Reflections On The Revolution In France

Reflections on the Revolution in France establishes Burke as a major political theorist; this letter served as support for conservative action during different periods of social and political unrest throughout world history. In many ways, Reflections on the Revolution in France aims arguments against any radical or moderate Englishman considering imprudent action during the uncertain times of the French Revolution. However, globally speaking, France is just one of many areas reconsidering historic forms of government like monarchies in favor of more representative modes, like democracies and republics. 

With well-crafted allusions to institutions like the nobility and church and pride-invoking, if nostalgic, images of Great Britain, Burke creates a diametric political view to the liberal thought sweeping over Continental Europe. Influential writers like Rousseau and Voltaire and world-shaking events like the American Revolution dominate Western thought, challenging long-standing civilizations to reimagine their once secure place on the world stage. Suddenly, Burke finds himself and his country at the edge of a precipice. If a country with such a long-standing monarchy as France could fall, their King and Queen imprisoned, their nobility threatened, their church impoverished, who could assure that England might not be next?

When Burke hears the radical leanings of Dr. Richard Price’s sermon, congratulating France on its great strides towards liberty, reason, and light, Burke feels he must ensure what happens in France never happens in England, so he pens Reflections on the Revolution in France, chiefly to highlight a need for conservative, rather than radical, action in a time of great upheaval. To radicals like Price, who advocate that such radical action is a good idea, Burke states, “They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little ill effect” (88). Burke strongly disagrees with their sentiment. In fact, he dedicates a third of his letter to exemplifying how England acts with great consistency in its government and spends the last two-thirds explaining the massive complications regarding France’s refusal to provide any consistency in its new government.

While Burke does not advocate radical change, he is in favor of change when it is necessary. For example, in the case of abhorrent suffering or tyranny, he would advocate revolution; however, in most cases, Burke believes reform is the best course of action. Using England’s history, he suggests instead of disposing of long-standing institutions, conservative theory allows for negotiation, which should be the first course of action. He asks somewhat incredulously at France’s refusal to work with Louis XVI: “Have these gentlemen never heard, in the whole circle of the worlds of theory and practice, of anything between the despotism of the monarch and the despotism of the multitude?” (124). He does not state but is likely implying here that France has only to look to England to see an example of such an intermediate option.

Reflections on the Revolution in France contains a number of conservative maxims preaching the virtue of prudence, such as “Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security” (9), and “By a slow but well-sustained progress, the effect of each step is watched; the good or ill of the first, gives light to use in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted with safety through the whole series” (170).

Each one implies the folly of overconfidence in self (self being a founding principle of the French Revolution) or radical action (another tenet of the Enlightenment); further, each one reinforces the value of cautious movement, often relying on ancestral or historical tomes for guidance. By this method, Burke shows readers how to achieve a revolution without bloodshed, like the Glorious Revolution: “Because among all their massacres they had not slain the mind in their country. A conscious dignity, a noble pride, a generous sense of glory and emulation, was not extinguished” (48). England retains its order of succession and society; therefore, the shift, conservatively maneuvered, succeeded.