Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Reflections on the Revolution in France

3.62 of 5 stars 3.62 · rating details · 1,554 ratings · 64 reviews

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 proportionsthe Industrial, American, and French Revolutions, to name the m

...more

ebook, 0 pages

Published January 1st 2010 by MobileReference (first published 1790)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

May 10, 2012 sologdin rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, just-plain-bad

A turgid, incoherent, mean-spirited confusion of barely readable proto-teabaggery and ancient dogmatic douchebaggery. Written in the form of a letter to a Frenchman, without captions or other markers of manifest internal organization. Best part of this volume is the academic's lengthy introduction. Text is top tier anti-semitism, with frequent references to "Old Jewry" and Jews in general when he needs a negative example.

He opens by implying that he is unable to congratulate France on its new p...more

like 3 likes · see review

view all 11 comments

Nicholas Because the Old Jewry was famous in Burke's day as a Dissenting meeting place. When he refers to the "spurious revolution principles of the Old Jewry"...more
Mar 30, 2013 05:27pm

sologdin sustained attack not on Judaism

we are agreed there. whyever would it appear otherwise?
updated Mar 31, 2013 04:25am

Jul 26, 2012 Geoff Sebesta rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: good-books-about-france

An interesting little chunk of history here. Burke wrote a towering condemnation of the constitutional monarchy of Revolutionary France. If you are saying "I didn't know there was a constitutional monarchy in Revolutionary France" that's because it didn't last very long. This is an extremely contemporary account. It does not extend much to either side. So if you want to know a lot about 1790 from the point of view of a British royalist, read this book. But if you want to know about 1791 or any o...more An interesting little chunk of history here. Burke wrote a towering condemnation of the constitutional monarchy of Revolutionary France. If you are saying "I didn't know there was a constitutional monarchy in Revolutionary France" that's because it didn't last very long. This is an extremely contemporary account. It does not extend much to either side. So if you want to know a lot about 1790 from the point of view of a British royalist, read this book. But if you want to know about 1791 or any other point of view, look elsewhere.

So this is a technical takedown of the constitutional monarchy of Louis XVI...something like a building code inspector's report on a building that's already on fire. Burke is, shockingly to the modern reader, an avowed and eloquent monarchist, and spends much of his time here defending the concept of the constitutional regent. He doesn't think there's anything divine about kings, he just thinks they're a good idea and he explains why. It's heavy reading, difficult going. He really liked the word "antient." I guess he was trying to avoid confusion with "ancien" which was a very important word at this time. Or maybe he's just a british senator who's been dead for hundreds of years and that's really how they talked. His sympathies are clear; more than once he mentions that there was no reason for the French Revolution, since the country had been at peace for five years...and he says the army mutinied because malignant philosophers had taught them dangerous learnings. Seriously, sir? I don't think 18th century military units often mutiny because of "teaching" and "learning." It was probably because they were starving to death. You'd think in all that 1790 he'd read a newspaper.

All in all Burke comes across as a competent representative of Dickens's "That Which Is."

But the technicalities become entrancing. Burke was a contemporary conservative critic and a lot of what he said about the technical side of government (what the powers and responsibilities of a judiciary are, how military officers should be selected, et cetera) is very new to me and very interesting. His respect for tradition and wisdom is....excruciating. But reliable. His horror of revolutionary innovention has certainly been the fuel for a lot of comedy. I don't believe "antient" was ever a common word. I think he was just a guy in a wig who really talked like that. His cluelessness about the intolerability of conditions that lead to the Revolution counts against him, I think. But he made some good points.

Good points include: the citizens treated France as roughly as the Mongols ever treated any tributary. Concentration of all power in the legislative was a mistake. Their system of dividing the country was ridiculous. An independent judiciary seems like a very useful tidebreak for a wave of legislative ideas. There was no point in keeping the King around (and in fact they didn't). The government had no way to compel obedience in the provinces but philosophy and force (and indeed that's what they used). And yes, it would all end in tears somehow.

I came here to write a review and now I'm reviewing the reviewers. I want to say, based on my growing store of knowledge about the French revolution, that Burke was no prophet. Although he accurately foresaw calamity for the French political system of 1790, guess what, it was not hard to see. From the modern perspective it's harder to believe that it took so long for disaster to strike. Burke didn't predict Napoleon, didn't predict WWII, didn't even predict that Louis XVI would lose his head, something that happened about eighteen months after he put this letter in the mail. And to everyone who is trying to stretch this to cover Obama...I guess when you only have two facts to rub together you do what you can, but come on. Reading history for prophecy is a chump move. Burke has more to tell you about the past than the future.

According to Wikipedia this guy was the founder of modern conservativism or something. I can see that. Excellent at divining conflicts in abstract systems, excellent at ignoring inconvenient facts and missing giant dealbreakers like "hey the country is starving to death." I might read a bit more by him, it'd be interesting to see what he said about the American Revolution.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Apr 29, 2012 Bill Kerwin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

The classic work by the father of modern conservatism. Burke criticizes the architects of the French Revolution and the new revolutionary government for their unyielding radicalism and wanton destruction of society's institutions. In Burke's view, the traditions of a society should be respected and its institutions altered gradually; a tradition should be eliminated or an institution replaced only if there is a reasonable assurance that the society as a whole will benefit. Some of this is pretty...more

like 7 likes · see review

May 20, 2012 Iris rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, school-reading, history

Reflections on the Revolution in France is Edmund Burke's answer to a young Frenchman's request for his thoughts on the French Revolution. Written during the early years of the Revolution, many of Burke's insight seem prophetic.

Burke begins by addressing the proceedings of the Revolution Society, an English group that has voiced their approval for the happenings in France. He explains how the group has misrepresented England's monarchal changes. His belief is that England will not follow France...more

like · see review

Sep 08, 2011 Adam rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

good lord. What an empty, sad sack waste of space this man was. That his followers today number as many as they do is a pity and embarrassment to the human race.

A bunch of repetitive conservatism that was EVEN THEN TIRED BULLSHIT, coupled with endless amounts of insubstantial, fallacious 'arguments' for his stupid, stupid premises.

Burke was a self-absorbed hack of the very worst sort, and his ideas bear zero importance in the world today, or ever really. All he has legitimately to his credit i...more

like 1 like · see review

Jul 18, 2011 Justin Evans rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, history-etc

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, 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/chur...more 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, 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. (less)

like 3 likes · see review

May 05, 2012 Darran Mclaughlin rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I got to page 200 and then decided to put it down. I had fairly high expectations about this book given it's huge influence as the foundation text of conservatism. From what I knew about the book in advance I didn't necessarily expect to agree with Burke but I did think I may find him a persuasive thinker. I think some core conservative beliefs he advocates have merit such as the importance of a unified and stable society, respect for the traditions of the past and and a careful stewardship of o...more I got to page 200 and then decided to put it down. I had fairly high expectations about this book given it's huge influence as the foundation text of conservatism. From what I knew about the book in advance I didn't necessarily expect to agree with Burke but I did think I may find him a persuasive thinker. I think some core conservative beliefs he advocates have merit such as the importance of a unified and stable society, respect for the traditions of the past and and a careful stewardship of our world for the benefit for the next generation, a dislike for the reduction of all human endevor to it's purely economic value and a regret for the waning of virtues like civility and chivalry. I can also respect the fact that he favours the real flesh and blood people around him, connected by some kinship, as opposed to the tendency many radicals and revolutionaries have to think it is ok to sacrifice those around them or their fellow citizens to some abstract cause. This is part of the reason I admire Camus more than I do Sartre.

I found a lot of this book intolerable. He paints a picture of France that portrays it as some kind of idylic society before the revolution and acknowledges no justification for it. From the little I know about pre-revolutionary France it sounds like it was a nation dominated by a tyranical and inadequate King and a rapacious, arrogant chauvanistic aristocracy. The condition of the ordinary people was miserable and the peasants and workers at the lower levels of society was actually starving. The aristocracy were exempt from taxation so the burden fell upon the poor and the bourgiousie. When the state was verging on bankruptcy a finance minister who tried to alleviate the suffering of the ordinary citizens imposed taxation upon the nobility and they revolted, demanding he be sacked and that they regain their exemption from taxation. The King agreed to this so as to keep the support of the nobility and the seeds of the revolution were sown.

Burke displays a contemptuous attitude towards the middle and lower classes and the character of a lackey towards the aristocracy. He disparages innovation, trade, industry and the professions in favour of land and property. He makes anti-Semitic statements throughout the book. He pretends that there are no parallels to be drawn between the English revolution and the French, insisting that the English was a just revolution because it was for the sake of the Protestant religion, ignoring other shared factors such as the fact that both were conflicts between an old, landed aristocracy and an emerging mercantile and industrial bourgousie. The book is so obviously a work of propaganda that it amazes me that it is ever described as a work of philosophy.

Burke expects people to grin and bear suffering and oppression so as not to disturb the social order. He prefers gradual social and political change to abrupt and chaotic change. This is a valid attitude but he doesn't seem unduly concerned that this would condemn so many people to unfulfilling lives for generations. If it were up to him I would be tugging my forlock to my superiors today. (less)

like · see review

May 12, 2010 Patrice rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

OK, he's a genius. He repeats himself and sometimes I had a hard time staying awake while reading this, but then he'll throw out a few one liners that astound. I finally got tired of writing "Obama" in the margins. I wonder if Obama has read this? Has anyone who loves Obama read this? Every word applies to the US today. Benevolence turns to weakness and then oppression. A strong country must have a strong economy. Following ideology in the face of reality leads to destruction. Taking the advice...more

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 22, 2012 Hadrian rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: british, history, politics-and-foreign-policy, for-class

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 finance and the Jews.

like 1 like · see review

Aug 18, 2010 Anastasia Fitzgerald-Beaumont rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

My copy of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France comes with a splendid introductory essay by Conor Cruise O’Brien, onetime academic, politician, journalist and writer. I understand that he also wrote a biography of Burke which his Wikipedia page describes as ‘unorthodox’, though I think he may have used that term himself to describe his interpretation. I’ve not read it so I can’t say if it is or not. What I can say, and say with assurance, is that his essay brings out aspects of...more

like 11 likes · see review

Jan 21, 2013 Xav Lee rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

OMG. This is basically a long stupid ****** rant. Have to read this for a class and write a dam summary and essay on this BS??? You can't understand what the **** his dam point is. The longest rant that is of no educational value to anyone. waste of ******* time. So pissed. Screw the guy that wrote this. In to this book 50 pages right now. Nothing but rants that are all over the place. How in the f***en world am I going to write a paper on this BS!!!!! Freedom of Press allows me to express my op...more

like · see review

Apr 12, 2012 Daniel rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics, culture, economics, uk, irish, french, isi

"...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 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...more

like 2 likes · see review

Aug 10, 2011 Jonas Pothelm added it · review of another edition

Burke shows himself as an observer in a changing time : on the other side of the channel, the French Revolution just took place. Burke is not enthusiast about it. But does this mean he's the father of conservatism? He dislikes hasty changes, and warns for the danger of terror, even before Robbespierre took power. But in a way he is progressive as well. Every conservative thinker who refers to Burke should reed him first, because Burke is not half the conservative these thinkers would like him to...more

like · see review

Dec 10, 2009 Tariq rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I'm a liberal/perhaps oakeshott conservative and I think this is just a well written treatise on caution that, at its heart, actually leads to liberalism. I've always believed that true conservatism - not the current bastardization - has liberal ideals and a liberal worldview at heart. It's methods that matter - and not necessarily small steps all the time - but a commitment to facts and truth, along with a need to fully ascertain as much as possible about a situation, this is what helps build a...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 18, 2013 Catherine Woodman rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This spring I have been reading books on change and government since the Age of Enlightenment. The thing that has been most surprising to me is that the work that speaks most to me is this one by Edmund Burke. He is thought of as the father of modern conservatism, which is not exactly a line of politics that is entirely up my alley. But it turns out that a conservative in Burke's time was really more of a moderate in todays' terms. Today conservatives seem to want to go back to a previous time....more

like · see review

May 03, 2012 Robert rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

First, I recommend the Yale University Press Edition—"Rethinking the Western Tradition"—with introduction by Frank M. Turner, and essays by Darrin M. McMahon, Connor Cruise O'Brien, Jack N.Rakove and Alan Wolfe. Burke's magnificent essay, put in perspective by these thinkers/scholars/interested parties, offers a delectable exercise in thought and manner.

Really what can I add to any discussion on this much discussed book, except to suggest that Burke has never seemed quite so relevant to me as o...more

like · see review

Aug 12, 2011 Sean Chick rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The foundational text of Anglo-conservatism. Burke made some good observations. He saw that the French Revolution would end disastrously because its abstract foundations, purportedly rational, ignored the complexities of human nature and society. He advocated central roles for private property, tradition, and 'prejudice' (adherence to values regardless of their rational basis) to give citizens a stake in their nation's social order. He argued for gradual, constitutional reform, not revolution. S...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 31, 2012 Yann rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: lumières, angleterre, france, politique

Ce livre a été édité à l'aube même de la révolution française, en 1790, par un anglais inquiet de la possible propagation des désordres continentaux sur son île. La Bastille a été prise et le roi est à Paris, suite à la marche des femmes d'octobre 89. Burke fait la somme de tout ce qu'un contempteur partial et acharné pouvait réunir comme arguments propre à flétrir l'honneur de la jeune assemblée constituante. Tout son ouvrage est un immense procès d'intention: les partisans de la Révolution son...more Ce livre a été édité à l'aube même de la révolution française, en 1790, par un anglais inquiet de la possible propagation des désordres continentaux sur son île. La Bastille a été prise et le roi est à Paris, suite à la marche des femmes d'octobre 89. Burke fait la somme de tout ce qu'un contempteur partial et acharné pouvait réunir comme arguments propre à flétrir l'honneur de la jeune assemblée constituante. Tout son ouvrage est un immense procès d'intention: les partisans de la Révolution sont soit des imbéciles aveuglés par des principes sans rapports avec la réalité et les circonstances, soit d'infâmes opportunistes, animés des plus noirs desseins sous couleur de liberté; mais tous sont invariablement traités avec le même mépris et la même haine. Tous les faits qu'il relate sont éclairés par le même angle, par la même lumière, ou plutôt les mêmes ténèbres. On pourrait facilement se laisser abuser par sa faconde, tant il maîtrise la rhétorique: en particulier l'éthos et le pathos, car pour le logos, il n'y a rien qui lie cette longue litanie désordonnée d'injures et de larmes. Toutes les actions de l'assemblée sont guidées selon lui par quelque conspiration secrète servant les intérêts occultes des puissances d'argent: les banquiers et les juifs sont ses cibles favorites, suivis de près par les philosophes et les écrivains. Au contraire, le roi, l'aristocratie et le clergé ne comptent dans leurs rangs que des individus mus par les intentions les plus pures et les plus nobles, et sont victimes d'une atroce secte d'athées qui n'aura de repos que lorsqu'elle aura ébranlé l'univers, et qu'on ne réduira à résipiscence sauf par l'extermination. Certaine de ses piques et ses saillies ne manquent pas de sel, et parviennent même à arracher des sourires, mais l'entêtement acharné, acrimonieux et aveugle qu'ils soutiennent fatiguent et irritent le lecteur pour de bon! Je comprends mieux les éclats de Michelet contre ce personnage. Et quelle différence avec la hauteur de vue d'un Tocqueville !(less)

like · see review

May 09, 2011 Kate Woods Walker rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It was not so much the politics--I've over the years read any number of authors with whom I disagree vehemently. It was not so much the use of ornate, complicated language--last year I thoroughly enjoyed Vanity Fair and The Odyssey in epic poem form. Perhaps it was just a bit of that plodding, say-it-once-then-say-it-again (and again and again and again!) way that philosophers have about them. Whatever it was, in whatever combination, it was enough to render this book, for me, as one of the most...more It was not so much the politics--I've over the years read any number of authors with whom I disagree vehemently. It was not so much the use of ornate, complicated language--last year I thoroughly enjoyed Vanity Fair and The Odyssey in epic poem form. Perhaps it was just a bit of that plodding, say-it-once-then-say-it-again (and again and again and again!) way that philosophers have about them. Whatever it was, in whatever combination, it was enough to render this book, for me, as one of the most painful, disappointing and unsatisfying reading experiences I have ever had, and I have read books written by Chuck Barris, for Christ's sake.

After suffering through an introduction that assured me Burke was a Great Man, I arrived at the words of the conservative, monarchist thinker with relief. Surely the writing itself would redeem; alas, it did not. But it did deliver unintentional humor. I enjoyed the irony of this father of modern conservatism railing against "intellectual presumption," yet spawning a movement that has culminated in Glenn Beck's chalkboard. I smirked at his early assertion that all his views were dependent on unfolding, but as yet unknown, "circumstances." Sounded like some kind of liberal situational ethics to me, but then again modern Great Man William Bennett has assured me that hypocrisy is better than having no standards at all.

It wasn't until Burke began his Brobdingnagian look at the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that the conservative talent for circular reasoning really took off, and from then on out it was just one knee-slapper after another. Because direct election of rulers was not instituted in 1688, that was proof enough that direct election of leaders would ever be unneeded and unwanted. The biggest shame in deposing a king? Why, the king would no longer trust his subjects, of course. And sprinkled throughout the book were Burke's sneering references to "the rights of man," as if there could be nothing more self-evidently ridiculous.

Diligently did I labor to find points with which to agree with Mr. Burke, and I did find a couple. Like the anti-democratic old buzzard, I think it's a good idea to have some sort of idea about what type of government you want, before you go overrunning fortresses and chopping off heads. I also agree that leaders of any would-be political movement look upon the lower classes—those they would use as foot soldiers—with utter contempt, all the while pretending to revere (or at least respect) them.

A famous description of Marie Antoinette at midpoint read to me like the no doubt uncharacteristic, but nevertheless fairly plain, rantings of a man in mourning for his own ficticious creation—Burke was just another conservative carrying on about an idealized, subservient woman who was, in real life, anything but. And the equally famous "prediction" of the rise of Napoleon was a mere couple of paragraphs foretelling a power vacuum that would surely be filled by a military man, nothing more.

Plus, many of Burke's assertions would get him thrown out of today's Teabagger movement. Term limits? They like 'em; Burke ridiculed them. Spending for pomp and circumstance? Why, that's a necessity in Burke's world, the better to make happy, entertained slaves. Paying good money to stand for public office? Laughable in Burke's world, but to today's conservatives, money is free speech itself, not to be limited in any way.

I could go on and on, but why? Like all the property-worshippers who came after him, Burke tries to make a logical, moral, religious, intellectual, and natural case for inequality, selfishness, cruelty and greed. And like today's conservative warriors, he fails.(less)

like 1 like · see review

Frank Marshall "Plus, many of Burke's assertions would get him thrown out of today's Teabagger movement."
Let me see, you find an essay written in 1790, has some elem...more
Jul 01, 2011 01:23pm

Kate Woods Walker Thanks for the comment Frank!

Edmund Burke is widely considered to be one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement. Thus, it is entirely appr...more
Jul 01, 2011 03:30pm

Apr 21, 2012 Will rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I hereby alter my rating of this work. It has become evident to me that for all his rhetorical prowess, Burke does not really argue in good faith. I once held the view that if I wanted to argue for Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, and like principles, I ought to have a good grip on the opposing arguments. I imagined that if I could get in my opponents' heads and see how they reasoned, I could show them where they went wrong. This was naive and mistaken. There is no convincing people like Burke, bec...more I hereby alter my rating of this work. It has become evident to me that for all his rhetorical prowess, Burke does not really argue in good faith. I once held the view that if I wanted to argue for Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, and like principles, I ought to have a good grip on the opposing arguments. I imagined that if I could get in my opponents' heads and see how they reasoned, I could show them where they went wrong. This was naive and mistaken. There is no convincing people like Burke, because they don't really assign much value to having beliefs that are true. People like Burke have other priorities. Things like loyalty, purity, faith, and tradition seem more important to people like Burke than a straightforward pursuit of the truth. However, they know that there are other people who consider the honest pursuit of the truth to be meritorious, who would not approve of their indifference to it, so they dissemble and pretend that that's what they're about too. It's all a needless show, intended to throw us off and waste our time.

I can't fully support this argument in commenting solely on this book. That's the genius of Burke. But what is telling is that when you view him over time, as event unfold, Burke keeps changing his story. Burke basically sees it as very important that men with white skin, whose names appear on land titles, should get to lord it over everyone else and get praised and well compensated for this great service to humanity. He further believes that among these people, there must be one who gets to sit in a throne and lord it over the rest, who gets to take as much of everybody's stuff as he wants and make them go fight for him if he wants, who gets lauded the most highly of all. This way of seeing things is vulnerable to the obvious and inevitable criticism that it's really stupid.

As long as this order of things is not threatened, Burke is willing to give generous concessions to the friends of reason. He's willing to dispense with the glories of empire and give colonies their freedom. He's willing to put limits on the king's ability to be a jerk and lord it over the landed gentry. He's willing to try to lessen the tax burden on the peasantry. He's willing to work to change things for the better, within certain important limits. This is the Burke we encounter up to 1789.

When the losers in this system get indignant, though, and start asking why they should do all the work and also face risk of starvation any time the harvest is bad, and kiss ass for a bunch of do-nothings who produce nothing and live lives of luxury, Burke's temperament changes. That is the situation we find him in here. He now stresses the importance of caution, and says that things are the way they are because it works. One might retort that things are the way they are because it worked at some time in the past when things were much different, and that it's possible to implement changes in a cautious manner, but it's not worthwhile because Burke will just find a different, equally plausible argument for why nothing should upset existing privileges.

When the cards are really down -- when people are killing kings, seizing the land of the aristocracy, and successfully fighting off the armies of the neighboring countries, Burke really loses his shit. When everything seemed safe, he was not willing to debase himself by using the most crude, intellectually sloppy arguments of the apologists of power (somehow there are always some of these people to be found). Now he belts these fallacies out freely and angrily. Now we have a Burke who would regard the cheerful reformism of his earlier, happier period as a dangerous and shameful attack on all that is right and the good.

In short, we have a discussion in which one of the participants is not really participating. It is pointless to continue the discussion. We basically have people saying, "you know, this status system is stupid and unjustified, so let's stop taking it seriously," and Burke huffing, "wait, that's very upsetting, don't you know about the status system?!?!"

Which is all to say that for all its elegance, and for all the admirable qualities of its prose, this book is bullshit. There's no polite way to say it. I once respected it and tried to value its insights, but it did not deserve this, because it's author himself did not really value it's insights. They were just the best story he could come up with at that point to defend the indefensible.

And so it is with his temperamental heirs. (less)

like · see review

Aug 05, 2008 Paula rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: To all Citizens

Recommended to Paula by: Burke quotes that I came across

Shelves: favorite-books

Burke published this book before Napoleon took power, before the bloodbath of the purges, before the French had beheaded their king. Yet, he predicted that all of that would happen. At first blush, I thought that the man must be a prophet. He fortold it all, in the exact order it would occur, and understood exactly why it would happen. Since that first reading, I have read quite a bit of history, and have learned how Burke did it. He was a genius for certain, but his extraordinary insight came f...more

like 1 like · see review

Jan 17, 2010 W. Bradford Littlejohn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Burke is eloquent and keenly insightful, offering all kinds of delightfully wise one-liners. His general assessment of the Revolution is certainly right, but with Burke's "Stick with tried and true tradition; don't rock the boat" viewpoint, one can't help but wonder, as a Christian, whether Burke wouldn't have been among those in the Sanhedrin planning Christ's crucifixion, had he lived 1750 years earlier. And that, of course, sets one to wondering about the dangers in the "conservative" school...more

like 1 like · see review

Aug 15, 2011 Ike Sharpless rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed, political-philosophy

Burke is hard as heck for most modern readers to digest, but his core insights stand the test of time: that social engineering projects may take you somewhere entirely other than where you want to go, and that (quintessentially English) gradualism is a better bet. Whether he was actually right about the French Revolution, however, is another matter entirely (and would depend on how long a view of history one takes...).

like · see review

Jul 27, 2011 Stan Bebbington added it · review of another edition

I read this as a balance to "The Rights of Man", Paine's view of the positive impact of revolution on society. Burke essentially suggests caution in promoting change because of the sometimes adverse consequences which may follow and be difficult to rectify. The twentieth century revolutions perhaps better illustrate the point. I would recommend the idea and read both books.

like 1 like · see review

Aug 06, 2011 Evelyn Biden rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Edmund Burke's Reflections was very much in depth, but a very dense read (Burke's tone is very "pompous plutocrat"). However it certainly gave me a good view of the other side of the coin - the people of the revolution as opposed to the royalty. A fantastic read... but, that being said, I won't be quick to pick this up and read it again.

like 1 like · see review

Jan 12, 2012 William Smith rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An eloquent defense of a philosophy and way of life that certainly has its merits, Burke's immortalizing examination of his navel nevertheless has nothing, actually, at all to say about economics, social policy, or any of the other subjects it's ostensibly written to address. Considered a classic by modern conservatives, for obvious reasons.

like · see review

Mar 09, 2011 Andrew Hill rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I read this because I started to read Russell Kirk's "the Conservative Mind" and decided I should first become more familiar with Burke's magnum opus, which constitutes the bulk of the foundation (by Kirk's telling) of modern conservative political thought. Burke's reputation as a writer is certainly well-deserved. He is a virtuoso.

Much of the book will be a bit dense for anyone (including me) who is not intimately familiar with the English constitution. Nevertheless, this is a canonical work,...more

like · see review

Dec 29, 2011 BHodges rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Since Burke composed this thing as a letter there are no section or chapter breaks; Burke just keeps going and going and going and going and this has nothing to do, really, with his actual arguments, which, due to their influence on people who influenced people who influence us, still deserve some attention.

like · see review

Aug 19, 2012 Rutger rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

In combining political thought and political activism, Burke is second only to Cicero. Speaking of Cicero, note the contrast between his description of the Roman regime's founding and Burke's historicist account of England's origins (the credit goes to Strauss for this point.)

like · see review

Feb 21, 2013 Zoe rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Brutal. I would love to read Burke's thoughts, if he could organize them. I expect in philosophy, or a speech for thoughts to be coherent and eloquently stated, this was neither. Unreadable.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (48)

More editions...

Genres

History

103 users

Philosophy

87 users

Politics

60 users

Non Fiction

42 users

Classics

24 users

Cultural > France

17 users

European History > French Revolution

10 users

Politics > Political Science

10 users

Literature > 18th Century

8 users

Academic > School

7 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Edmund Burke

Edmund Burke was an Anglo-Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist, and philosopher who served for many years in the British House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. He is mainly remembered for his support of the American colonies in the dispute with King George III and Great Britain that led to the American Revolution and for his strong opposition to the French Revolution. The l...more

More about Edmund Burke...

Books by Edmund Burke

A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful

Two Classics of the French Revolution: Reflections on the Revolution in France & The Rights of Man

A Philosophical Enquiry...and Other Pre-Revolutionary Writings (Penguin Classics)

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Reflections on th...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Reflections on the Rev...

“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” — 38 people liked it

“Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.” — 19 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Reflections on the Revolution in France
avg rating	preview: Reflections on the Revolution in France Goodreads rating: 3.62 (1554 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9728696-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-france?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1301973604l/9728696.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9728696-reflections-on-the-revolution-in-france?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke[/url]

Reflections on the Revolution in France

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website