Previous
Intro
Literary devices:
View all
Edmund Burke writes to a young French correspondent, Depont, who has asked for his views of the current revolutionary events taking place in France. Burke explains that he does not approve of the French Revolution, or the Revolution Society, which is in contact with France’s National Assembly and seeks to extend Revolutionary principles in England.
Burke begins by critiquing a sermon that was recently delivered by Dissenting minister and political radical Richard Price. In his sermon, Price claims that, according to the principles of the 1688 Glorious Revolution, English people have the right “to choose our own governors”; “to cashier them for misconduct”; and “to frame a government for ourselves.” Burke argues that Price’s interpretation of the Glorious Revolution is inaccurate, and that its subsequent Declaration of Right laid down no such rights. For example, instead of providing for the election of England’s governors, it laid down a more precise line of Protestant succession, seeing this as a guarantor of English liberties. The architects of the Glorious Revolution also established frequent parliamentary meetings instead of setting a precedent for future revolutions, and they saw their efforts as an affirmation of those rights declared in the Magna Charta, not as the framing of a new government. Overall, Burke argues that the French Revolution has been a rash rebellion against a lawful monarch, a rupture from France’s ancestral heritage.
While not denying the existence of “the rights of man,” Burke argues that these provide an inadequate basis for government. Government, rather, is “a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human” needs; it relies on a “deep knowledge of human nature” and on practical actions, not abstract theories. Preoccupation with abstract “rights” can lead people to overlook human nature and justify the “grand spectacle” of revolution.
Burke dramatically retells the story of the invasion of Versailles on October 6, 1789, when the King and Queen were forcibly driven to Paris by their subjects. He offers a particularly sympathetic portrait of Queen Marie Antoinette and suggests that the demise of both chivalry and fealty has led to the dehumanizing events in France. The triumph of the “rights of men” obscures people’s natural sense of right and wrong. He explains that in England, people cherish their “prejudices,” their age-old, “untaught feelings” of right and wrong. For example, England sees religion as the basis of civil society, unlike France’s growing taste for radical deism and atheism. England also looks upon the state as a consecrated safeguard of civil society and human virtue, something not to be irreverently overturned.
Burke questions whether the French Revolution was truly justified, arguing that even in early 1789, most French political figures were seeking reform, not revolution. Though the monarchy, the nobility, and the Church were marked by numerous failings, none of these warranted the “despotic democracy” that has since taken power. Burke argues that revolutionaries pervert history, such as reviving memories of centuries-old religious persecution, in order to stir up anger against present-day figures, like clergy who haven’t committed any serious wrongs.
Burke undertakes a more detailed review of France’s establishments. He critiques the ambitions of the new legislators in the National Assembly, who lack the prudence and judgment that are necessary for the careful, gradual work of reform. By looking carefully at what the National Assembly has done—its legislative efforts, the executive power, the judicature, the army, and the finance system—he demonstrates that the Assembly is inadequate to carry out the rigorous duties it has assumed. For example, its redrawing of the map of France into “squares” for representation has actually reinforced inequalities, not eliminated them. Its overreliance on the confiscation of Church lands will likely prove ruinous to France’s already struggling economy. And the army’s internal discipline is disastrously weakened, destroying its ability to command respect and maintain order.
Burke concludes by commending the British example to France. He reasserts that changes should be only be made for the sake of preserving existing liberties and with respect for one’s ancestors—in other words, people should strive for reform, not revolution. While he does not expect to change Depont’s mind, he urges him to consider his beliefs, based on long years of observation and public service, since the French commonwealth may someday have need of them.
