What do you think?
Rate this book
The Roots of American Order
In this now classic work, Russell Kirk describes the beliefs and institutions that have nurtured the American soul and commonwealth of the United States.
534 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
136 people are currently reading
1632 people want to read
About the author
Russell Kirk
178 books290 followersFor more than forty years, Russell Kirk was in the thick of the intellectual controversies of his time. He is the author of some thirty-two books, hundreds of periodical essays, and many short stories. Both Time and Newsweek have described him as one of America’s leading thinkers, and The New York Times acknowledged the scale of his influence when in 1998 it wrote that Kirk’s 1953 book The Conservative Mind “gave American conservatives an identity and a genealogy and catalyzed the postwar movement.”
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Dr. Kirk wrote and spoke on modern culture, political thought and practice, educational theory, literary criticism, ethical questions, and social themes. He addressed audiences on hundreds of American campuses and appeared often on television and radio.
He edited the educational quarterly journal The University Bookman and was founder and first editor of the quarterly Modern Age. He contributed articles to numerous serious periodicals on either side of the Atlantic. For a quarter of a century he wrote a page on education for National Review, and for thirteen years published, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Over the years he contributed to more than a hundred serious periodicals in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, and Poland, among them Sewanee Review, Yale Review, Fortune, Humanitas, The Contemporary Review, The Journal of the History of Ideas, World Review, Crisis, History Today, Policy Review, Commonweal, Kenyon Review, The Review of Politics, and The World and I.
He is the only American to hold the highest arts degree (earned) of the senior Scottish university—doctor of letters of St. Andrews. He received his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University and his master’s degree from Duke University. He received honorary doctorates from twelve American universities and colleges.
He was a Guggenheim Fellow, a senior fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Constitutional Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and a Fulbright Lecturer in Scotland. The Christopher Award was conferred upon him for his book Eliot and His Age, and he received the Ann Radcliffe Award of the Count Dracula Society for his Gothic Fiction. The Third World Fantasy Convention gave him its award for best short fiction for his short story, “There’s a Long, Long Trail a-Winding.” In 1984 he received the Weaver Award of the Ingersoll Prizes for his scholarly writing. For several years he was a Distinguished Scholar of the Heritage Foundation. In 1989, President Reagan conferred on him the Presidential Citizens Medal. In 1991, he was awarded the Salvatori Prize for historical writing.
More than a million copies of Kirk’s books have been sold, and several have been translated in German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Korean, and other languages. His second book, The Conservative Mind (1953), is one of the most widely reviewed and discussed studies of political ideas in this century and has gone through seven editions. Seventeen of his books are in print at present, and he has written prefaces to many other books, contributed essays to them, or edited them.
Dr. Kirk debated with such well-known speakers as Norman Thomas, Frank Mankiewicz, Carey McWilliams, John Roche, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Michael Harrington, Max Lerner, Michael Novak, Sidney Lens, William Kunstler, Hubert Humphrey, F. A. Hayek, Karl Hess, Clifford Case, Ayn Rand, Eugene McCarthy, Leonard Weinglass, Louis Lomax, Harold Taylor, Clark Kerr, Saul Alinsky, Staughton Lynd, Malcolm X, Dick Gregory, and Tom Hayden. Several of his public lectures have been broadcast nationally on C-SPAN.
Among Kirk’s literary and scholarly friends were T. S. Eliot, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Donald Davidson, George Scott-Moncrieff, Richard Weaver, Max Picard, Ray Bradbury, Bernard Iddings Bell, Paul Roche, James McAuley, Thomas Howard, Wilhem Roepke, Robert Speaight
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
December 10, 2008
Typically, I am a pretty great reader. I finish books quickly. But if book-reading-records were “broken”, this book did it for me.
It took me three weeks to read this whole book. Now, I have to add that that is at a ploddy speed. I didn't read for hours each day, and sometimes I didn't read at all. Shocking, I know. But for me, even at that speed, three weeks was about two weeks too long. It frustrated me. I needed to know why.
I came up with three potential reasons for why I couldn't seem to read this book any faster: the amazing amount of content squeezed into 500 pages, my ability to concentrate, and the author's sometimes quirky writing style.
This book contained pretty much all of the history of the world to about the year 1800 that effected the founding of the United States. That's a whole lot of information. Scholars can study it for lifetimes and still not get it all. And we're not just talking facts, we're talking movements and theories. The information this book contains is a summary of all the Great Books combined, and more. It is an overwhelming amount of knowledge, and I am somewhat appalled that the author thought he could shove it all into just under 500 pages. It was hard to get through the information because every other sentence was brand new material. You had to pay such close attention to every sentence, every word, every thought. It was the task of a year, not three weeks.
Because the book contained so many in-depth ideas, and because the ideas shifted so rapidly, I found that my attention had to be 110%. I couldn't let my mind wander in the least, lest I lose the train of thought. My poor little ADD brain doesn't really like concentrating that hard, and this book was a strain on my intellectual capacity. I found myself frequently distracted, and having to re-read a section. Worse, I was mostly trying to read in 5-10 minute increments while my kids were distracted. That's how often they generally need my attention lately. So every 5 or 10 minutes, I would have to put my book down, drag my brain out of the world of ideas, and explain why the sky is blue or what nuclear generators are made of. It wasn't fun, and it definitely wasn't conducive to my reading. Finally, at the advice of a friend, I sat down after the kids were in bed one night and found I could actually read giant amounts without distraction. Thanks, Carol, it worked.
The most perplexing reason I found it difficult to really get into the book was the author's occasional forays into a different style of writing. First of all, the author did an amazing job covering such a vast amount of information. Who is this man, that he could understand and then relay that much?!? Wow. But the trouble came when he would randomly break from the “so and so said this, that person believed this” style, and started speaking without reference to someone else's ideas. Whole paragraphs were presented as if it was absolute truth, or at least for the author. This disconcerting tactic left me searching back through the pages to discover who the ideas should be attributed to and what exactly was going on. Did the author forget to tell us who said this? I doubt it. Was the author trying to tell me what I should believe at this moment? It wasn't characteristic. I especially noticed this during the sections on Christianity and Hume. I think it is possible that these were the author's two main points, and he changed the style to make them more obvious. Whatever he meant by this, it ruined my concentration, and made reading the book even more difficult.
One more interesting thing I noticed at the very end of the book. The book is titled, The Roots of American Order. Throughout the book, the “order” was referred to as “the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning.” That's great. The book had an amazing point that I never would have thought of. The author is a genius to have found this pattern running through all known history and to relate it to America. But suddenly, six and a quarter pages from the end, the author says, “The American order, far from being stagnant, still is developing [so far so good, right?]. This word “order” implies membership; an order is something that one belongs to. All American citizens are born into this American order, or else formally naturalized into it.” And so on and so forth for the rest of the book. Suddenly, the author is throwing a completely new form for how we should be assimilating this information, just pages from the end. What am I supposed to do with this? Reread the entire book? I don't think so. Yes, it gives us a delightful new way to look at all he's taught us, but after three grueling weeks, the last thing I want to do is begin over again. So much for order.
It took me three weeks to read this whole book. Now, I have to add that that is at a ploddy speed. I didn't read for hours each day, and sometimes I didn't read at all. Shocking, I know. But for me, even at that speed, three weeks was about two weeks too long. It frustrated me. I needed to know why.
I came up with three potential reasons for why I couldn't seem to read this book any faster: the amazing amount of content squeezed into 500 pages, my ability to concentrate, and the author's sometimes quirky writing style.
This book contained pretty much all of the history of the world to about the year 1800 that effected the founding of the United States. That's a whole lot of information. Scholars can study it for lifetimes and still not get it all. And we're not just talking facts, we're talking movements and theories. The information this book contains is a summary of all the Great Books combined, and more. It is an overwhelming amount of knowledge, and I am somewhat appalled that the author thought he could shove it all into just under 500 pages. It was hard to get through the information because every other sentence was brand new material. You had to pay such close attention to every sentence, every word, every thought. It was the task of a year, not three weeks.
Because the book contained so many in-depth ideas, and because the ideas shifted so rapidly, I found that my attention had to be 110%. I couldn't let my mind wander in the least, lest I lose the train of thought. My poor little ADD brain doesn't really like concentrating that hard, and this book was a strain on my intellectual capacity. I found myself frequently distracted, and having to re-read a section. Worse, I was mostly trying to read in 5-10 minute increments while my kids were distracted. That's how often they generally need my attention lately. So every 5 or 10 minutes, I would have to put my book down, drag my brain out of the world of ideas, and explain why the sky is blue or what nuclear generators are made of. It wasn't fun, and it definitely wasn't conducive to my reading. Finally, at the advice of a friend, I sat down after the kids were in bed one night and found I could actually read giant amounts without distraction. Thanks, Carol, it worked.
The most perplexing reason I found it difficult to really get into the book was the author's occasional forays into a different style of writing. First of all, the author did an amazing job covering such a vast amount of information. Who is this man, that he could understand and then relay that much?!? Wow. But the trouble came when he would randomly break from the “so and so said this, that person believed this” style, and started speaking without reference to someone else's ideas. Whole paragraphs were presented as if it was absolute truth, or at least for the author. This disconcerting tactic left me searching back through the pages to discover who the ideas should be attributed to and what exactly was going on. Did the author forget to tell us who said this? I doubt it. Was the author trying to tell me what I should believe at this moment? It wasn't characteristic. I especially noticed this during the sections on Christianity and Hume. I think it is possible that these were the author's two main points, and he changed the style to make them more obvious. Whatever he meant by this, it ruined my concentration, and made reading the book even more difficult.
One more interesting thing I noticed at the very end of the book. The book is titled, The Roots of American Order. Throughout the book, the “order” was referred to as “the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning.” That's great. The book had an amazing point that I never would have thought of. The author is a genius to have found this pattern running through all known history and to relate it to America. But suddenly, six and a quarter pages from the end, the author says, “The American order, far from being stagnant, still is developing [so far so good, right?]. This word “order” implies membership; an order is something that one belongs to. All American citizens are born into this American order, or else formally naturalized into it.” And so on and so forth for the rest of the book. Suddenly, the author is throwing a completely new form for how we should be assimilating this information, just pages from the end. What am I supposed to do with this? Reread the entire book? I don't think so. Yes, it gives us a delightful new way to look at all he's taught us, but after three grueling weeks, the last thing I want to do is begin over again. So much for order.
October 30, 2017
So informative; Kirk writes of how we happened as a nation to develop our form of government. Our morals were from Jerusalem (Old Testament) some philosophy from Rome and Greece and a lot of common law and ideals from London. There were many short biographies of people I had always heard of, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, and many others. We detected a small bias towards Catholicism and against Protestants. But I have forgiven him! Overall an excellent book with some chapters I shall have to reread to retain them in my feeble memory.
March 23, 2011
I read this book a long time ago and forgot to include it in my list. I include it now because it so contradicts "Objectivism". Highly recommend for insight into axiomatic systems. Thinking about it later I realized that the 10 commandments were the first axiomatic system for guiding populations of people and has stood the test of time. Objectivism will be popular for a while but it's a flash in the pan.
Amazon review:
Russell Kirk was perhaps the most distinguished American conservative writer of the twentieth century. His life's pursuit was the question of order: how can society maintain the balance between freedom and license, community and individual. In later works, Kirk turned to the question of how modern society can retain an allegiance to the permanent things in the face of decay.
THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN ORDER is a massive study that is in many respects the culmination of Kirk's life's work. Tracing the concept of order from ancient times to nineteenth century America, Kirk highlights those thinkers and ages have provided the United States with her institutions. Starting with the ancient Israelites and ending with Orestes Brownson (the American Burke who, like Kirk, was a convert to Catholicism) Kirk distills the influence of each on American life. In a sense there are four cities that influenced America: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London.
Kirk even claims some for the American cause that you might not suspect have a role in a conservative history of culture. Kirk rescues Hume from the caricature of the great skeptic. Instead, Hume is the moderate skeptic who demolished the rationalist pretenses of the philosophes. Kirk argues that the founders (including Jefferson) were fundamentally conservative; practical men seeking to preserve the heritage of English culture and institutions rather than create a system of government from scratch like the French revolutionaries.
This book isn't perfect. I have it on good authority that Kirk was in error in describing the levelers of Cromwell's time as egalitarians. There are some organizational problems as well, such as the section on the Crusades. How that episode of history was a factor in America's order isn't exactly made clear.
Russell Kirk is an important thinker who has certainly not been given his due, particularly by the contemporary conservative movement. Too much interested in the permanent things, Kirk's genteel writings are out of place in the "take no prisoners" world of contemporary conservative journalism. However, there are some signs of a revival of interest in Kirk's thought, most recently by Wes McDonald's recent study. A more basic statement of his creed can be found in his work THE AMERICAN CAUSE.
Amazon review:
Russell Kirk was perhaps the most distinguished American conservative writer of the twentieth century. His life's pursuit was the question of order: how can society maintain the balance between freedom and license, community and individual. In later works, Kirk turned to the question of how modern society can retain an allegiance to the permanent things in the face of decay.
THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN ORDER is a massive study that is in many respects the culmination of Kirk's life's work. Tracing the concept of order from ancient times to nineteenth century America, Kirk highlights those thinkers and ages have provided the United States with her institutions. Starting with the ancient Israelites and ending with Orestes Brownson (the American Burke who, like Kirk, was a convert to Catholicism) Kirk distills the influence of each on American life. In a sense there are four cities that influenced America: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London.
Kirk even claims some for the American cause that you might not suspect have a role in a conservative history of culture. Kirk rescues Hume from the caricature of the great skeptic. Instead, Hume is the moderate skeptic who demolished the rationalist pretenses of the philosophes. Kirk argues that the founders (including Jefferson) were fundamentally conservative; practical men seeking to preserve the heritage of English culture and institutions rather than create a system of government from scratch like the French revolutionaries.
This book isn't perfect. I have it on good authority that Kirk was in error in describing the levelers of Cromwell's time as egalitarians. There are some organizational problems as well, such as the section on the Crusades. How that episode of history was a factor in America's order isn't exactly made clear.
Russell Kirk is an important thinker who has certainly not been given his due, particularly by the contemporary conservative movement. Too much interested in the permanent things, Kirk's genteel writings are out of place in the "take no prisoners" world of contemporary conservative journalism. However, there are some signs of a revival of interest in Kirk's thought, most recently by Wes McDonald's recent study. A more basic statement of his creed can be found in his work THE AMERICAN CAUSE.
March 8, 2025
Kirk does a wonderful job of tracing the various religious, philosophical and historical influences that shaped American order, both moral and social. I particularly enjoyed the biographical sketches of men like Solon, Hooker, Burke and Lincoln whose strove to uphold order in their lifetimes. This is a book I want my kids to read at some point during their high school years.
January 18, 2021
An excellent book for 2021. Kirk gives us a tour through the ages and answers the question, “How is it that America has endured for so long?” It is easy to take order for granted until you start to lose it. Now more than ever, “we need to renew our understanding of the beliefs and the laws which give form to American society.” Here are the my main takeaways:
Chapter 1: Order. There are three essentials for healthy political community: order, justice, and freedom. Order is the “first need”, justice comes from order, and freedom can only be maintained alongside order and justice. Order is both internal and external, individual and political. Individually, “[o]rder is the first need of the soul. It is not possible to love what you ought to love, unless we recognize some principles of order by which to govern ourselves.” Politically, “[o]rder is the first need of the commonwealth. It is not possible for us to live with one another, unless we recognize some principle of order by which to do justice.”
Chapter 2: The Hebrews. Order is always religious; social order is alway based on a moral order. The Israelites were the first nation to establish a lasting order, which was based on three truths: (1) “there exists but one God, Jehovah”; (2) “That God had made a covenant or compact with His people”; (3) “that He had decreed laws by which they should live.” The Ten Commandments and the laws given to Israel at Mount Sinai remain the bedrock of law and order for any nation. “This, then, is the high contribution of Israel to modern social order: the understanding that all true law comes from God, and that God is the source of order and justice.”
Chapter 3: The Greeks. Plato and Socrates each held different philosophies of life, but they both, along with their fellow Greeks, contended for: “keeping alive some understanding of order and justice and freedom; reminding some men that there endures a realm of ideas more real than the realms of appetites; affirming that the unexamined life is not worth living; insisting that if men’s souls are disordered, society becomes no better than a cave or a dust-storm.”
Chapter 4: The Romans. The Romans were preeminently committed to the rule of law and to strong social institutions. There society was built on piety, which “lay at the heart of Roman culture”, and honor, and it was likewise undone by the decay of these qualities. Virgil’s three great Roman ideals highlighted these traits: labor (a view of the goodness of work), piety (humility before the gods, love for one’s country, and a sense of duty to fellow men), and fatum (an appreciation of Rome’s destiny and mission), each of which waxed and waned alongside the Roman Empire itself. The Romans also produced Cicero, the “spokesman for ordered liberty.” Cicero trumpeted the natural law as the foundation for any legal system. Cicero viewed natural law as the foundation of any just society. “True law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People . . . And there is . . . one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one rule, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
Chapter 5: Christ and the Church. Christ was born into the declining Roman world; light dawned in the darkness. The gospel is first and foremost directed at the inner order of man’s soul. It “invites man to become once more a creature of God. Unless we accept Christ as our Redeemer, Paul cries, we are isolated, lost, slaves to time and flesh.” It is a message that restores man to his true place in the world, both individually and, by extension, politically. Augustine, one of the church’s first great political theologians affirmed that salvation is only found in the heavenly city, not the earthly one. But, even still, the earthly city is necessary for our present life. “How do we live in this world, then? We endure, trusting in God, and hoping to attain beyond time and death to the City of God. . . We exist here as pilgrims, travelers, knowing that beyond our present weariness and danger is an eternal destination. And we are not lost here upon the earth: for God’s providence governs all things. It is as if we were put into an arena to do battle for the truth.” This moral order then “works upon the political order.”
Chapter 6: Medieval Europe. Kirk summarizes this section nicely: “Knowledge of medieval England and Scotland is essential to a decent understanding of American order. During those nine hundred years between the coming of Saint Augustine of Canterbury and the triumph of Renaissance and Reformation at the beginning of the sixteenth century, there developed in Britain the general system of law that we inherit; the essentials of representative government; the very language that we speak and the early greatness of English literature; the social patterns that still affect American society; rudimentary industry and commerce that remain basic to our modern economy; the schools and universities which were emulated in America; the Northern and English Gothic architecture that are part of our material inheritance; and the idea of a gentleman that still may be discerned in the American democracy.”
Chapter 7:The Reformation. With the Renaissance came a new “humanism” which highlighted the splendor of man, making man the measure of all things, which brought the necessary critique from Christian scholars such as Pico Della Mirandola, Erasmus, and Thomas More, who emphasized the dignity of man as made in the image of God whose goodness cannot be explained apart from God’s nature. And with the Reformation came a renewed emphasis on Biblical revelation as the source of order and norms. Men such as John Calvin, John Knox, and Richard Hooker developed political views compatible with the sovereignty of God over all of life, and these views were seeds that would change the political structure of the Western world, emphasizing limited government based on human sinfulness, a convenatal/federal framework for government, separation of powers, and religious liberty.
Chapter 8: Church and State in England. England’s turbulent seventeenth century, marked by civil war and religious strife, produced more clarity on the relations between church and state. During those times, national church establishments changed often and brought great persecution to the side not in the king or queen’s favor. But from these hard times, there developed “much of the constitutional pattern and the religious toleration that America knows today.” Essential to this pattern was the transfer of power from the Crown to Parliament, the English Bill of Rights and the religious toleration that developed around a broad consensus of the moral order founded on Christianity.
Chapter 9: Colonial America. As the American colonies developed, a few qualities guided their success. First, their rose to prominence a “colonial aritstocracy,” modeled after the English gentleman which guided public affairs. These were the men who filled the State legislatures, drafted State Constitutions, and signed the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. These were the “founding fathers.” Second, each town and county through the colonies had strong representative assemblies that shouldered the governing responsibilities on behalf of their communities. Third, religion was diffused throughout the colonies so that America was made up almost entirely of Christians, albeit with much diversity of forms (Scottish Presbyterians, English Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Anglicans). Religious liberty would always be based in this context: much diversity within a common moral framework (Christianity). So, while Deism and other views certainly existed at the time, the popular base was built on biblical Christianity.
Chapter 10: The Eighteenth Century. The Enlightenment and triumph of Reason was very influential in Europe but less so in America. Kirk argues that though some of the leading figures were persuaded by the French philosophes, most the Americans did not base their opinions on the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Men such as Montesquieu, David Hume, William Blackstone, and Edmund Burke were much more influential. Kirk discusses each of these writers and their unique contributions: separation of power and checks and balances (Montesquieu), opposition to rationalism and fanaticism (Hume), adoption of the common law and a unified legal system (Blackstone), prudence and prescription (Burke).
Chapter 11: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The American revolution was distinct from the French Revolution in that it was based on an affirmation of rights the Americans already possessed, which they felt that England had transgressed. The Patriots wanted to keep the chartered rights of Englishmen, and to preserve their distinct community “from arbitrary political change” imposed by the far-off English king. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution show the Americans desired to maintain a certain order, appealing to this order and to natural law, rather than start afresh. Kirk discusses here key phrases of the Declaration of Independence as well as the main principles undergirding the Constitution.
Chapter 12: Contending Against Disorder. Kirk ends on an optimistic note. Though we have seen the decay of our social order in many respects—and certainly the present time has grown worse since Kirk’s death—America has persevered nonetheless. Order is dynamic and can grow or shrink over time. “Active participation in this order is both a right and an obligation, and whether this order improves or decays must depend upon the quality of that participation.” Because of this, it’s important for Americans to understand “these thick roots of moral and social order” so that they can be watered, as they must, from time to time.
Chapter 1: Order. There are three essentials for healthy political community: order, justice, and freedom. Order is the “first need”, justice comes from order, and freedom can only be maintained alongside order and justice. Order is both internal and external, individual and political. Individually, “[o]rder is the first need of the soul. It is not possible to love what you ought to love, unless we recognize some principles of order by which to govern ourselves.” Politically, “[o]rder is the first need of the commonwealth. It is not possible for us to live with one another, unless we recognize some principle of order by which to do justice.”
Chapter 2: The Hebrews. Order is always religious; social order is alway based on a moral order. The Israelites were the first nation to establish a lasting order, which was based on three truths: (1) “there exists but one God, Jehovah”; (2) “That God had made a covenant or compact with His people”; (3) “that He had decreed laws by which they should live.” The Ten Commandments and the laws given to Israel at Mount Sinai remain the bedrock of law and order for any nation. “This, then, is the high contribution of Israel to modern social order: the understanding that all true law comes from God, and that God is the source of order and justice.”
Chapter 3: The Greeks. Plato and Socrates each held different philosophies of life, but they both, along with their fellow Greeks, contended for: “keeping alive some understanding of order and justice and freedom; reminding some men that there endures a realm of ideas more real than the realms of appetites; affirming that the unexamined life is not worth living; insisting that if men’s souls are disordered, society becomes no better than a cave or a dust-storm.”
Chapter 4: The Romans. The Romans were preeminently committed to the rule of law and to strong social institutions. There society was built on piety, which “lay at the heart of Roman culture”, and honor, and it was likewise undone by the decay of these qualities. Virgil’s three great Roman ideals highlighted these traits: labor (a view of the goodness of work), piety (humility before the gods, love for one’s country, and a sense of duty to fellow men), and fatum (an appreciation of Rome’s destiny and mission), each of which waxed and waned alongside the Roman Empire itself. The Romans also produced Cicero, the “spokesman for ordered liberty.” Cicero trumpeted the natural law as the foundation for any legal system. Cicero viewed natural law as the foundation of any just society. “True law is right reason in agreement with Nature, it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People . . . And there is . . . one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one rule, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.”
Chapter 5: Christ and the Church. Christ was born into the declining Roman world; light dawned in the darkness. The gospel is first and foremost directed at the inner order of man’s soul. It “invites man to become once more a creature of God. Unless we accept Christ as our Redeemer, Paul cries, we are isolated, lost, slaves to time and flesh.” It is a message that restores man to his true place in the world, both individually and, by extension, politically. Augustine, one of the church’s first great political theologians affirmed that salvation is only found in the heavenly city, not the earthly one. But, even still, the earthly city is necessary for our present life. “How do we live in this world, then? We endure, trusting in God, and hoping to attain beyond time and death to the City of God. . . We exist here as pilgrims, travelers, knowing that beyond our present weariness and danger is an eternal destination. And we are not lost here upon the earth: for God’s providence governs all things. It is as if we were put into an arena to do battle for the truth.” This moral order then “works upon the political order.”
Chapter 6: Medieval Europe. Kirk summarizes this section nicely: “Knowledge of medieval England and Scotland is essential to a decent understanding of American order. During those nine hundred years between the coming of Saint Augustine of Canterbury and the triumph of Renaissance and Reformation at the beginning of the sixteenth century, there developed in Britain the general system of law that we inherit; the essentials of representative government; the very language that we speak and the early greatness of English literature; the social patterns that still affect American society; rudimentary industry and commerce that remain basic to our modern economy; the schools and universities which were emulated in America; the Northern and English Gothic architecture that are part of our material inheritance; and the idea of a gentleman that still may be discerned in the American democracy.”
Chapter 7:The Reformation. With the Renaissance came a new “humanism” which highlighted the splendor of man, making man the measure of all things, which brought the necessary critique from Christian scholars such as Pico Della Mirandola, Erasmus, and Thomas More, who emphasized the dignity of man as made in the image of God whose goodness cannot be explained apart from God’s nature. And with the Reformation came a renewed emphasis on Biblical revelation as the source of order and norms. Men such as John Calvin, John Knox, and Richard Hooker developed political views compatible with the sovereignty of God over all of life, and these views were seeds that would change the political structure of the Western world, emphasizing limited government based on human sinfulness, a convenatal/federal framework for government, separation of powers, and religious liberty.
Chapter 8: Church and State in England. England’s turbulent seventeenth century, marked by civil war and religious strife, produced more clarity on the relations between church and state. During those times, national church establishments changed often and brought great persecution to the side not in the king or queen’s favor. But from these hard times, there developed “much of the constitutional pattern and the religious toleration that America knows today.” Essential to this pattern was the transfer of power from the Crown to Parliament, the English Bill of Rights and the religious toleration that developed around a broad consensus of the moral order founded on Christianity.
Chapter 9: Colonial America. As the American colonies developed, a few qualities guided their success. First, their rose to prominence a “colonial aritstocracy,” modeled after the English gentleman which guided public affairs. These were the men who filled the State legislatures, drafted State Constitutions, and signed the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. These were the “founding fathers.” Second, each town and county through the colonies had strong representative assemblies that shouldered the governing responsibilities on behalf of their communities. Third, religion was diffused throughout the colonies so that America was made up almost entirely of Christians, albeit with much diversity of forms (Scottish Presbyterians, English Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Anglicans). Religious liberty would always be based in this context: much diversity within a common moral framework (Christianity). So, while Deism and other views certainly existed at the time, the popular base was built on biblical Christianity.
Chapter 10: The Eighteenth Century. The Enlightenment and triumph of Reason was very influential in Europe but less so in America. Kirk argues that though some of the leading figures were persuaded by the French philosophes, most the Americans did not base their opinions on the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Men such as Montesquieu, David Hume, William Blackstone, and Edmund Burke were much more influential. Kirk discusses each of these writers and their unique contributions: separation of power and checks and balances (Montesquieu), opposition to rationalism and fanaticism (Hume), adoption of the common law and a unified legal system (Blackstone), prudence and prescription (Burke).
Chapter 11: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. The American revolution was distinct from the French Revolution in that it was based on an affirmation of rights the Americans already possessed, which they felt that England had transgressed. The Patriots wanted to keep the chartered rights of Englishmen, and to preserve their distinct community “from arbitrary political change” imposed by the far-off English king. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution show the Americans desired to maintain a certain order, appealing to this order and to natural law, rather than start afresh. Kirk discusses here key phrases of the Declaration of Independence as well as the main principles undergirding the Constitution.
Chapter 12: Contending Against Disorder. Kirk ends on an optimistic note. Though we have seen the decay of our social order in many respects—and certainly the present time has grown worse since Kirk’s death—America has persevered nonetheless. Order is dynamic and can grow or shrink over time. “Active participation in this order is both a right and an obligation, and whether this order improves or decays must depend upon the quality of that participation.” Because of this, it’s important for Americans to understand “these thick roots of moral and social order” so that they can be watered, as they must, from time to time.
June 13, 2022
Here's my bad review of The Roots of American Order: this is just Russell Kirk showing off. I'm joking, but I'm kind of not, because what Kirk accomplishes in the book is astounding: the weaving together of a story of Western Civilization that culminates in the distinct order that America has enjoyed. This is not to say that America is the culmination of Western Civilization - Kirk certainly wouldn't say that - merely that the story Kirk tells is the way that Western Civilization affected the development of American order.
Despite this very particular application, this book makes a good general history of Western Civilization, beginning with Old Testament Israel, passing through Greece and Rome, touching on the rise of Christianity and the misunderstood medieval period, on into the Reformation and the Enlightenment. All of this history is connected to the specific ways that Americans understood it, but that application isn't necessary in order to benefit from the telling of the history itself. The last few chapters are more explicitly about America, and which will probably seem more familiar to readers, though even here Kirk raises interesting and neglected points.
Kirk wrote this book at the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence, when the nation was troubled. But Kirk was able to write at the time that "the American order, far from being stagnant, still is developing." He held out hope that American order would be renewed and applied to the country's changed circumstances. Would Kirk be able to say the same thing now, another 50 years on? It is, of course, impossible to say, but for those hopeful for that prospect, The Roots of American Order is both informational and inspirational reading.
Despite this very particular application, this book makes a good general history of Western Civilization, beginning with Old Testament Israel, passing through Greece and Rome, touching on the rise of Christianity and the misunderstood medieval period, on into the Reformation and the Enlightenment. All of this history is connected to the specific ways that Americans understood it, but that application isn't necessary in order to benefit from the telling of the history itself. The last few chapters are more explicitly about America, and which will probably seem more familiar to readers, though even here Kirk raises interesting and neglected points.
Kirk wrote this book at the bicentennial of the Declaration of Independence, when the nation was troubled. But Kirk was able to write at the time that "the American order, far from being stagnant, still is developing." He held out hope that American order would be renewed and applied to the country's changed circumstances. Would Kirk be able to say the same thing now, another 50 years on? It is, of course, impossible to say, but for those hopeful for that prospect, The Roots of American Order is both informational and inspirational reading.
May 16, 2022
Many people in the West tend to take it for granted that some sort of order is at work in the world. So observes Russell Kirk, noting that "they assume, however vaguely, that certain principles of justice exist, and that life has purpose of some sort." In 1974 he penned "The Roots of American Order" to remind us that despite the seeming cacophony of modern times, there exists an order which has traditionally anchored the nation and given it stability. His work is timely, as rising disorder suggests that our culture, in its haste to adapt to a changing world, is hacking unwittingly at these very roots.
Kirk traces out the development of order which gradually matured through the successes and failures of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London respectively. When America came on the scene, because of this heritage she could set for herself a noble, unprecedented goal. Kirk cites nineteenth-century American thinker Orestes Brownson, who wrote that every nation has an task given it by Providence to realize; for the American Republic that destiny was to reconcile liberty with law.
A recurring theme in Kirk's historical overview is the role religion has played in the development of order. He observes that "in the twentieth century, many people do not find it easy to understand how all aspects of a culture grow out of the cult - out of common religious convictions. Yet the Hebrew and Greek and Roman civilizations all had arisen from the soil of religion; and when the power of the cult had declined, those cultures had begun to decay." This is because religion that fails to provide an overarching metanarrative does not produce a culture that will truly bind a people together and give it coherence. Since the Greek deities were little more than official gods, "they did not speak to private conscience ... or clearly declare a norm for what men and women ought to be." Thus "the failure of the Greeks to find an enduring popular religious sanction for the order of their civilization had been a main cause of the collapse of the world of the polis."
The modern notion that America was founded to be a secular nation, where reason may be invoked but not revelation, puts at risk the whole enterprise of reconciling liberty with law. The deism of some of the founders, and the silence in the Constitution regarding the naming of God, are given as supporting evidence of this absolute separation of church and state (more accurately, of God and state). Kirk argues, however, that "the Constitution was and is purely an instrument for practical government - not a philosophical disquisition," and that "the framers of the Constitution took it for granted that a moral order, founded upon religious beliefs, supports and parallels the political order."
Ravi Zacharias, in his book "Deliver Us From Evil", extends this argument and presses the point that, putting aside the question of the orthodoxy of the founding fathers, it is clear that the fundamental precepts by which they wanted to govern, which made the task of reconciling liberty with law even intelligible, could only have been possible within a biblical framework. Only within this context, where law finds its ultimate origin in a God who loves us, can law move beyond external compulsion and work in the hearts of men. For law to truly bind a people together, there must be an inner desire to keep the law because it is good. Otherwise laws become little more than a random set of rules, and have to be multiplied endlessly. And liberty, if it also has no objective point of reference, moves from being a freedom to do what you ought, to license to do whatever you want. The only way to restrain that kind of liberty, if it is to be restrained at all, is through compulsion. What we see today, then, is that "the imprints of Athens, Rome, and London are still upon us. But the all-important endowment of Jerusalem has been tossed to the winds."
To re-embrace the legacy of Jerusalem is not to invite theocracy, for such was never the design or the outcome in early America. It is, rather, to acknowledge that Jerusalem has in fact taught us some truths about the human condition and the purpose of our existence. The modern dogma of secularism, which denies the reality of anything transcendent, is wrongheaded. A pluralistic culture means that yes, in America there is more disagreement about ultimate questions than there used to be, but to ignore those questions is not a solution. We ought to glean what is good and true from other cultures and add to the inheritance already passed down to us. Then we might realize that some of the answers to the perplexing questions that have been eluding us these past few decades, have been closer to us than we thought.
Order is organic; that which was inherited by the new American republic was the product of care, cultivation, and time. It is recklessness to quickly and radically reshape it, and still expect a just and free society. To engage the immense privilege of reconciling liberty with law we must recognize the roots of American order that have even made that task possible. Kirk's survey of history leads him to the conclusion that "to live within a just order is to live within a pattern that has beauty. The individual finds purpose within an order, and security - whether it is the order of the soul of the order of the community."
Kirk traces out the development of order which gradually matured through the successes and failures of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London respectively. When America came on the scene, because of this heritage she could set for herself a noble, unprecedented goal. Kirk cites nineteenth-century American thinker Orestes Brownson, who wrote that every nation has an task given it by Providence to realize; for the American Republic that destiny was to reconcile liberty with law.
A recurring theme in Kirk's historical overview is the role religion has played in the development of order. He observes that "in the twentieth century, many people do not find it easy to understand how all aspects of a culture grow out of the cult - out of common religious convictions. Yet the Hebrew and Greek and Roman civilizations all had arisen from the soil of religion; and when the power of the cult had declined, those cultures had begun to decay." This is because religion that fails to provide an overarching metanarrative does not produce a culture that will truly bind a people together and give it coherence. Since the Greek deities were little more than official gods, "they did not speak to private conscience ... or clearly declare a norm for what men and women ought to be." Thus "the failure of the Greeks to find an enduring popular religious sanction for the order of their civilization had been a main cause of the collapse of the world of the polis."
The modern notion that America was founded to be a secular nation, where reason may be invoked but not revelation, puts at risk the whole enterprise of reconciling liberty with law. The deism of some of the founders, and the silence in the Constitution regarding the naming of God, are given as supporting evidence of this absolute separation of church and state (more accurately, of God and state). Kirk argues, however, that "the Constitution was and is purely an instrument for practical government - not a philosophical disquisition," and that "the framers of the Constitution took it for granted that a moral order, founded upon religious beliefs, supports and parallels the political order."
Ravi Zacharias, in his book "Deliver Us From Evil", extends this argument and presses the point that, putting aside the question of the orthodoxy of the founding fathers, it is clear that the fundamental precepts by which they wanted to govern, which made the task of reconciling liberty with law even intelligible, could only have been possible within a biblical framework. Only within this context, where law finds its ultimate origin in a God who loves us, can law move beyond external compulsion and work in the hearts of men. For law to truly bind a people together, there must be an inner desire to keep the law because it is good. Otherwise laws become little more than a random set of rules, and have to be multiplied endlessly. And liberty, if it also has no objective point of reference, moves from being a freedom to do what you ought, to license to do whatever you want. The only way to restrain that kind of liberty, if it is to be restrained at all, is through compulsion. What we see today, then, is that "the imprints of Athens, Rome, and London are still upon us. But the all-important endowment of Jerusalem has been tossed to the winds."
To re-embrace the legacy of Jerusalem is not to invite theocracy, for such was never the design or the outcome in early America. It is, rather, to acknowledge that Jerusalem has in fact taught us some truths about the human condition and the purpose of our existence. The modern dogma of secularism, which denies the reality of anything transcendent, is wrongheaded. A pluralistic culture means that yes, in America there is more disagreement about ultimate questions than there used to be, but to ignore those questions is not a solution. We ought to glean what is good and true from other cultures and add to the inheritance already passed down to us. Then we might realize that some of the answers to the perplexing questions that have been eluding us these past few decades, have been closer to us than we thought.
Order is organic; that which was inherited by the new American republic was the product of care, cultivation, and time. It is recklessness to quickly and radically reshape it, and still expect a just and free society. To engage the immense privilege of reconciling liberty with law we must recognize the roots of American order that have even made that task possible. Kirk's survey of history leads him to the conclusion that "to live within a just order is to live within a pattern that has beauty. The individual finds purpose within an order, and security - whether it is the order of the soul of the order of the community."
May 8, 2025
Very good!
March 16, 2015
A sweeping examination of the meaning of America, as viewed through its beliefs and institutions. Not everyone will agree with his take, but it certainly resonated with me. A particularly insightful book for those of us who live at the crossroads of faith and politics. May be useful to non-Americans who aspire to the "idea of America" which never seems to be quite fully realized yet worth pursuing anyway.
August 24, 2025
Another dense nonfiction read for me, but very worth it! I found I enjoyed the earlier parts more than later parts, especially the contrast between Judeo history and Greek/Roman history that America inherited, creating a rather odd mix we still live in today.
August 15, 2022
I learned a lot from this book, especially in its sections on the ideas of the Founders. For example, I had assumed they were all anti-established religion, and that is simply not the case. On the other hand, although they were certainly informative, many of the sections on English history were too dense and long-winded. I was also shocked that Kirk did not engage with FDR’s presidency or the details of Lincoln’s tenure—both of these men exercised emergency powers in a manner that directly contravened the ordinary Constitutional order. It would have been helpful for Kirk to analyze this subject considering his defense of the sufficiency of the ordinary Constitutional order and his repudiation of extreme political measures.
May 3, 2022
在每个人心中，秩序都有一种景象，而当每个人所想的秩序不一样时，这个世界就无所谓���序，没有秩序的世界会陷入恐惧、饥荒、杀戮、战争，直至重新建立起秩序。回看几千年的人类文明史，大范围、甚至全面无序或失序的状况时期远超有序的年代，可能人类世界还不如动物世界来得有序，所不同的是人类一直在寻找更佳的秩序。本书就是柯克为建立200年的美国总结的秩序根基。读来让人深深感到，美国的先贤和政治家们在为美国选择道路时那种对宗教、历史的敬畏，对传统、世俗的尊重、对现实和差别的包容。这些构成了美国秩序的根基，不是最完美的，但无疑是相对优势的。
美国的秩序是长出来的，而其根就是柯克在本书中提到的四个城市：耶路撒冷、古雅典、古罗马和伦敦，它们分别为美国提供了基督教、民主、共和和法制方面的参考。进一步来说基督教为人类规范了最基本的伦理道德，摩西十戒多么的简洁，但却明晰了家庭和社会关系，直指人类最邪恶的自私贪婪的欲望，而这是阻止人类相互杀戳，甘愿合作的起点。到了耶酥时代加诸了更严的诫命，加上圣人们的不断传播，基督教影响力越来越广大，生命力也异常顽强。而其他神祇，像亚述、腓尼基、埃及、甚至希腊的，向人类传递的或是贪婪可怖、怪里怪气，或��荒诞不经、反复无常。唯有耶和华神是向人传递道理的，定下了圣约解决人类的核心问题，即如何面对自己的软弱和冲动。而认为人会思考，运用理性可以解决问题只是一种善良的愿望而已。
希腊的民主政治对美国人来说提供的参考是负面的教训，不象它在哲学和艺术方面的成就令人瞩目。众多神祇的希腊有着更多自负傲慢的人，他们对权力有着赤裸裸的贪恋，这是希腊秩序频繁混乱的根源。后来梭伦改革了宪法，突出了审慎的原则，可惜后来又被抛弃，在那里个人不受约束的顽疾最后还是葬送了希腊。关于柏拉图、亚里士多德的哲学思想，实际上对美国的直接影响也并不大，不过当这些思想融入基督教教义体系后，影响则无处不在。象柏拉图的正义观，强调每个人都应该履行自己的职责，并获得合符其本性的报偿，即“各得其所”，就深深影响了美国早期的领袖。而亚里士多德的政体观，分析了不同政体形式：君主制、贵族制和共和制，治理形式又有民主制、寡头制和独裁制，而所组成的政府模式中真正发挥作用的是中产阶级，这一点也为美国今天的政府模式所认可。
古罗马从共和走向帝国，贯穿始终的是公民生活，家庭将整个社会凝聚起来，而持续给予保证的就是罗马法。对比起希腊人来说，罗马人更注重实用，于是才有了罗马治下的和平。西塞罗关于有秩序的自由的理论受到美国人的重视，“真正的法律是与自然相和谐的不偏不倚的理性，它具有普遍的适用性，永远存续，不会改变”。罗马法就是这样一套自然法体系，它超越了政治国家的权威，其规则被认为是源自神圣的律令，源自人性，或者源自人类长期的共同体经验。这也是罗马法寿命超越罗马政体的原因，事实上后来的英国普通法，也是完全理解了这一要义。罗马到帝国时代，公民的权利已开始受到侵蚀，到戴克里先时代，骑士阶级，或可称为中产阶层已荡然无存。好在有奥古斯都、五贤帝，特别是奥勒留这样的皇帝，还有像诗人维吉尔、政治家塞内卡、哲学家爱比克泰徳等杰出人物的坚持不懈，垂死的罗马文化得以坚守，开始接受基督教的教导，并最后将基督教在罗马世界扩展开来。
关于伦敦的影响，可以说英国中世纪的文明遗产悉数为新生的美国所继承。比如法律体系强调法律具有至高无上的地位，王在法下；其普通法的法律体系是建立在习俗和先例的基础之上，为美国后来的成文法律体系的建立起到不可替代的作用。
象代议制政府的核心要素也为美国所继承，这一制度始于英国的大宪章运动，核心就是削弱国王的权力，通过议会的辩论达成立法和行政决策，几百年的运行，伴随着英国的强盛这一宪制体系的作用不可忽视。
另外象英语语言、早期的英国文学、社会规范、作为现代经济基石的基础性产业和商业、大学、诺曼风格和英格兰哥特风格的建筑，还有绅士的观念等都从英国继承而来。而象最重要的信仰和理性都源自英国的圣公会、长老会和清教徒神学家们。事实上始于中世纪的英国改教过程全面且彻底，重建的宗教秩序大多延续至今。英国最早脱离罗马教庭，所有信徒皆祭司的思想深入人心，成就了新教世界。教徒们不信权威，强调个人主义，并逐渐影响到政治领域，成为民主体制的先导，这期间英国也涌现了一批哲学家、神学家，他们的思想对美国秩序的建构起到了无可替代的作用，像神学家、圣公会创始人理查德·胡克，哲学家托马斯 · 霍布斯，医生及哲学家托马斯 · 布朗爵士，作家约翰 · 班扬，政治哲学家约翰 · 洛克等，他们代表着其中的很多侧面。而其指向几乎都是宗教上的宽容和政治上的个人自由。
美国在被殖民初期，是相当贫弱的，当然也未引起英国的重视，不过放任的状态恰发展出了殖民地的自主意识，而且在建国前的100多年中，这里是世界上较为和平和安全的地区，并且还神奇般地培养出了美国的一代绅士，他们是种植园主、商人、神职人员或律师，但更重要的是他们身上凝聚了大量的美徳，他们重视荣誉、勇敢顽强、尽忠职守、有善心、讲求实际，他们是心系公共利益的上帝管家，这些人最后成了美国建国的先锋。
在美国建国前夕，欧洲正兴起启蒙运动，期望纯粹理性能够迅速改造文明，然而这场运动对美国的影响却不大，原因很简单，美国人非常讲究实际，常常怀疑抽象的东西，也少有人关注形而上的问题。这一时期对美国人产生过最强烈的直接影响的恰恰是拥有与一般的启蒙哲学家部分或全部相反立场的知识分子。他们包括孟德斯鸠，他提出了权力制衡的机制，强调法律出自理性，但却没有普适性，它的最高成就就是对个人自由的扩大。休谟，他一贯鄙视对理性的膜拜，讨厌狂热的作为，几乎没有任何强烈的情感，不过支持信仰，支持本性。布莱克斯通，他是法学教授，遵循法律先例和规范，肯定基于古老习俗的自然法，即人拥有三个部分的绝对权利：安全、自由和私有财产。伯克，他在政治上审慎和妥协的角色影响了美国革命的结果，他认为习俗和惯例是正义的坚固根基，也是自愿接受必要的权威的坚固根基。那些要求完全自由的人可能最终得到的是完美的暴政，那些要求绝对权威的人可能因民众的不满而被推翻。他们是 18 世纪后半期美国的真正导师。
美国的先驱们将上述的理解和认识写进了独立宣言和美国宪法，至今已经两百多年了，依然实用。而且其独立过程说是独立战争，不如说是一次光荣革命，相比于同时代的法国大革命，真是一个天堂，一个地狱。英国人的审慎和惯例原则深深启发了美国人，他们的独立宣言诉诸于自然法，明确人的天然权利，而政府就是为了保护这些权利而生。到订立宪法时，相互妥协成了关键，这为强有力的政府机制的达成表现了最大的诚意。
本书的最后部分讲到美国的失序问题。19世纪直到内战的半个世纪间，随着财富和领土的快速增长，美国陷入失序危机，道德想象力衰竭，真正的共同体被忽视。按托克维尔的分析，物质主义以及对平等的向往可能会将美国引入“民主独裁”的歧途，好在基督教与自由的观念对他们已是混然一体，是灵性的生活拯救了美国。这期间的美国思想家、政治哲学家们作出了令人惊叹的工作，认为为实现自由和正义，存在永恒之物。后人们总结了这些永恒的东西：来自宗教的道德力量，社会发展的连续性，基于古老的习俗、惯例所确定的规范，审慎而非抽象的变化，人之间存在差异而且不平等，人生来就不完美。这些永恒的东西在美国社会实践中被反复运用。
所有这些就是我们今天讲的保守主义。
美国的秩序是长出来的，而其根就是柯克在本书中提到的四个城市：耶路撒冷、古雅典、古罗马和伦敦，它们分别为美国提供了基督教、民主、共和和法制方面的参考。进一步来说基督教为人类规范了最基本的伦理道德，摩西十戒多么的简洁，但却明晰了家庭和社会关系，直指人类最邪恶的自私贪婪的欲望，而这是阻止人类相互杀戳，甘愿合作的起点。到了耶酥时代加诸了更严的诫命，加上圣人们的不断传播，基督教影响力越来越广大，生命力也异常顽强。而其他神祇，像亚述、腓尼基、埃及、甚至希腊的，向人类传递的或是贪婪可怖、怪里怪气，或��荒诞不经、反复无常。唯有耶和华神是向人传递道理的，定下了圣约解决人类的核心问题，即如何面对自己的软弱和冲动。而认为人会思考，运用理性可以解决问题只是一种善良的愿望而已。
希腊的民主政治对美国人来说提供的参考是负面的教训，不象它在哲学和艺术方面的成就令人瞩目。众多神祇的希腊有着更多自负傲慢的人，他们对权力有着赤裸裸的贪恋，这是希腊秩序频繁混乱的根源。后来梭伦改革了宪法，突出了审慎的原则，可惜后来又被抛弃，在那里个人不受约束的顽疾最后还是葬送了希腊。关于柏拉图、亚里士多德的哲学思想，实际上对美国的直接影响也并不大，不过当这些思想融入基督教教义体系后，影响则无处不在。象柏拉图的正义观，强调每个人都应该履行自己的职责，并获得合符其本性的报偿，即“各得其所”，就深深影响了美国早期的领袖。而亚里士多德的政体观，分析了不同政体形式：君主制、贵族制和共和制，治理形式又有民主制、寡头制和独裁制，而所组成的政府模式中真正发挥作用的是中产阶级，这一点也为美国今天的政府模式所认可。
古罗马从共和走向帝国，贯穿始终的是公民生活，家庭将整个社会凝聚起来，而持续给予保证的就是罗马法。对比起希腊人来说，罗马人更注重实用，于是才有了罗马治下的和平。西塞罗关于有秩序的自由的理论受到美国人的重视，“真正的法律是与自然相和谐的不偏不倚的理性，它具有普遍的适用性，永远存续，不会改变”。罗马法就是这样一套自然法体系，它超越了政治国家的权威，其规则被认为是源自神圣的律令，源自人性，或者源自人类长期的共同体经验。这也是罗马法寿命超越罗马政体的原因，事实上后来的英国普通法，也是完全理解了这一要义。罗马到帝国时代，公民的权利已开始受到侵蚀，到戴克里先时代，骑士阶级，或可称为中产阶层已荡然无存。好在有奥古斯都、五贤帝，特别是奥勒留这样的皇帝，还有像诗人维吉尔、政治家塞内卡、哲学家爱比克泰徳等杰出人物的坚持不懈，垂死的罗马文化得以坚守，开始接受基督教的教导，并最后将基督教在罗马世界扩展开来。
关于伦敦的影响，可以说英国中世纪的文明遗产悉数为新生的美国所继承。比如法律体系强调法律具有至高无上的地位，王在法下；其普通法的法律体系是建立在习俗和先例的基础之上，为美国后来的成文法律体系的建立起到不可替代的作用。
象代议制政府的核心要素也为美国所继承，这一制度始于英国的大宪章运动，核心就是削弱国王的权力，通过议会的辩论达成立法和行政决策，几百年的运行，伴随着英国的强盛这一宪制体系的作用不可忽视。
另外象英语语言、早期的英国文学、社会规范、作为现代经济基石的基础性产业和商业、大学、诺曼风格和英格兰哥特风格的建筑，还有绅士的观念等都从英国继承而来。而象最重要的信仰和理性都源自英国的圣公会、长老会和清教徒神学家们。事实上始于中世纪的英国改教过程全面且彻底，重建的宗教秩序大多延续至今。英国最早脱离罗马教庭，所有信徒皆祭司的思想深入人心，成就了新教世界。教徒们不信权威，强调个人主义，并逐渐影响到政治领域，成为民主体制的先导，这期间英国也涌现了一批哲学家、神学家，他们的思想对美国秩序的建构起到了无可替代的作用，像神学家、圣公会创始人理查德·胡克，哲学家托马斯 · 霍布斯，医生及哲学家托马斯 · 布朗爵士，作家约翰 · 班扬，政治哲学家约翰 · 洛克等，他们代表着其中的很多侧面。而其指向几乎都是宗教上的宽容和政治上的个人自由。
美国在被殖民初期，是相当贫弱的，当然也未引起英国的重视，不过放任的状态恰发展出了殖民地的自主意识，而且在建国前的100多年中，这里是世界上较为和平和安全的地区，并且还神奇般地培养出了美国的一代绅士，他们是种植园主、商人、神职人员或律师，但更重要的是他们身上凝聚了大量的美徳，他们重视荣誉、勇敢顽强、尽忠职守、有善心、讲求实际，他们是心系公共利益的上帝管家，这些人最后成了美国建国的先锋。
在美国建国前夕，欧洲正兴起启蒙运动，期望纯粹理性能够迅速改造文明，然而这场运动对美国的影响却不大，原因很简单，美国人非常讲究实际，常常怀疑抽象的东西，也少有人关注形而上的问题。这一时期对美国人产生过最强烈的直接影响的恰恰是拥有与一般的启蒙哲学家部分或全部相反立场的知识分子。他们包括孟德斯鸠，他提出了权力制衡的机制，强调法律出自理性，但却没有普适性，它的最高成就就是对个人自由的扩大。休谟，他一贯鄙视对理性的膜拜，讨厌狂热的作为，几乎没有任何强烈的情感，不过支持信仰，支持本性。布莱克斯通，他是法学教授，遵循法律先例和规范，肯定基于古老习俗的自然法，即人拥有三个部分的绝对权利：安全、自由和私有财产。伯克，他在政治上审慎和妥协的角色影响了美国革命的结果，他认为习俗和惯例是正义的坚固根基，也是自愿接受必要的权威的坚固根基。那些要求完全自由的人可能最终得到的是完美的暴政，那些要求绝对权威的人可能因民众的不满而被推翻。他们是 18 世纪后半期美国的真正导师。
美国的先驱们将上述的理解和认识写进了独立宣言和美国宪法，至今已经两百多年了，依然实用。而且其独立过程说是独立战争，不如说是一次光荣革命，相比于同时代的法国大革命，真是一个天堂，一个地狱。英国人的审慎和惯例原则深深启发了美国人，他们的独立宣言诉诸于自然法，明确人的天然权利，而政府就是为了保护这些权利而生。到订立宪法时，相互妥协成了关键，这为强有力的政府机制的达成表现了最大的诚意。
本书的最后部分讲到美国的失序问题。19世纪直到内战的半个世纪间，随着财富和领土的快速增长，美国陷入失序危机，道德想象力衰竭，真正的共同体被忽视。按托克维尔的分析，物质主义以及对平等的向往可能会将美国引入“民主独裁”的歧途，好在基督教与自由的观念对他们已是混然一体，是灵性的生活拯救了美国。这期间的美国思想家、政治哲学家们作出了令人惊叹的工作，认为为实现自由和正义，存在永恒之物。后人们总结了这些永恒的东西：来自宗教的道德力量，社会发展的连续性，基于古老的习俗、惯例所确定的规范，审慎而非抽象的变化，人之间存在差异而且不平等，人生来就不完美。这些永恒的东西在美国社会实践中被反复运用。
所有这些就是我们今天讲的保守主义。
July 31, 2021
A fascinating and sweeping view of the historical roots of what underlies American societal order.
In "The Roots of American Order," Russell Kirk, an enigmatic philosopher from the mid-20th century, traces the philosophical roots and ideas that underlie the foundation of American government and society. He does so with long stops in key historical eras: The Hebraic Old Testament era, the Greek era, the Roman era, including the spread of Christianity, and finally to English era which straddled the Middle Ages and Enlightenment.
At each stop, Kirk shows a direct link between the influential thinkers of the era and what America's founders were reading and discussing; his connection of these eras with our founding is not theoretical, he demonstrates the influences of those eras on our founders. In doing so, he shows what our founders valued from those times and what worried them: what attributes of the eras our founders saw as antithetical to order and how they designed American government to prevent those errors.
Having laid that groundwork, Kirk then turns to the immediate years preceding our founding, describing the history of the times, how these old influences affected who America is, and describing important thinkers contemporary to our founding that also influenced how we are designed and structured. He then ties all this together in the description of our Declaration of Independence and drafting of the Constitution to show why and how we ordered our society and government the way it is.
In a final section, the author briefly describes, with a few examples, how those ideas of ordered society have played out in the history since our founding, encouraging us to "water those roots" and pursue what has, for much of our history, been the great gift of ordered liberty: "the true idea of the state, which secures at once the authority of the public and the freedom of the individual--the sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy."
Kirk's argument is firmly grounded in a Judeo-Christian moral worldview underlying the structure of our order and government. This will not be a popular view in modern America, but it is the duty of critics to describe an alternative structure that would achieve the same just result without descending into the chaos and totalitarianism of a secularist French Revolution.
A highly recommended, thoughtful read.
One final, technical note. Kirk uses the lost art of an expanded Table of Contents: the Chapter title with a short summary of the information and arguments contained within it. I found this very helpful to knowing what was coming; looking for the arguments, then noting and summarizing what they were. In some books, we ought to revive this lost tool.
In "The Roots of American Order," Russell Kirk, an enigmatic philosopher from the mid-20th century, traces the philosophical roots and ideas that underlie the foundation of American government and society. He does so with long stops in key historical eras: The Hebraic Old Testament era, the Greek era, the Roman era, including the spread of Christianity, and finally to English era which straddled the Middle Ages and Enlightenment.
At each stop, Kirk shows a direct link between the influential thinkers of the era and what America's founders were reading and discussing; his connection of these eras with our founding is not theoretical, he demonstrates the influences of those eras on our founders. In doing so, he shows what our founders valued from those times and what worried them: what attributes of the eras our founders saw as antithetical to order and how they designed American government to prevent those errors.
Having laid that groundwork, Kirk then turns to the immediate years preceding our founding, describing the history of the times, how these old influences affected who America is, and describing important thinkers contemporary to our founding that also influenced how we are designed and structured. He then ties all this together in the description of our Declaration of Independence and drafting of the Constitution to show why and how we ordered our society and government the way it is.
In a final section, the author briefly describes, with a few examples, how those ideas of ordered society have played out in the history since our founding, encouraging us to "water those roots" and pursue what has, for much of our history, been the great gift of ordered liberty: "the true idea of the state, which secures at once the authority of the public and the freedom of the individual--the sovereignty of the people without social despotism, and individual freedom without anarchy."
Kirk's argument is firmly grounded in a Judeo-Christian moral worldview underlying the structure of our order and government. This will not be a popular view in modern America, but it is the duty of critics to describe an alternative structure that would achieve the same just result without descending into the chaos and totalitarianism of a secularist French Revolution.
A highly recommended, thoughtful read.
One final, technical note. Kirk uses the lost art of an expanded Table of Contents: the Chapter title with a short summary of the information and arguments contained within it. I found this very helpful to knowing what was coming; looking for the arguments, then noting and summarizing what they were. In some books, we ought to revive this lost tool.
November 12, 2008
This was not an easy read but was very revealing. My first impression was an increased sense of my historical illiteracy. It is amazing the types of mistakes we could avoid if we only took the time to learn what has happened to past civilizations who tried the same thing. I will cite only one example: Tell me if this sounds like anyone you know. (Hint: we just elected him as president.)
"To obtain popular support, many of the emperors sided with the impoverished populace against the senatorial and equestrian classes." Then listen to what happened: "and equestrians (what we might call "upper middle class" or "bourgeois" people) had been virtually extinguished by the reign of Diocletian, indeed. Through insufferable taxation, levied to pay the soldiers and please the proletariat, the most industrious classes fell." "Under Diocletian, equality prevailed among the people of the Roman system--the equality of servitude, or of equal misery. Everyone was assigned heavy duties without corresponding rights....Hatred and envy reigned everywhere: the peasants hated the landowners and the officials, the city proletariat hated the city bourgeoisie, the army was hated by everybody, even by the peasants." (pages 126 and 130) Not a pretty picture, is it?
(In case you are like me and don't know, Diocletian was a Roman emporer during the 3rd century A.D.)
Anyway, the book was eyeopening and informative. And solidifies the fact that America was definitely based on Judeo-Christian principles, in case there was any doubt. Definitely leaves me with an increased desire to study and understand history.
"To obtain popular support, many of the emperors sided with the impoverished populace against the senatorial and equestrian classes." Then listen to what happened: "and equestrians (what we might call "upper middle class" or "bourgeois" people) had been virtually extinguished by the reign of Diocletian, indeed. Through insufferable taxation, levied to pay the soldiers and please the proletariat, the most industrious classes fell." "Under Diocletian, equality prevailed among the people of the Roman system--the equality of servitude, or of equal misery. Everyone was assigned heavy duties without corresponding rights....Hatred and envy reigned everywhere: the peasants hated the landowners and the officials, the city proletariat hated the city bourgeoisie, the army was hated by everybody, even by the peasants." (pages 126 and 130) Not a pretty picture, is it?
(In case you are like me and don't know, Diocletian was a Roman emporer during the 3rd century A.D.)
Anyway, the book was eyeopening and informative. And solidifies the fact that America was definitely based on Judeo-Christian principles, in case there was any doubt. Definitely leaves me with an increased desire to study and understand history.
December 27, 2014
Kirk offers a ranging but cohesive tour through the history of Western thought, but his attempts to connect the ideas to those of early Americans are too thin to be convincing. Too many of his descriptions of the thought of the founding fathers are prefaced with "except for Jefferson" or "Franklin excepting" -- Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are important figures, and if they dissent from what you claim was a universal belief among leading Americans, then maybe there was more diversity in their thought than you suggest. The last quarter of the book takes us to the United States, and here it suffers from the obviously isolated upbringing of the author in the WASP upper classes. Overall, this book might be useful as a primer for Western political philosophy, but is far too biased and not nearly comprehensive enough for its stated objective of describing American "order".
July 8, 2009
Kirk was a scholar among scholars. However he leaped to conclusions about American order that are not exactly true. His thesis is that America's cultural, intellectual, and spiritual roots can be traced back to Athens, London, and Jerusalem. Of course in a sense that is true; the problem is that he lofty ideals blind him to everyday realities. Nevertheless this book is a must-read on several different levels. His chapters dealing with Rome and Greece for instance provide wonderful narrative for better understanding the legacy left behind by former empires. I do recommend 'American Order' to anyone looking to broaden themselves on a well written intellectual history of the West. College undergraduates as well as graduates could benefit by reading this popular book.
December 4, 2010
This book is a wonderful history of the order in America. Not only does it provide the resources used by our founding fathers to create our Consitution, but it shows the root of history (including the Greeks and Romans), the incorporation of faith, the Reformation, and the great minds of the 18th Century. If you are weak in history, as I have been (but am furiously looking to cure) this is a spectacular jumping off point for another twenty reads in history. Each chapter is chock full of references and I guarantee you will feel a desire to read those references.
October 4, 2017
Excellent book delineating the origins of the American system of government. The book describes how American order was influenced by Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, and Philadelphia. It was interesting reading about the birth pangs of our country's government as I watch American order possibly breathe its last.
August 21, 2018
THE overview of how Western Civilizations history and political theories have impacted the American Founding, order and politics. A very accessible and insightful read and now I'm able to know which thinkers to look into more in terms of political theory!
December 16, 2017
I give this five stars on the strength of its last two chapters.
February 20, 2025
Written in 1974 this 476-page tome is considered a classic for all interested in the political history of the United States. But I found it a thinly-veiled bit of Christian propaganda. I wish more reviewers would be honest and state up front that this is written almost as a theological treatise which puts the entire history of civilization into the perspective of Christianity.
The basic thesis is that four iconic cultures of the past informed the ideology that became the basis of the U.S. constitution: Jerusalem and the Judeo-Christian heritage, Athens and the development of individualism and democracy, Rome and the system of governance, and London with its parliamentary representation and Magna Carta charter. On the surface of it, that all seems completely accurate, but – oh, wait! – what about The Enlightenment which so vigorously informed the opinions of Founding Fathers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison? Hmmm.
There are thirty-nine pages devoted to God and Christ “our Savior” and the importance of Calvinism to the plurality of Americans at the time of the Revolution. I would say that, with the exception of the puritan-influenced New England states, it was the landowners and gentrified class who went through the motions of religious convention, while the majority of working-class citizens and those who pushed forward to the frontiers were a very rough and rowdy group who were not religious in any ideological sense. But following on his premise, Kirk avers that Aaron Burr would have been a better and more representative president than Jefferson. Kirk recounts the entire backstory of Burr’s grandfather who was a fiery Calvinist preacher and states that Franklin and Jefferson were radical Deists who had to hide their true beliefs or be pillaged. Kirk doesn’t think much of either Franklin or Jefferson, who fell under the seductive sway of The Enlightenment, “the idea that Man is sufficient unto himself, without need of God.” Wait – mischaracterization buddy: The Enlightenment moved us closer to a secular society because it insists on the Scientific Method of repeatable and verifiable evidence (in part to avoid a repeat of the bloody Thirty Years War with religious factions literally at each other’s throats, because divine revelation evidently manifests itself to each side in equal measure – without verifiable evidence). I would say that most of the Founding Fathers were not particularly ideological, and that without Franklin first, then later Jefferson, the idea of separation of church and state would never have come to pass. But it was really Darwin and later philosophers who performed the coup de grace.
The section on Greek influence was better (almost enough to move my rating to two-stars), especially the connection to the politico-philosopher Solon and the first idea for a senate of elite landowners balanced by a larger council (congress) of middle-class tradepersons. Even so, all Greek historical figures are framed by whatever is happening with the “Children of Israel.” The entire life work of Cicero is validated only because he supposedly (in most vague terms) prophesied the coming of “Christ our Savior.”
Bottom line: this is a book written by an extremely conservative Christian who at his core is staunchly anti-Enlightenment.
The basic thesis is that four iconic cultures of the past informed the ideology that became the basis of the U.S. constitution: Jerusalem and the Judeo-Christian heritage, Athens and the development of individualism and democracy, Rome and the system of governance, and London with its parliamentary representation and Magna Carta charter. On the surface of it, that all seems completely accurate, but – oh, wait! – what about The Enlightenment which so vigorously informed the opinions of Founding Fathers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison? Hmmm.
There are thirty-nine pages devoted to God and Christ “our Savior” and the importance of Calvinism to the plurality of Americans at the time of the Revolution. I would say that, with the exception of the puritan-influenced New England states, it was the landowners and gentrified class who went through the motions of religious convention, while the majority of working-class citizens and those who pushed forward to the frontiers were a very rough and rowdy group who were not religious in any ideological sense. But following on his premise, Kirk avers that Aaron Burr would have been a better and more representative president than Jefferson. Kirk recounts the entire backstory of Burr’s grandfather who was a fiery Calvinist preacher and states that Franklin and Jefferson were radical Deists who had to hide their true beliefs or be pillaged. Kirk doesn’t think much of either Franklin or Jefferson, who fell under the seductive sway of The Enlightenment, “the idea that Man is sufficient unto himself, without need of God.” Wait – mischaracterization buddy: The Enlightenment moved us closer to a secular society because it insists on the Scientific Method of repeatable and verifiable evidence (in part to avoid a repeat of the bloody Thirty Years War with religious factions literally at each other’s throats, because divine revelation evidently manifests itself to each side in equal measure – without verifiable evidence). I would say that most of the Founding Fathers were not particularly ideological, and that without Franklin first, then later Jefferson, the idea of separation of church and state would never have come to pass. But it was really Darwin and later philosophers who performed the coup de grace.
The section on Greek influence was better (almost enough to move my rating to two-stars), especially the connection to the politico-philosopher Solon and the first idea for a senate of elite landowners balanced by a larger council (congress) of middle-class tradepersons. Even so, all Greek historical figures are framed by whatever is happening with the “Children of Israel.” The entire life work of Cicero is validated only because he supposedly (in most vague terms) prophesied the coming of “Christ our Savior.”
Bottom line: this is a book written by an extremely conservative Christian who at his core is staunchly anti-Enlightenment.
June 1, 2020
This is in many ways a phenomenal work. I rated it 3 stars which is very mid because it really is two works mashed together. If you removed all proselytizing you could use create a quite magnificent intro to US history work. Roman, Greek and English influences and overview were outstanding.
Then there is a 2nd work buried within that takes some liberties where US historical figures are concerned. Lincoln, Franklin and Jefferson are generally well-studied thus those liberties raise questions. If you came to the work interested in those conservative movement arguments, as many do, you'd likely prefer a work more directly focused in that vein. --Kirk did accomplish this in other works.
All in all I'd advise this read but it will present challenges for even the most voracious reader. It was clearly written in very different times as the style changes are evident. The same multiple personality issue seems to rub off on readers as you argue with yourself over some leaps around Protestantism versus Catholicism. I left this feeling much like I do after reading Nietzsche; which is bizarre in how opposing they are idealistically but perhaps explainable in how intelligent and complex the authors are.
Then there is a 2nd work buried within that takes some liberties where US historical figures are concerned. Lincoln, Franklin and Jefferson are generally well-studied thus those liberties raise questions. If you came to the work interested in those conservative movement arguments, as many do, you'd likely prefer a work more directly focused in that vein. --Kirk did accomplish this in other works.
All in all I'd advise this read but it will present challenges for even the most voracious reader. It was clearly written in very different times as the style changes are evident. The same multiple personality issue seems to rub off on readers as you argue with yourself over some leaps around Protestantism versus Catholicism. I left this feeling much like I do after reading Nietzsche; which is bizarre in how opposing they are idealistically but perhaps explainable in how intelligent and complex the authors are.
March 18, 2022
A thoroughly entertaining jaunt through various “cities” that played an important role in the founding of the United States and its core leading documents.
The parade of authors, philosophers, evangelists and political rhetoricians that underpin the Founders studies and knowledge is a source for Kirk of understanding. An understanding that both ancient wisdom and recent religious revival both have roots so to speak in the same fertile soils of common development. They are intertwined, with the great doctors of the church building upon the stones of the logos in Athens.
I thoroughly enjoy his taking these elements and further pointing to the blending of English law and religious movements becoming a 2nd coming of this ancient wisdom, just with new ideas, and new revelation.
He argues that these four elements act as pillars to the democratic republican society of the Constitutional United States yet; as a reader one is left wondering if this book should have been longer to allow his arguments to be more fully explored.
The parade of authors, philosophers, evangelists and political rhetoricians that underpin the Founders studies and knowledge is a source for Kirk of understanding. An understanding that both ancient wisdom and recent religious revival both have roots so to speak in the same fertile soils of common development. They are intertwined, with the great doctors of the church building upon the stones of the logos in Athens.
I thoroughly enjoy his taking these elements and further pointing to the blending of English law and religious movements becoming a 2nd coming of this ancient wisdom, just with new ideas, and new revelation.
He argues that these four elements act as pillars to the democratic republican society of the Constitutional United States yet; as a reader one is left wondering if this book should have been longer to allow his arguments to be more fully explored.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 12, 2025
My first Russell Kirk, and definitely not my last. However, this book will probably not come across as revelatory for those with a decent knowledge of Western civilization. Most of it is a surface-level survey of basic history, and can be comfortably skimmed or skipped for such readers. The last few chapters dealing specifically with America are where the real interest lies, and even then not in the history but in the interpretation. If, like myself, you assumed that the negative influence of the Enlightenment was indelibly bound with the American founding, Kirk goes a long way toward dispelling that. It would probably only be three stars because it's a pretty dry and unexceptional read, but the extra star is because I can't think of any other books that would work so well as an introduction to both the great ideas of the West and the nature of America for the layman.
March 18, 2025
Very informative read, Kirk does an excellent job of spinning a narrative of the psyche of the common man's relation to order & justice.. What he neglects to do is provide a strong backing of sources as he goes through the sections, and at times you really just have to trust that Kirk is a reliable narrator.
June 10, 2018
Highly recommended. This is a great overview of the roots of the American order, but it is an overview. It is superficial and a caricature, but nonetheless a good introduction. Be sure to supplement with more academic sources and verify his generalizations.
October 20, 2024
It's impressive how much cultural, political, and intellectual history this covers in less than 500 pages after citations. The moral of the story stands, and the need for gratitude and understanding about the roots of Western Civilization and American political structures is omnipresent. There's probably a deeper critique of the specific civilizational odes here, but I don't think that picking apart at the true political legacies of ancient Judea, Greece, Rome, or Medieval through early modern England would undermine Kirk's overall message.
April 6, 2025
One of my favorite books on the history of America. There is so much to love about this book. Kirk does a great job of synthesizing the American project and introducing you to several key American thinkers along the way. The citations are great, giving you several recommendations for new reads.
July 18, 2022
Thorough analysis of history of America's order. Arguably, too much time spent on British history (the section could have been drastically condensed).
October 1, 2023
first book of the school year done !!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews