The Relevance of Burke

»BOOKS-ARTS:-MANNERS<«< The Relevance of Burke JEFFREY HART Russell Kirk’s latest book is both elegant and eloquent, and it helps to fill a real need. During the last twenty-five years or so a great deal of specialized work has been done on Edmund Burke, but, though he has been the subject of numerous monographs and scholarly articles, there has appeared no single volume on him for the general intelligent reader, or for the good student first making his acquaintance. Such older studies as John Morley’s are hopelessly out of date and misleading on many matters, while Carl Cone’s magisterial volumes are at once too lengthy for ordinary purposes and excessively in- conclusive for specialized ones. Russell Kirk’s Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered fits gracefully into the gap. He has an exciting story to tell, and he tells it well, tracing Edmund Burke: A Genius Recon- sidered, by Russell Kirk. Arlington House, $5.00 Burke’s career and his political re- flections as they were shaped by the five great issues of his time: the American War of Independence, re- form in England, imperial policy in Ireland and in India, and the French Revolution. Kirk’s. scholarship is wide-ranging—I do not in fact know of a contemporary writer who has his command of intellectual ‘con- nection,” often exhibited in a pass- ing allusion—and of course he brings to bear his close knowledge of the vast array of modern Burke scholar- ship. Provided as we are with so good a book, it may seem churlish to ask for more, and in a book intended for the general educated reader that “more” might well have been felt as an intrusion. Still, I myself would have liked very much to have heard Russell Kirk’s judgment on a number of issues that are “up” in Burke scholarship. He touches, for example, upon the work of Harvey Mansfield Jr., but we never find out whether or not he in fact accepts Mansfield’s theory that Burke invented “political party” as a riposte to Bolingbroke’s

NarTIOoNAL REVIEW theory of “patriot” government. And the theoretical debate Mansfield de- seribes has plenty of contemporary relevance: it is by no means obvious that political parties, as developed in the nineteenth century, are a perma- nent part of political life, and though from a nineteenth-century Whig point of view Bolingbroke’s theory seemed archaic, this is not so obvious now. Russell Kirk’s views on all this would be most valuable. The same kind of close question arises in an- other area—the effect on Burke of his relatives’ financial entanglements. Kirk assures us that Burke was an innocent in such matters, and this may be so, and probably is, but the evidence is not all one way, particu- larly in connection with Richard Burke’s West Indian affairs. WI ore IMPORTANT, questions do in- trude about Burke’s interpretation of English history. I myself am willing – interesting theoretical to say that he was substantially right, but he did mythologize a bit: the question is, how much? It may be substantially true that Burke, as Russell Kirk says, “proceeds to show that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was not a radical break with English traditions, but rather a preservation of prescriptive institutions.” Still, can one, really, simply agree with Burke here with- out surfacing the problems? Then again, one must consider, at least, the argument that there were many simi- larities, though of course differences, between the English Puritan and French Revolutions. In both the king was killed, in both a dictatorship es- tablished, both lasted for about the same length of time before ‘“Thermi- dor,” both issued, though informed by very different ideologies, in a heightened secularization. To some degree—the real question is how much, and where, and with what ef- fect on his argument—Burke cleans up English history in his “demolition” of Dr. Price. But these questions are not really reservations about Russell Kirk’s Burke. It is the excellence of the book and the authority of its au- thor that make one wish for still more discussion of one’s favorite issues. _ aS MONG AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES there has swirled a controversy about Burke’s relevance that seems to me utterly misconceived, in that the parties to the dispute are talking SS we Soe ” > Ger «2 Be eae iF ri Fy ° nd Fe PP ae -. ail a ae

About the Author

Jeffrey Hart

Jeffrey Hart is a contributor to National Review.

»BOOKS-ARTS:-MANNERS<«< The Relevance of Burke JEFFREY HART Russell Kirk’s latest book is both elegant and eloquent, and it helps to fill a real need. During the last twenty-five years or so a great deal of specialized work has been done on Edmund Burke, but, though he has been the subject of numerous monographs and scholarly articles, there has appeared no single volume on him for the general intelligent reader, or for the good student first making his acquaintance. Such older studies as John Morley’s are hopelessly out of date and misleading on many matters, while Carl Cone’s magisterial volumes are at once too lengthy for ordinary purposes and excessively in- conclusive for specialized ones. Russell Kirk’s Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered fits gracefully into the gap. He has an exciting story to tell, and he tells it well, tracing Edmund Burke: A Genius Recon- sidered, by Russell Kirk. Arlington House, $5.00 Burke’s career and his political re- flections as they were shaped by the five great issues of his time: the American War of Independence, re- form in England, imperial policy in Ireland and in India, and the French Revolution. Kirk’s. scholarship is wide-ranging—I do not in fact know of a contemporary writer who has his command of intellectual ‘con- nection,” often exhibited in a pass- ing allusion—and of course he brings to bear his close knowledge of the vast array of modern Burke scholar- ship. Provided as we are with so good a book, it may seem churlish to ask for more, and in a book intended for the general educated reader that “more” might well have been felt as an intrusion. Still, I myself would have liked very much to have heard Russell Kirk’s judgment on a number of issues that are “up” in Burke scholarship. He touches, for example, upon the work of Harvey Mansfield Jr., but we never find out whether or not he in fact accepts Mansfield’s theory that Burke invented “political party” as a riposte to Bolingbroke’s

NarTIOoNAL REVIEW theory of “patriot” government. And the theoretical debate Mansfield de- seribes has plenty of contemporary relevance: it is by no means obvious that political parties, as developed in the nineteenth century, are a perma- nent part of political life, and though from a nineteenth-century Whig point of view Bolingbroke’s theory seemed archaic, this is not so obvious now. Russell Kirk’s views on all this would be most valuable. The same kind of close question arises in an- other area—the effect on Burke of his relatives’ financial entanglements. Kirk assures us that Burke was an innocent in such matters, and this may be so, and probably is, but the evidence is not all one way, particu- larly in connection with Richard Burke’s West Indian affairs. WI ore IMPORTANT, questions do in- trude about Burke’s interpretation of English history. I myself am willing – interesting theoretical to say that he was substantially right, but he did mythologize a bit: the question is, how much? It may be substantially true that Burke, as Russell Kirk says, “proceeds to show that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was not a radical break with English traditions, but rather a preservation of prescriptive institutions.” Still, can one, really, simply agree with Burke here with- out surfacing the problems? Then again, one must consider, at least, the argument that there were many simi- larities, though of course differences, between the English Puritan and French Revolutions. In both the king was killed, in both a dictatorship es- tablished, both lasted for about the same length of time before ‘“Thermi- dor,” both issued, though informed by very different ideologies, in a heightened secularization. To some degree—the real question is how much, and where, and with what ef- fect on his argument—Burke cleans up English history in his “demolition” of Dr. Price. But these questions are not really reservations about Russell Kirk’s Burke. It is the excellence of the book and the authority of its au- thor that make one wish for still more discussion of one’s favorite issues. _ aS MONG AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES there has swirled a controversy about Burke’s relevance that seems to me utterly misconceived, in that the parties to the dispute are talking SS we Soe ” > Ger «2 Be eae iF ri Fy ° nd Fe PP ae -. ail a ae