REACTIONARY PROPHET REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE: EDMUND BURKE edited by Frank M. Turner Yale
Edmund Burke understood before anyone else that revolutions devour their young-and turn into their opposites
"It has always been with me," William Hazlitt wrote, "a test of the sense and candour of any one belonging
to the opposite party, whether he allowed Burke to be a great man." Not all radicals have been so generous. In a footnote
to Volume One of Das Kapital, Karl Marx wrote with contempt of Burke,
The sycophant-who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution
just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against
the English oligarchy-was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois.
The old bruiser of the British Museum would not have known that he was echoing a remark by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter
written to Benjamin Vaughan in May of 1791.
The Revolution of France does not astonish me so much as the revolution of Mr. Burke. I wish I could believe the latter
proceeded from as pure motives as the former ... How mortifying that this evidence of the rottenness of his mind must oblige
us now to ascribe to wicked motives those actions of his life which wore the mark of virtue and patriotism.
This attribution of mercenariness to Burke (who had in fact accepted a small pension from the British government for services
rendered, and who had also been the London lobbyist or representative of the colony of New York during his defense of the
rights of the American colonists) is also to be found in the work of Thomas Paine and Dr. Joseph Priestley. It is a frequent
vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you
have identified the correct one. And such reductionism makes a sort of rough partnership with the simplistic view that Burke
was the founder or father of modern conservatism in general and of its English Tory form in particular.
In point of fact Edmund Burke was neither an Englishman nor a Tory. He was an Irishman, probably a Catholic Irishman at
that (even if perhaps a secret sympathizer), and for the greater part of his life he upheld the more liberal principles of
the Whig faction. He was an advanced opponent of the slave trade, whose "Sketch of a Negro Code" was written in
the early 1780s, and who before that had opposed the seating of American slaveholders at Westminster. His epic parliamentary
campaign for the impeachment of Warren Hastings and the arraignment of the East India Company was the finest example in its
day of a battle against pelf and perks and privilege. His writings on revolution and counter-revolution, and on empire, are
ripe for a "Straussian" or Machiavellian reading that seeks to discover the arcane or occluded message contained
within an ostensibly straightforward text.
This is most particularly true of his Reflections on the Revolution in France, which has seldom if ever been better analyzed
and, so to speak, "decoded" than in this excellent companion edition. One might begin by giving this imperishable
book its full name. The original 1790 title page read "Reflections on the Revolution in France, and on the Proceedings
in Certain Societies in London Relative to That Event: In a Letter Intended to Have Been Sent to a Gentleman in Paris."
The gentleman in question was Charles-Jean-Francois Depont, a young man of Burke's acquaintance who had become a member of
the French National Assembly and had written to him in the fall of 1789. Burke owed him a reply, which turned into a very
long letter indeed after its author had been further inspired to put pen to paper. The further inspiration was supplied by
two meetings in London, of the Constitutional Society and of the Revolution Society, at which were passed warm resolutions
welcoming the fall of the Bastille. It was, more than anything else, the alarm he felt at these latter developments that impelled
Burke to his response. Please note, then, that Burke chose to stress not the French Revolution but "The Revolution in
France." He seems to have intended, here, to speak of the phenomenon of revolution as it applied to French affairs, and
as it might be made to apply to English ones. Hence the emphatic mention of "certain societies in London.
The Revolution Society was not as insurgent or incendiary as its name might suggest. It was a rather respectable sodality,
dedicated to celebrating the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, a relatively bloodless coup that installed William and
Mary of the House of Orange on the English throne, and established Protestantism as the state religion. One of the society's
leaders was the Reverend Richard Price, a great friend to the American Revolution and a staunch Unitarian clergyman. His resolution,
carried by the same meeting that had forwarded a "Congratulatory Address" to the National Assembly in Paris, read
in part, "This Society, sensible of the important advantages arising to this Country by its deliverance from Popery and
Arbitrary Power ..."
It was made immediately plain to Burke that those who had enthused over revolution across the Channel were also interested
in undermining and discrediting the same Church that he-an Irishman brought up under anti-Catholic penal laws-felt so obliged
to defend. (This deep connection has been established by Conor Cruise O'Brien in a masterly series of studies that began with
his own edition of the Reflections in 1968.) But the point is not a merely sectarian one. In 1780 London had been convulsed
and shamed by the hysterical anti-Papist Gordon Riots, in which a crazed aristocratic demagogue had led a mob against supposedly
subversive Catholics. (The best evocation of the fury and cruelty of that episode is to be found in Dickens's Barnaby Rudge)
This memory was very vivid in Burke's mind, and goes far to explain his visceral detestation of crowd violence. No less to
the point, some emulators of Jacobinism-the United Irishmen, with many Protestants among their leaders-were at work in Ireland
trying to bring off a rebellion that would compromise all parliamentary "moderates." And several of the proJacobin
activists and spokesmen in England, not excluding the rather humane Price himself, had had political connections with Lord
George Gordon. As between the Jacobite and the Jacobin, Burke could not be neutral for an instant; he might give up the Jacobite
cause out of loyalty to the British crown, but he was profoundly stirred when he saw old-fashioned anti-Catholicism renascent
under potentially republican colors. So one does well to keep Barnaby Rudge in mind along with A Tale of Two Cities.
Three questions will occur to anybody reconsidering the Reflections today. Was it a grand and prophetic indictment of
revolutionary excess? Was it the disdainful shudder of a man who despised or feared what at one stage he described as the
"swinish multitude"? And did it contain what we would now term a "hidden agenda"? The answer to all three
questions, it seems to me, is a firm yes. Let us take the two most celebrated excerpts of Burke's extraordinary prose. The
first is the prescient one.
It is known; that armies have hitherto yielded a very precarious and uncertain obedience to any senate, or popular authority;
and they will least of all yield it to an assembly which is only to have a continuance of two years. The officers must totally
lose the characteristic disposition of military men, if they see with perfect submission and due admiration, the dominion
of pleaders; especially when they find that they have a new court to pay to an endless succession of those pleaders; whose
military policy, and the genius of whose command, (if they should have any,) must be as uncertain as their duration is transient.
In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time
mutinous and full of faction, until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery, and who possesses
the true spirit of command, shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself. Armies will obey him on his personal account. There
is no other way of securing military obedience in this state of things. But the moment in which that event shall happen, the
person who really commands the army is your master; the master (that is little) of your king, the master of your Assembly,
the master of your whole republic.
This is almost eerily exact. Even in the solitary detail in which it does not body forth the actual coming of Napoleon
Bonaparte (who did not emerge until well after the execution of King Louis), it takes care to state that the subordination
of existing monarchy would be the least of it. There is only one comparably Cassandra-like prediction that I can call to mind,
and that is Rosa Luxemburg's warning to Lenin that revolution can move swiftly from the dictatorship of a class to the dictatorship
of a party, to be followed by the dictatorship of a committee of that party and eventually by the rule of a single man who
will soon enough dispense with that committee.
Contrast this with Burke's even more famous passage about the fragrance and charisma of Marie Antoinette.
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never
lighted on this orb, wliich she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating
and cheering the elevated sphere she just began to move in,-glittering like the morning-star, full of life, and splendour,
and joy. Oh! what a revolution! and what a heart must I have to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall!
Little did I dream when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should
ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have
lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour, and of cavaliers. I
thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But
the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished
for ever. Never, never more shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience,
that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought
grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise, is gone! It is gone, that
sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated
ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.
One has read this passage very many times (I shall never forget the first time I heard it read out loud, by a Tory headmaster),
and its meaning and majesty appear to alter with one's mood and evolution. "The unbought grace of life" is a most
arresting phrase, however opaque, just as "the cheap defence of nations" remains unintelligible. The gallantry,
and the appeal to chivalry, can sometimes seem like "the last enchantments of the Middle Age," breathing with an
incomparable melancholy and resignation. Alternatively, the entire stave can be held to rank with the most preposterous and
empurpled sentimentality ever committed to print-not to be rivaled until the moist, vapid effusions that greeted the death
of Diana Spencer, also in Paris, in a banal traffic accident.
The latter view, or something very like it, was the one expressed by Burke's friend and confidant Philip Francis, to whom
he had sent the draft and the proofs. The friendship more or less ended when Francis replied,
In my opinion all that you say of the Queen is pure foppery. If she be a perfect female character you ought to take your
ground upon her virtues. If she be the reverse it is ridiculous in any but a Lover, to place her personal charms in opposition
to her crimes. Either way I know the argument must proceed upon a supposition; for neither have you said anything to establish
her moral merits, nor have her accusers formally tried and convicted her of guilt.
The gash that this inflicted on Burke was not a shallow one: he had admired Philip Francis ever since the latter took
an active part in the defense of the rights of India and the consequent impeachment of Warren Hastings. Francis, moreover,
was one of the most feared and skillful pamphleteers of the day, writing excoriating letters under the pseudonym "Junius"-whose
identity Burke was one of few to guess. (I can't resist pointing out here that Rosa Luxemburg wrote her most famous pamphlet
under the same nom de guerre. I do so not just to make a connection that hasn't been observed before but because "Junius"
is taken from Lucius Junius Brutus, not the Shakespearean regicide but the hero and founder of the Roman republic.) Not content
with taunting Burke about his emotional spasm over Marie Antoinette, Francis urged him in effect to give up the whole project;
and when it was finally published in spite of this advice, he wrote Burke a letter in which he coupled "the Church"
with "that religion in short, which was practised or professed, and with great Zeal too, by tyrants and villains of every
denomination." This English Voltaireanism had the effect of spurring Burke to an even more heated defense of the alliance
of religion with order and property. To him, the alleged "deism" of the revolutionaries was a shabby mask for iconoclastic
atheism. Nor did he care much for the then fashionable chatter about liberty and "rights." As he stated early in
Am I to congratulate an highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would
be to act over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic knight
of the sorrowful countenance.
In other words. Burke was quite ready to anticipate, or to meet, any charge of quixotism. This did not prevent Thomas
Paine from responding that "in the rhapsody of his imagination, he has discovered a world of windmills, and his sorrows
are, that there are no Quixotes to attack them."
Paine's reply, to the Reflections in general and to the paean to Marie Antoinette in particular, is no less celebrated.
In mourning the plumage, he wrote in Rights of Man, Burke forgot the dying bird. It is true, as O'Brien has pointed out, that
this statement has since been employed by many pitiless revolutionaries to justify their less tasteful or unscrupulous actions,
and that it can be made to rank with the omelet and the eggs as a remark that is dismissive and callous when applied to a
"mere" individual. Indeed, in his essay in this edition O'Brien proposes Burke as the moral ancestor of all those
who have warned until the present day of the awfulness of absolutist revolutions and of the terrifying results that ensue
from any scheme for human perfectibility.
However, Paine-who also disliked the "mob," and who described Lord George Gordon as a "madman"-was
to take a much more considerable risk, in theory and practice, to assure humane treatment for the plumage. As a deputy in
the French National Convention for the district of Pas de Calais, he spoke out strongly against the execution of King Louis.
He did so first because of the way in which royalist France had come to the aid of the American Revolution. (Some historians,
including Simon Schama, now maintain that the expense of this commitment led to the emptying of the French treasury, and thus
to the original crisis of bankruptcy that precipitated the events of 1789.) He did so second because he could see that measures
of revenge were likely to coarsen the French revolutionary regime. And he did so third because of an inborn revulsion against
capital punishment, which he had seen practiced with the utmost brutality by the British authorities. The taking of these
positions (and let us not forget that the vote on the execution of King Louis almost resulted in a tie) involved him in a
very tough parliamentary confrontation with none other than Jean Paul Marat, who denounced Paine as a Quaker and a foreigner
and ignited the train of suspicion and paranoia that would land Paine in a foul-smelling Parisian cell under sentence of death.
It was in such circumstances that Paine composed The Age of Reason. In that book, as is often forgotten, he tried to vindicate
deism against atheism, and certainly succeeded in disproving Burke's crude contention that this was a distinction without
a difference. For Paine, the Robespierrean annexation of religious property was not at all a separation between Church and
State but, rather, a nationalizing by the State of the Church. That may be a more radical and useful objection than Burke's
furious refusal to regard the least trespass on ecclesiastical power as anything but profane or obscene.
The chief weakness of this volume is its refusal to take Paine at all seriously, or to consider whether he, too, might
not have been defending one revolution in his own way in order to safeguard another. O'Brien has established to most people's
satisfaction that Burke pleaded the cause of the American colonists, and indignantly denounced the French Revolution, because
he hoped in this way to make the case for reform in Ireland and knew how far he could go. Paine, who had wanted the American
Revolution to go further than it did (in the abolition of slavery, for example), wished to keep the French Revolution from
becoming too bloody and fanatical. Like Jefferson and Lafayette, he had a not-so-hidden motive: to expand and consolidate
a system that might rescue the new American republic from isolation. Along with Lafayette, he suffered considerable persecution
and contumely from French hard-liners as a result.
Professor John Keane has reminded us, in his 1995 biography of Paine, that there was a time when Burke and Paine were
friends. Burke accompanied Paine on some trips into the English countryside, in search of a site for Paine's newly designed
iron bridge. Both were suspicious of arbitrary power ("We hunt in pairs," Burke once joked), and Paine had no reason
to doubt that Burke, in his Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents (1770), had been sincere in his liberal belief
that it was corrupt authority, not protest against it, that required justification. The astonishment Paine expresses in Rights
of Man at Burke's refusal to criticize or even to enumerate the crimes and cruelties of the ancien regime is clearly genuine.
So is his scorn at Burke's concept of the franchise as a reward for property and piety. (Until Paine tried to salvage it,
the term "democracy"-like the words "Tory" and, later, "suffragette" and "impressionist"-had
been deployed only as an insult.) Paine was a Newtonian and a believer in economic growth and modern technique; Burke was
a prisoner of the feudal and the landed conception of society, who employed the words "innovation" and "despotism"
as virtual twins. Notice, for example, how the word "economist" in the Marie Antoinette passage is used as a synonym
for knavery. Paine was for a written constitution and a carefully designed welfare state (adumbrated in the second half of
Rights of Man), whereas Burke was for the semi-mystical "unwritten constitution" of a Crowned Parliament, and spared
few thoughts even for the deserving poor.
However often one awards the winning of the longer-term argument to Paine, the fact remains that he and Jefferson and
Lafayette never even dreamed of the advent of Bonapartism. They all believed, at the time that the argument was actually taking
place, that France would become a constitutional monarchy, or had actually become one already. It was Burke who took this
romantic delusion-a delusion shared by Charles James Fox and the leaders of Burke's own Whig party, and even for a time by
William Pitt and the more pragmatic Tories-and mercilessly exploded it. He also showed that the outcome of the French Revolution
would be war on a continental scale. The tremendous power of the Reflections lies in this, the first serious argument that
revolutions devour their own children and turn into their own opposites.
Indeed, Marx might have paid a little more attention to Burke in drawing his conclusion that the French events of 1789
were the harbinger chiefly of a bourgeois revolution.
Burke's attachment to the old order at least allowed him to see this with exemplary clarity. He wrote,
If this monster of a constitution can continue, France will be wholly governed by the agitators in corporations, by societies
in the towns formed of directors of assignats and trustees for the sale of church lands, attornies, agents, money-jobbers,
speculators, and adventurers, composing an ignoble oligarchy, founded on the destruction of the crown, the church, the nobility,
and the people. Here end all the deceitful dreams and visions of the equality and rights of men.
In a similar piece of magnificent disdain for what English aristocrats used to call "trade," he made another
penetrating observation about the kinship between tradition and the social contract.
The state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico
or tobacco, or some other such low concern ... it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between
those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause
in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible
world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each
in their appointed place.
Again, one has to peel away the layers of holy awe with which Burke protected the idea of an ordained social and moral
hierarchy, and the complacency of the hereditary principle in general. But something essential in him. not all of it attributable
to his political allegiances, rebelled at the notion of a society begun anew-a place where humanity should begin from scratch.
This is of huge importance, because Paine and Jefferson very adamantly took the view that only the living had any rights.
"Man has no property in man," Paine wrote, making what could have been a very fine argument against slavery but
going on to say,
Neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The parliament or the people of 1688, or
of any other period, has no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape
whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a
hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require.
It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated.
Thus the French calendar that began the human story over again, or that at least tried to rewind its odometer. Thus Jefferson's
notorious 1793 letter to William Short, stating that he had rather "seen half the earth desolated; were there but an
Adam and Eve left in every country," than see the French Revolution defeated. A little stretch is required to derive
the Khmer Rouge "Year Zero" from this; but those who are willing to be millennial about origins will sometimes be
millennial about consequences. Yet such hectic and shortterm radical enthusiasm is distinctly odd in one way, since both Paine
and Jefferson derived many of their claims of liberty from supposedly ancestral Saxon institutions that predated the Norman
Conquest, and since Paine can hardly have been unaware that in challenging the 1688 revolution, he was pushing at an open
door as far as Burke was concerned. Equally extraordinary is the implied lack of any duty toward future generations, which
revolutionaries at all times have claimed to stand for. If modern conservatism can be held to derive from Burke, it is not
just because he appealed to property owners in behalf of stability but also because he appealed to an everyday interest in
the preservation of the ancestral and the immemorial. And the abolition of memory, as we have come to know in our own time,
is an aspect of the totalitarian that spares neither right nor left. In the cult of "now," just as in the making
of Reason into an idol, the writhings of nihilism are to be detected.
It is vastly to the credit of Conor Cruise O'Brien that he still feels it necessary to defend Burke from the charge of
being a "reactionary." It may not be feasible to make this extenuation a consistent one. Burke was strongly in favor
of repressive measures at home, including the silencing of all dissent. In calling for an all-out war, he outdid William Pitt
himself. He died before the worst of the Bonapartist project for Europe was revealed, and it cannot easily be said that his
gravest fears in this respect did not materialize. But in his discussion of the French philosophes he declined even to cite
any of their secular and rationalist critique, because, as he put it in a footnote to Reflections, "I do not choose to
shock the feeling of the moral reader with any quotation of their vulgar, base, and profane language." That's Tory pomposity
defined. Furthermore, and as Darrin McMahon points out in his chapter of this edition, Burke in the year of his death (1797)
wrote to the exiled Abbe Barruel to thank him in the most profuse terms for a copy of his Memoires pour servir a l'histoire
du jacobinisme. This was a work, infamous in its time, of the most depraved and retrograde Jesuitism, which purported to find
a grand conspiracy of Freemasons and other subversives in the overthrow of the Bourbons. Burke's letter was no mere courtesy;
it lauded the abbe for his justice, regularity, and exactitude. This is the only charge against Burke that I cannot find mentioned
or dealt with in Conor Cruise O'Brien's tremendous biography The Great Melody; but as O'Brien has observed in another context,
those intellectuals who will not give up "civility" and "objectivity" for the cause of revolution have
sometimes been observed to sacrifice these qualities for the sake of the counter-revolution. Clearly, Burke saw himself as
willing to try all means and all alliances in order to "contain" revolutionary' France, lest it pose a challenge
similar to that presented by the Protestant Reformation, and then as far as possible to destroy it.
By 1815 that project might have been accounted a success. But the idea of the French Revolution managed to survive the
Duke of Wellington and Prince Metternich as well as the literary power of Edmund Burke. The trinity of "liberte, egalite,
fraternite'' outlived those who had butchered in its name, and was deposed from the French currency only during the time of
Vichy (which replaced it with the less sonorous "travail, famille, patrie"). Lafayette lived long enough to take
pan in the anti-Bourbon revolution of 1830. Paine died ruined and disappointed, yet his opinions resurfaced in the movement
for the franchise that eventually defeated the Duke of Wellington's government. And Thomas Jefferson was able to double the
land area of the United States of America. The terms of the Louisiana Purchase would not have been available had it not been
for a slave revolt in Haiti, inspired by the ideals and proclamations of 1789, that annihilated Napoleon's fleet and army
and put an end to French ambitions in the hemisphere. What might Burke have made of this momentous insurrection, later so
brilliantly described by C.L.R. James? One recurs to Hazlitt's generous judgment when one wishes to have read Burke on what
happened when Jacobinism crossed the Atlantic and became black.