Edmund Burke

I am glad that the author of this text gives us a background of the reader prior to jumping into his or her work. I found out that Edmund Burke was against the French Revolution and idealized the past, which are both extremely important concepts to understand before reading exerpts from his work. It became apparent that he was for "the monarchy, the aristocracy, the church, and the constitution," (pg. 47). The description said that he was "passionate," (pg. 47), which made me immediately think back to the passion found in Helen Maria Williams' work. I then started to see the similarities and differences in their work.

First, it was evident that he was just as passionate against the revolution as she was for the revolution. His opening grabbed me from the start. He thoughts were quite interesting and I found myself nearly taking his side. He writes, "Everything seems out of nature in this strange chaos of levity and ferocity, and of all sorts of crimes jumbled trogether with all sorts of follies," (pg. 47). With this passage he opens his idea that their traditions are completely natural. He makes a point that when a man dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. When a king dies, he leaves his legacy to his family. He wants the reader to understand that this inheritance is what nature intended. He felt as though the king had a right to keep the monarchy in his family, much like the wealthy man had a right to keep his land in his own family. He writes, "Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts, to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small benefits, from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance," (pg. 49). He found a peace in tradition. He thought the French Revolution had disrupted the "natural order of things," (pg. 50). I feel like Burke found an excellent way to express himself through this passage. By using these analogies, he tries to convince the reader that what has happened in the past is okay for the present and the future. However, we were asked to keep our eye out for that type of reasoning, since it is often false.

I was also impressed with his writings from The Arrest and Imprisonment of the King and Queen. He first paints a serene picture of the king and queen in their "splendid palace," (pg. 51) and then goes on to describe a violent scene of the king and queen leaving their "sanctuary... admist horrid yells," (pg. 51). He proceeds to show the reader the graphic and horrible scenes of October 6th, 1789, a day of "confusion, alarm, dismay, and slaughter," (pg. 51). Even though I do not share his same view, I was able to see how things got out of control on this day. In this pasage, he really reaches out to the part of humans which does not like to see suffering. He makes the reader uncomfortable and forces them to hear about the details which he thought showed how wrong the revolution was.

Another important aspect I would like to highlight is the fact that Burke used sacarsism in his passage to get his point across. He believed the revolution to be an abomination, and he was trying to do all he could to make the reader take his side. He wrote, "On the scheeme of things, a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order," (pg. 53). He is really saying that a king is much more than a man. He further writes, "the murder of a king, or a queen, or a bishop , or a father, are only common homicide..." (pg. 53). He shows how absurd this thinking in by bringing in religious figures and saying it is a mere common homicide when someone kills a bishop. This point made in the text is supposed to jump out at the reader and pull him into Burke's mindset. It definitely got my attention.

Finally, I found the line, "Society is indeed a contract," infuriating. I do not accept Burke's point of view as correct, but it was at this point where I truly felt amazed that someone would think this way. He wants people to just accept what they are told. He doesn't want society to think outside the box or think about things in their life. Burke wants society to live their lives the way they have in the past and be done with it. I couldn't be more opposed! I can now understand why Wollstonecraft and Paine made refutes to his works! After reading this text, I could not wait to read the rebutals of Burke's work!