What do you think?
Rate this book
Select Works of Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
Originally published by Oxford University Press in the 1890s, the famed three-volume Payne edition of Select Works is universally revered by students of English history and political thought. Faithfully reproduced in each volume are E. J. Payne’s notes and introductory essays. Francis Canavan, one of the great Burke scholars of the twentieth century, has added forewords. Volume 2 consists of Burke’s most renowned work, Reflections on the Revolution in France . In it, he excoriates French revolutionary leaders for recklessly destroying France’s venerable institutions and way of life. He attempts not only to explain the events of the new revolution to his readers but also to persuade them that the revolution menaces the civilization of Europe in general and that of Britain in particular. In addition, he articulates a coherent political countertheory that organizes his own beliefs about God, humanity, and society. This is Burke’s most famous work, for over two centuries read, discussed, and pondered by thousands of students and general readers as well as by professional scholars. Francis Canavan (1917–2009) was Professor of Political Science at Fordham University from 1966 until his retirement in 1988.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
501 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 1999
3 people are currently reading
53 people want to read
About the author
Edmund Burke
2,108 books574 followersAfter
A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
, aesthetic treatise of 1757, Edmund Burke, also noted Irish British politician and writer, supported the cause of the American colonists in Parliament but took a more conservative position in his
Reflections on the Revolution in France
in 1790.
Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.
Edmund Burke, an Anglo statesman, author, orator, and theorist, served for many years in the House of Commons as a member of the Whig party. People remember mainly the dispute with George III, great king, and his leadership and strength. The latter made Burke to lead figures, dubbed the "old" faction of the Whig against new Charles James Fox. Burke published a work and attempted to define triggering of emotions and passions in a person. Burke worked and founded the Annual Register, a review. People often regard him as the Anglo founder.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 30, 2025
Review of Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France is a masterpiece of political philosophy and a profound critique of radical change without restraint. Written at the height of the French Revolution, Burke passionately defends tradition, order, and the stability of institutions against the upheaval of revolutionary ideals.
Burke warns that revolutions driven by abstract principles, such as liberty and equality, often lead to chaos, violence, and tyranny. His argument emphasizes that societal change must be rooted in history, gradualism, and respect for inherited wisdom. Rather than dismantling institutions recklessly, Burke argues for preserving the organic continuity of society, as sudden ruptures risk undermining civilization itself.
This work remains relevant today, offering a critique of ideological movements that prioritize idealism over practicality. Burke’s conservative vision is not about stagnation but about measured progress guided by the lessons of the past. His reflections on power, tradition, and human nature are as timeless as they are cautionary.
Key Takeaways:
• Tradition is the foundation of stability. Societies thrive by preserving what works and evolving slowly.
• Abstract ideals, when pursued blindly, often lead to disaster. Stability requires practical governance, not utopian dreams.
• Revolutions driven by emotion and ideology fail to consider the complexities of human nature and governance.
Notable Quotes:
• “The fabric of society is built over centuries, but it can be destroyed in moments by those who understand nothing of its value.”
• “A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.”
• “We owe an inheritance not to the present generation only, but to those who will come after us.”
Final Verdict:
Burke’s Reflections is an essential work for understanding conservatism and the dangers of unchecked revolutionary zeal. It is a reminder that true leadership involves safeguarding the present while honoring the wisdom of the past.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5) – A profound warning against the dangers of radical upheaval.
Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France is a masterpiece of political philosophy and a profound critique of radical change without restraint. Written at the height of the French Revolution, Burke passionately defends tradition, order, and the stability of institutions against the upheaval of revolutionary ideals.
Burke warns that revolutions driven by abstract principles, such as liberty and equality, often lead to chaos, violence, and tyranny. His argument emphasizes that societal change must be rooted in history, gradualism, and respect for inherited wisdom. Rather than dismantling institutions recklessly, Burke argues for preserving the organic continuity of society, as sudden ruptures risk undermining civilization itself.
This work remains relevant today, offering a critique of ideological movements that prioritize idealism over practicality. Burke’s conservative vision is not about stagnation but about measured progress guided by the lessons of the past. His reflections on power, tradition, and human nature are as timeless as they are cautionary.
Key Takeaways:
• Tradition is the foundation of stability. Societies thrive by preserving what works and evolving slowly.
• Abstract ideals, when pursued blindly, often lead to disaster. Stability requires practical governance, not utopian dreams.
• Revolutions driven by emotion and ideology fail to consider the complexities of human nature and governance.
Notable Quotes:
• “The fabric of society is built over centuries, but it can be destroyed in moments by those who understand nothing of its value.”
• “A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.”
• “We owe an inheritance not to the present generation only, but to those who will come after us.”
Final Verdict:
Burke’s Reflections is an essential work for understanding conservatism and the dangers of unchecked revolutionary zeal. It is a reminder that true leadership involves safeguarding the present while honoring the wisdom of the past.
Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (5/5) – A profound warning against the dangers of radical upheaval.
September 20, 2015
Ostensibly a reply to a correspondent in France, and actually occasioned by the sermon of Rev. Richard Price to the Revolution Society, this attack on the French Revolution and the policies of the National Assembly has become one of the paradigmatic texts of modern conservatism. Burke here rejects the Lockian view of the social contract, in which the natural rights of man persist and which can be dissolved by the people when these are violated by the state, for a version in which the contract in establishing civil society replaces those original rights by a more limited set of positive rights, and establishes a contract between "the living, the dead, and the unborn" which can not be dissolved.by any means. He does not deny that the people have a right to resist violations of their rights, but insists that the rights in question are not "human rights" but "civil rights" established by the constitution; that resistance can only be justified by appeal to historical precedents, not to abstract rights, and are limited to preserving or restoring the constitution, not abolishing it and establishing a new and different one. While he admits the possibility of changes to the constitution, he considers that they must be by small increments, which become part of the constitution by "prescription", that is by having lasted long enough to be considered as part of the inherited tradition, and that they cannot affect the basic principles.
Burke begins by disputing Rev. Price's contention that the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which replaced King James II and the Stuart line by William and Mary, represented an "election" or free choice by the people (as represented by Parliament), which established the right of the people to choose their own government; he maintains that rather it was an emergency measure which restored the constitution by declaring the throne to have been abdicated and settled it on the next in line of succession, merely "limiting" it to the Protestant line without essentially changing the principles of the constitution; that in fact the Parliament morally speaking had no choice and could not have either chosen another monarch or abolished the monarchy. He maintains that this was the view of the Parliament at the time, and supports this by quoting from the "Bill of Rights" and the "Act of Succession". Probably he was wrong in this; the documents in question were undoubtedly the result of a compromise and the actors' own private statements seem to be more in line with Rev. Price's understanding.
More importantly, however, the comparison of the French Revolution to the "Glorious Revolution", which both make, Rev. Price considering them similar and Burke contrasting them, was the wrong comparison. The French Revolution was not the equivalent of the "Glorious Revolution", but of the Civil War and the Commonwealth under Cromwell, not a mere political revolution to preserve the constitution but a social revolution which changed the entire class structure of the country. Interestingly, Burke does have some inkling of the class nature of the French Revolution; while Rev. Price talks of "the people" as an abstract and undivided whole, Burke argues that in France the Revolution was a struggle of the "monied interest" against the "landed interest", which it was. However, he confuses the "landed interest" in France, the feudal nobility as a class, with the contemporary British nobility which was since Cromwell no longer a separate class from the bourgeoisie. Thus his analysis of what was actually happening in France was completely mistaken, as was his historical analysis of the history of England. What is important about this book, however, is not the factual mistakes but the ideology it lays down.
The book sets the tone for conservative arguments ever since. Like the present day conservatives, he wraps himself in patriotism and religion; spares no insult in the English language for describing his opponents (not only the French revolutionists, but Rev. Price and the other supporters of the French revolution in England); calls them "traitors" and implies that they hate their own country and its institutions; imagines or invents a vast atheistic conspiracy to destroy religion; glorifies the institutions of the past in both countries and refuses to see even the most glaring abuses as more than minor mistakes, while exaggerating all the faults of the revolutionists; demagogically praises the sound sense of the common people when they reject revolutionary ideas while referring to them as vulgar, uneducated rabble when he comes to consider the role they should play in a government (essentially none); and makes the defense of property the main if not the only purpose of the state and even of civil society itself.
His writing had the more impact because he had credentials as an extremely liberal Whig, having been a supporter of the American colonists (representing the colony of New York in England before the Revolution) and argued in Parliament for reconciliation before the United States declared independence, having been a supporter of the rights of Ireland and India, etc. Although a supporter of reforms of all types, he was "farsighted" enough to understand the danger of a thoroughgoing bourgeois revolution at the time; he warns the French bourgeoisie that their actions and their rhetoric of "the rights of man" would be taken up by the peasantry to refuse to pay rents, and by the colonists in the French colonies against France and the slaves in turn against the colonists -- both of which of course happened. He predicted that the chaos of the Revolution would end in a "popular general" making himself master of the country -- a prediction fulfilled by Napoleon. It should be noted that this was written near the very beginning of the French Revolution; before the execution of the King, long before Robespierre and the "Committee of Public Safety" ; he is attacking the Revolution of 1789, not the Revolution of 1793.
The long introduction by his nineteenth century editor insists that for all its failures of content this is a masterpiece of style (although since he considers Dryden the greatest prose writer in the English language, he's probably not the greatest judge). I have to say that I could not agree; I slogged through it (although problems reading it on my Kindle didn't help). I read it mainly as background to reading Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man which was a reply to it, and which will be my next reading.
Burke begins by disputing Rev. Price's contention that the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, which replaced King James II and the Stuart line by William and Mary, represented an "election" or free choice by the people (as represented by Parliament), which established the right of the people to choose their own government; he maintains that rather it was an emergency measure which restored the constitution by declaring the throne to have been abdicated and settled it on the next in line of succession, merely "limiting" it to the Protestant line without essentially changing the principles of the constitution; that in fact the Parliament morally speaking had no choice and could not have either chosen another monarch or abolished the monarchy. He maintains that this was the view of the Parliament at the time, and supports this by quoting from the "Bill of Rights" and the "Act of Succession". Probably he was wrong in this; the documents in question were undoubtedly the result of a compromise and the actors' own private statements seem to be more in line with Rev. Price's understanding.
More importantly, however, the comparison of the French Revolution to the "Glorious Revolution", which both make, Rev. Price considering them similar and Burke contrasting them, was the wrong comparison. The French Revolution was not the equivalent of the "Glorious Revolution", but of the Civil War and the Commonwealth under Cromwell, not a mere political revolution to preserve the constitution but a social revolution which changed the entire class structure of the country. Interestingly, Burke does have some inkling of the class nature of the French Revolution; while Rev. Price talks of "the people" as an abstract and undivided whole, Burke argues that in France the Revolution was a struggle of the "monied interest" against the "landed interest", which it was. However, he confuses the "landed interest" in France, the feudal nobility as a class, with the contemporary British nobility which was since Cromwell no longer a separate class from the bourgeoisie. Thus his analysis of what was actually happening in France was completely mistaken, as was his historical analysis of the history of England. What is important about this book, however, is not the factual mistakes but the ideology it lays down.
The book sets the tone for conservative arguments ever since. Like the present day conservatives, he wraps himself in patriotism and religion; spares no insult in the English language for describing his opponents (not only the French revolutionists, but Rev. Price and the other supporters of the French revolution in England); calls them "traitors" and implies that they hate their own country and its institutions; imagines or invents a vast atheistic conspiracy to destroy religion; glorifies the institutions of the past in both countries and refuses to see even the most glaring abuses as more than minor mistakes, while exaggerating all the faults of the revolutionists; demagogically praises the sound sense of the common people when they reject revolutionary ideas while referring to them as vulgar, uneducated rabble when he comes to consider the role they should play in a government (essentially none); and makes the defense of property the main if not the only purpose of the state and even of civil society itself.
His writing had the more impact because he had credentials as an extremely liberal Whig, having been a supporter of the American colonists (representing the colony of New York in England before the Revolution) and argued in Parliament for reconciliation before the United States declared independence, having been a supporter of the rights of Ireland and India, etc. Although a supporter of reforms of all types, he was "farsighted" enough to understand the danger of a thoroughgoing bourgeois revolution at the time; he warns the French bourgeoisie that their actions and their rhetoric of "the rights of man" would be taken up by the peasantry to refuse to pay rents, and by the colonists in the French colonies against France and the slaves in turn against the colonists -- both of which of course happened. He predicted that the chaos of the Revolution would end in a "popular general" making himself master of the country -- a prediction fulfilled by Napoleon. It should be noted that this was written near the very beginning of the French Revolution; before the execution of the King, long before Robespierre and the "Committee of Public Safety" ; he is attacking the Revolution of 1789, not the Revolution of 1793.
The long introduction by his nineteenth century editor insists that for all its failures of content this is a masterpiece of style (although since he considers Dryden the greatest prose writer in the English language, he's probably not the greatest judge). I have to say that I could not agree; I slogged through it (although problems reading it on my Kindle didn't help). I read it mainly as background to reading Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man which was a reply to it, and which will be my next reading.
January 31, 2026
oh, edmund burke, you bootlicker!
read a large excerpt for brit lit. burke was a lovely writer, but his works are filled with appeals to pathos and fallacy, appealing to the sensibilities of the english elitist class to abhor the actions (and thus, respectability) of the revolutionaries. it’s not so much the violence i think he has a problem with, though he spends much time coloring in lurid detail for his audience (pathos) — it’s the very idea of the monarchy being overthrown and, oh horror, “human rights” being categorized as the very essence of humanity itself! but, of course, the violation of human rights only applies to queen marie antoinette and louis xvi, and not to the poor, the “swinish multitude”.
he also comments on private charity/religious duty trumping government welfare, contradicts himself in the very idea of supporting the american revolution but not the french, and suggests that representatives should use their judgment over constituent instructions.
it was interesting to see the foundations of conservatism as a school of thought here — burke is known as the father of modern conservatism — but boy, is this self-important. i’m looking forward to reading mary wollstonecraft’s rebuttal next.
read a large excerpt for brit lit. burke was a lovely writer, but his works are filled with appeals to pathos and fallacy, appealing to the sensibilities of the english elitist class to abhor the actions (and thus, respectability) of the revolutionaries. it’s not so much the violence i think he has a problem with, though he spends much time coloring in lurid detail for his audience (pathos) — it’s the very idea of the monarchy being overthrown and, oh horror, “human rights” being categorized as the very essence of humanity itself! but, of course, the violation of human rights only applies to queen marie antoinette and louis xvi, and not to the poor, the “swinish multitude”.
he also comments on private charity/religious duty trumping government welfare, contradicts himself in the very idea of supporting the american revolution but not the french, and suggests that representatives should use their judgment over constituent instructions.
it was interesting to see the foundations of conservatism as a school of thought here — burke is known as the father of modern conservatism — but boy, is this self-important. i’m looking forward to reading mary wollstonecraft’s rebuttal next.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews