, every once in a while, but a kaffir oughtn't complain....
He just didn’t have the backbone to tell the truth, any more than he had the disposition to be a philosopher, so everything’s vague and “okay”.
Except for when the kaffirs get out of hand: then we’re goin’ to war!!!
.........................
Although I suppose that he also makes these little attempts at making aphorisms, [which in the hands of one who is not an adept, is just, Skip Right To The Part Where I’m Better Than You], although I suppose that we must not consider this to be philosophy. (Philosophy raises no armies.) “Basically you’re a thug. (Ready for the aphorism, ready for it, ready for it....) I’ve always thought that thugs are bad.” You’re right, that’s.... not philosophy.
Show Less
LibraryThing member flaggdust
Not nearly what I was expecting!
LibraryThing member DinadansFriend
Edmund Burke, MP was not in favour of popular enthusiasms, and when they rise to actual violence, well that is beyond the pale. Even though there may well have been reasons for the uprising, there should not have been this unseemly tumult. When oppressed, the populace should be able to find some
Show More
non-violent way of changing their condition. After all the English have managed to avoid all this fuss....Well, haven't we? Burke was a prescient Conservative, and saw that the /French were embarked on a road that would lead to violence, to finally dictatorship, and perhaps a deeper tyranny than before. Gradual improvement on an evolutionary course would serve the french better, but they are only Latins, and therefore, the worst can be expected. Show Less
LibraryThing member wyclif
"...the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever."
The seminal text of contemporary Anglo-American conservatism and a continuing inspiration to classical liberals everywhere. Burke channeled his outrage
The seminal text of contemporary Anglo-American conservatism and a continuing inspiration to classical liberals everywhere. Burke channeled his outrage
Show More
over the French Revolution into a broadside against the horrors of the barbarous and destructive revolutionaries and the tyranny of their democratic majorities. He instead revered the 1689 Bill of Rights and the tradition of English constitutionalism embodied by the Magna Carta, Coke and Blackstone as "the fixed form of a constitution whose merits are confirmed by the solid test of long experience and an increasing public strength and national prosperity." Essential to any reading of the Western tradition. Show Less
LibraryThing member MrsLee
I tried to read this; I wanted to like it. I even enjoyed the bit of wit I caught in the first chapter. However, the lawyer talk and politics were a bit much for me to handle at this time in my life. If this is your interest area, and you like source materials, give it a try. I decided to quit
Show More
reading it because life is short. Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Language
Original publication date
1790
Physical description
352 p.; 7.5 inches
ISBN
0192818449 / 9780192818447
Other editions
Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke (Paperback)
Similar in this library
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of the Sublime and Beautiful: And Other Pre-Revolutionary Writings by Edmund Burke