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:

1. Do you think Falkland represents the evils of the social system, just as the King did in the French Revolution?
2. Do you think the French Revolution had an influence on William Godwin and the writing of Caleb Williams?
3. How does Godwin’s view of political justice differ from Burke’s?

Erica Simon

11 February 2018

Professor Walker

English 151w – 05

William Godwin and Political Justice

In 1793 William Godwin published Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness (or Political Justice for short). Godwin was inspired to write Political Justice after the publication of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man. It was written during the early years of the French Revolution and Revolutionary Wars. Political Justice provides an insightful critique of unjust government institutions and notes that humanity will inevitably progress. Chapter three talks about innate principles and how the moral characteristics of men originate in their perceptions. Chapter four is about the ways in which the human mind can be advanced towards the state of perfection.

One of Godwin’s main ideas in chapter three is the idea of innate principles. People are brought into the world without innate principles and they “are neither virtuous or vicious as we first come into existence.” The phrase innate principles refer to instincts or natural. Children are neutral when they first come into the world – they are neither good nor bad. People are shaped and influenced by the environment and experiences that they are exposed to. Godwin goes on to note that even though children are born without vice or virtue ‘the seeds of error’ are passed down so early on that ‘superficial observers’ believe they are innate. In other words, from moment that children are born they are influenced by the world around them. This reveals that the ‘seeds of error’ are developed so early on, that they are mistaken as innate. In the following excerpt, the author notes that by the end of the first day of birth, children have already been subjected to the corrupt word and he describes newborn infant’s cry for assistance.

“In this neutral and innocent circumstance, combined with the folly and imbecility of parents and nurses, we are presented with the first occasion of vice. Assistance is necessary, conducive to the existence, the health and the mental sanity of the infant. Empire in the infant over those who protect him is unnecessary. If we do not withhold our assistance precisely at the moment when it ceases to be requisite, if our compliance or our refusal be not in every case irrevocable, if we grant any thing to impatience, importunity or obstinacy, from that moment we become parties in the intellectual murder of our offspring.”

This means that when a parent doesn’t know when to say ‘no’ to crying child who will not stop crying – he has already planted the seeds of vice in the following generation, and has become the “intellectual murderer” of his offspring. In summary, chapter three is about instincts and how people are shaped by their experiences and the world around them.

The next chapter explains how the human mind can be advanced towards a state of perfection. There are three ways – literature, education, and political justice. Literature is defined as the “diffusion of knowledge through the medium of discussion whether written or oral.” Literature is powerful and is the most efficient way of eradicating prejudice and mistakes. Godwin also says that even though people all over world have different opinions only one can be true. Literature is also flawed because it alone is “not adequate to all the purposes of human improvement.” Education is a “scheme for the early impression of rights principles upon the hitherto unprejudiced mind” or in different words – the early presentation of idea to unprejudiced minds. “Where must the preceptor himself have been educated, who shall thus elevate his pupil above all the errors of mankind?” Education is flawed because it is circular – the right education is dependent on right teacher.  How is right defined? Is it only if the teacher has the right education? Political Justice is the “adoption of any principle of morality and truth into the practice of a community.” It is universal and can be applied to any situation. Out of the three advancements that Godwin gives, political justice is the most important one because it can be universally applied.

Goodwin makes a number of good arguments in his book Political Justice, however, he makes few assumptions that don’t make much sense. For example, in chapter three, he explains that children are corrupted by society in the moment they are born and when a parent doesn’t say ‘no’ to a crying child, they are planting the seeds vice in the next generation. This is an interesting way of looking at the situation of a crying child and it’s appalling the way he describes it. In chapter four, regarding literature he says that “but, if in any science we discover one solitary truth, it cannot be overthrown.” This statement sounds rather naive because there is always evidence that can be found to that proves that the old claim is false. Also regarding literature, he notes that even though people all over the world have different opinions, only one is true – this also doesn’t make any sense, why does there have to be only one right answer?

Godwin uses, Caleb Williams to emphasize ideas that are found in his philosophical book, Political Justice. In both books, the idea of anarchism is present and its development is necessary in order to improve the individual. In volume one of Caleb Williams, there are are two aristocrats, Falkland who is well liked by the poor and upper class and Barnabas Tyrrel who takes advantage of his status and is not well liked. Godwin believes that social hierarchy and political systems were the cause of corruption and society would only stabilize when individuals live by an inner moral code. Also both books were written during times of political change – Political Justice was written during the heart of the French revolution, and Caleb Williams was set in time when there was a lot of political change going on.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do think Godwin talks about literature and education, even though they are flawed?
2. Why is anarchism important in Caleb Williams?
3. What does Political Justice mean to you?