Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France was a conservative response to the radical changes occurring in France in 1790. The French Revolution, if you’re unfamiliar, was a period of uprising among the middle and lower classes against the French monarchy. It was caused partly by France’s unstable economy, bad harvests that left most of the population starving, and the King’s incompetence. Revolutionaries aimed to overthrow the monarchy, write a new constitution, and abolish old customs.
Burke, a British politician, was against the Revolution and attacked its foundations. Burke viewed the revolutionaries as being motivated by greed and desiring to destroy all social, political, and religious institutions in place. He was appalled by the violence occurring throughout France, but what offended him most was the change the Revolution brought. Century old traditions that gave Europe character were being thrown away. Ancient chivalry was gone; no one would serve the monarchy with dignity. Burke wrote that “all the pleasing [old] illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, … are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason” (77). He contrasted the sentimental idea of kings and queens ruling with these old, fundamental principles to that of dishonorable barbarians ruling with no plans for the future.
Without traditional rules and ways of life, countries lose their way. Burke argued that improvements should be built upon the foundations of the past. Instead of a revolution discarding everything learned prior, countries should improve by reforming what already exists. The new leaders of France changed too much and ignored the past. Burke detested this unstable government: “With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one … As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste, because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time” (88). This government was not sustainable and did not care for the country like the old monarchy. Generations were no longer linked due to the constantly changing state, which Burke said is “ten thousand times worse” than states that are prejudice and stubborn.
Burke also bemoaned the lack of respect for the monarchy and upper classes in France. He wrote that “when kings are hurled from their thrones … and become the objects of insult to the base and of pity to the good, we behold such disasters in the moral” (80). Louis XVI did not choose to be king; he was born into it. Therefore, Burke said he’d been treated unfairly and should not be blamed for all the trouble in France. The ideas of the Revolution corrupted the minds of people and made them irrational. The crimes of the old regime were lesser than the crimes of the new, which justifies murder for public benefit.
However, the English differed from the French. The English still valued their old traditions, revered priests, and respected the nobility. Religion was connected to the state and provided comfort for people while preventing selfishness. Burke believed in a social contract where society was 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” (96). This means that society relies on not only the work of those alive now, but also those from the past. The revolutionaries were disregarding the past and disrupting the social contract that has been in place for centuries.
While Burke made many convincing arguments against the Revolution, I think there are a few areas he could have elaborated. At least in this excerpt, Burke doesn’t acknowledge the suffering of the lower and middle classes. Most people had little to eat, while the nobility and monarchy still had plenty of food. France was a highly divided society, and Burke did not seem to think anything wrong of people being born in a low class. Burke defended the King as being “misfortunate” to be born a ruler, so he should also defend those who were unfortunate enough to be born poor. Burke could have offered alternatives to a revolution to help feed those people. Also, I think he was too sentimental and nostalgic about the hereditary monarchy and nobility.
Burke portrayed the nobility as being honorable and dignified, but William Godwin saw them differently in Caleb Williams. Both works were written within a few years of each other, but they show different views of society. William Godwin’s novel tells of the abuses of the powerful and wealthy against the poor and weak. Godwin was more liberal than Burke, who saw no evidence of this tyranny that Godwin thought existed in society. Both believed in justice, with Burke saying that “if … the king and queen of France … were inexorable and cruel tyrants, … I should think their captivity just … The punishment of real tyrants is a noble and awful act of justice” (83). However, unlike Burke, Godwin felt that the justice system in place was unfair and favored those in power, similar to how the French revolutionaries felt about the monarchy.
Godwin portrayed the flaws of legal institutions in Caleb Williams. Mr. Tyrrel, as his name suggests, was a tyrant that led to the death of his cousin and destroyed the lives of the Hawkinses by manipulating laws to his advantage. Mr. Falkland also used the law to frame Hawkins for killing Mr. Tyrrel and frame Caleb for stealing. When describing Mr. Falkland, Caleb said that “he exhibited, upon a contracted scale, … a copy of what monarchs are, who reckon among the instruments of their power prisons of state” (Vol. II, Ch X). Caleb saw in Mr. Falkland the same abuses that the French people saw in their King.
Both Mr. Tyrrel and Mr. Falkland were guilty, but their high social standing allowed them to abuse others with the law on their side. Caleb noted this imbalance of power: “visit the scenes of our prisons! Witness their unwholesomeness, their filth, the tyranny of their governors, the misery of their inmates! After that, show me the man shameless enough to triumph, and say, England has no Bastille!” (Vol. II, Ch. XI). This relates to the situation in France and how people were unhappy with the monarchy that Burke defends in his work. Godwin believed legal institutions should not be used to subvert justice by the powerful.
Burke’s writings on the French Revolution sparked an intellectual debate. His conservative ideas contrasted with the liberal ideas of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Godwin also wrote Caleb Williams in addition to Political Justice to argue for a fairer justice system. Reflections on the Revolution in France was an important piece in 1790 and remains significant today.
Discussion Questions:
- Do you think Falkland represents the evils of the social system, just as the King did in the French Revolution?
- Do you think the French Revolution had an influence on William Godwin and the writing of Caleb Williams?
- How does Godwin’s view of political justice differ from Burke’s?
8 replies on “The French Revolution and Caleb Williams”
In William Godwin, Caleb Williams portrays the wealthy as the powerful ones and untouchable despite their actions. In contrast to Burke, who paints the rich as being “dignified and honorable.” As the text says, being of opinion that law was better adapted for a weapon of tyranny in the hands of the rich than for a shield to protect the humbler part of the community against their usurpations”(76). Meaning, no matter what the rich did, the people lesser of status was to blame. For instance, instead of Mr. Falkland taking accountable for his murder, Hawkins was blamed as being the murderer. ” The tyranny of Mr. Tyrrel would not have been so patiently endured, had not his colloquial accomplishments perpetually come to the aid of his authority which his rank and prowess originally obtained”(21). No matter what Mr. Tyrell did, his high social standing protected him like a shield (as well as Mr.Falkland).
Vincent Patti brings up a good point in that the principles behind Burke’s statements defending the monarchy could just as easily be applied to the starving revolutionaries. Just as the king did not ask to be born a monarch, the starving did not ask to be poor. Therefore I believe Burke’s statements do not necessarily reflect his actual beliefs. Rather, the claims he made are to support his conservative bias of trying to keep old traditions. In Willaim Godwin’s Caleb Williams, Tyrell and Falkland represented high society. Some of them are likable, while others are not. But in the end, both of these characters took too many liberties at the expense of those beneath them, and no matter how likable someone is, it is wrong. Three people died due to their haughtiness and pride. A system that allows those in power to make such actions with no consequences is a system that is immoral and unethical.
There is an interesting theme among the people mentioned above who are in power and that theme is that they all seem to be born to a family of means. The similarity between Mr.Tyrrel and Louis XVI particularly stuck out to me. People who are just born with wealth and power and who may not only not know how to govern people but also never lived as the people they are governing. That is the most concerning factor because they have no sympathy or concern for the common citizen. Falkland too represents evil of the social system as he also uses his power to hide his corrupt behavior. The people in power during this time period all have similar characteristics of abuse, recklessness and carelessness. This post was thought inspiring as it made the clear distinction of how one person such as Burke writes about a time period and how another person such as Godwin does. One may never realize that the two authors were living in almost the same time period.
The French Revolution definitely played a role influencing Caleb Williams. William Godwin enables readers to contrast the political unjust of the late 18th century with his characters Mr.Falkland a rich squire compared to Hawkins with petty power. I believe the underlying theme of Caleb Williams was to portray the necessity of the French Revolution and what was expected if a tyrannical way of life continued. WIlliam Godwin quoted “Above all we should not forget that government is an evil, a usurpation upon the private judgement and individual conscience of mankind.”
It says in the introduction: “Falkland is not intended to be a personification of the evils caused by the social system, nor is he put forward as the inevitable product of that system.” What I feel about this book is its full of portraits of government and society in Godwin’s times. I believe Godwin was angry with the law as it operated in England. A law was pretended to bring justice to all the people but which only enabled the wealth to use the power of it. In Godwin’s own words: “law [is] better adapted for a weapon of tyranny in the hands of the rich, than for a shield to protect the humbler part of the community against their usurpations.”
Europe during the French Revolution was extremely politically chaotic in terms of economic uncertainty and war brought on by France. William Godwin at the time promoted political anarchism. Godwin characterized Tyrel and Falkland as powerful individuals but their characters also proved that the political system can lead to the suppression and corruption of an individual. Godwin also showed throughout that individuals can be fooled by the face of power. When Hawkins says to Tyrell ” I hope there is some law for poor folk as well as the rich”(75) he seemed to be competing with Tyrell’s manhood. Hawkins is a working man, and Tyrell was born into the rich and powerful lifestyle, therefore he was able to destroy him once he crossed that line.
While Godwin and Burke clearly differ in their perspectives of nobility, it would seem that a middle ground between their ideologies may be best. In particular, Burke makes several point in supporting the nobility and how they are crucial to maintaining a functioning society. On the other hand, Godwin brings to mind the necessity to consider the suffering of the lower and middle class that results from an oppressive nobility. Altogether, such debate brings to mind how a a strong nobility that also considers its people and treats them humanely may prove to be the best option for society. It is possible that such thinking may have eventually led to the development of the our current democratic that keeps the rights of all individuals in mind while at the same time instils an elected nobility that maintains our social structure
Mr. Burke is of the opinion that some humans are more equal than others; he cautiously pitched his tent with the elites and privileged but neglected proffering substantial solutions to the severe conditions that the common masses experienced. His conformist belief further pronounced through his crave and total respect of the rule of law irrespective of its effect on the impoverished masses; he believes a legally bonded system either failed or workable, reigns supreme to the persons who created it and as such expected full compliance from the citizens.
William Godwin believes that no system should be infinite, he recognizes the need for a revamp and political change that led to the 1970 crises irrespective of the adverse effects it had on culture and religious traditions. He cited the inappropriate use of power to exploit and further impoverish the masses who provided the riches of the intelligentsia and monarchs. Godwin evidently sided with the masses and opined for a change in the French political structure and believes that the citizens will always prevail over a dysfunctional state.