Political doctrine of E. Burke. Political philosophy of conservatism: E

An English parliamentarian and Irish publicist condemned the French Revolution and the ideas of the Enlightenment Edmund Burke (1729-1797).

In 1790, Burke published the book Reflections on the Revolution in France, containing polemics with speakers of two noble clubs in London who shared the ideas of the Enlightenment and approved of events in France. Published during the relatively calm period of the French Revolution, when it seemed that the country was firmly on the path of constitutional construction, this book was not initially successful. As events unfolded in France, confirming Burke's worst fears and predictions, the popularity of his work rapidly increased. The book was translated into French and German and caused many responses, of which the most famous is the work of T. Paine “Human Rights” (see Chapter 15).

Burke condemned the National Assembly of France not only because of the incompetence of its composition (it, Burke wrote, consists of provincial lawyers, solicitors, municipal officials, doctors, village priests), but even more for its desire to abolish the entire old order in France at once and " to create at one stroke a new constitution for a vast kingdom and every part thereof" on the basis of metaphysical theories and abstract ideals dreamed up by "literary politicians (or political men of letters)," as Burke called the philosophers of the Enlightenment. “Was it absolutely necessary to overturn the entire building from the foundations and sweep away all the rubble in order to erect on the same soil a new experimental structure according to an abstract, theoretical design?” asked Burke.

He argued that the improvement of the state system should always be carried out taking into account the age-old customs, morals, traditions, and historically established laws of the country. The task of strong political minds is to “preserve and reform at the same time.” However, French revolutionaries are inclined to destroy in half an hour what has been created over centuries. “Hating vices too much, they love people too little.” Therefore, the leaders of the revolution, Burke concluded, strive to smash everything to smithereens, look at France as a conquered country in which they, being conquerors, pursue the most cruel policy, despising the population and considering the people only as the object of their experiments. “Parisian philosophers,” Burke noted, “are extremely indifferent to those feelings and customs on which the world of morality is based... In their experiments they regard people as mice.” "An honest reformer cannot regard his country as merely Blank sheet, on which he can write whatever he pleases."

“Their freedom is tyranny,” Burke wrote about the French revolutionaries; “their knowledge is arrogant ignorance, their humanity is savagery and rudeness.”

Burke's particular objections were raised by the discussion of human rights and the very concept of “human rights”: “The rights that theorists talk about are an extreme; to the extent that they are metaphysically correct, they are false from the point of view of politics and morality.” Burke argued that human rights are advantages that people strive for. They cannot be determined a priori and abstractly, since such advantages always depend on the specific conditions of different countries and peoples, on historically established traditions, even on the compromises between good and evil that political reason must seek and find. In addition, the actual rights of people include both freedom and its restrictions (to ensure the rights of other people). “But as the ideas of liberty and restraint vary with time and circumstances,” wrote Burke, “an infinite number of modifications are possible, which cannot be subjected to a constant law, that is, nothing can be more senseless than the discussion of this subject.”

Burke's idea boiled down to the fact that both human rights and the political system develop historically, over a long time, are tested and confirmed by experience, practice, and are supported by traditions. In addition, Burke was not a supporter of the idea of ​​​​universal equality of people, which underlies the theory of human rights: “Those who encroach on rank never achieve equality,” Burke argued. “In all societies consisting of different categories of citizens, one must dominate Levelers only distort the natural order of things..."

Burke's book became one of the first works of conservative historicism and traditionalism, opposed to the rationalism and legalism of revolutionary idealist politicians. Burke argued that the law of each country is formed as a result of a long historical process. He referred to the English constitution, which took several centuries to create; in his opinion, the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 only consolidated the political system of England, the rights and freedoms of the British that existed long before this revolution: “During the Revolution, we wanted and realized our desire to preserve everything that we possessed as the inheritance of our ancestors. Relying on "For this inheritance, we have taken all precautions so as not to graft into the plant any cuttings alien to its nature. All transformations made so far have been carried out on the basis of previous experience..."

Burke called the idea of ​​inheritance the basis of the political system of England, the freedoms and privileges of its people. Since Magna Carta (1215), the idea of ​​inheritance has provided the principle of preserving and transmitting liberties from generation to generation, but has not excluded the principle of improvement. As a result, everything valuable that was acquired was preserved. “The benefits that the state receives by following these rules are captured tenaciously and forever.” Therefore, wrote Burke, "our constitution has preserved the hereditary dynasty, the hereditary peerage. We have a House of Commons and a people inherited their privileges and liberties from a long line of ancestors."

The foundation of the constitution is customs, religion, mores, even prejudices containing the wisdom of ancestors: “Prejudices are useful,” Burke emphasized, “eternal truths and goodness are concentrated in them, they help the hesitant to make a decision, make human virtues a habit, and not a series of unrelated ones.” itself of actions."

Defending traditions and condemning innovations, Burke also justified those medieval relics that persisted in England, which were especially criticized by English radicals and liberals. Such are the ideas of peerage, rank, political and legal inequality. Burke called the basis of English civilization “the spirit of chivalry and religion. The nobility and clergy preserved them even in troubled times, and the state, relying on them, grew stronger and developed.”

“Thanks to our stubborn resistance to innovation and the inherent coldness and slowness of the national character, we still continue the traditions of our forefathers,” wrote Burke. “...Rousseau did not convert us to his faith; we did not become students of Voltaire; Helvetius did not contribute to our development "Atheists have not become our shepherds; madmen have become our legislators... We have not yet been gutted and, like museum effigies, stuffed with straw, rags and angry and dirty papers about human rights."

Burke contrasted the historical experience of centuries and peoples with the a priori theories of enlighteners and revolutionaries, and tradition with reason. Social order, Burke reasoned, emerges as a result of slow historical development, embodying the common wisdom of peoples. Burke refers to God - the creator of the universe, society, and state. Any social order arises as a result of a long historical work that establishes stability, traditions, customs, and prejudices. All this is the most valuable heritage of our ancestors, which must be carefully preserved. The strength of a real constitution lies in age, in traditions. The very doctrine of state and law should become a science that studies historical experience, laws and practice, and not a scheme of a priori evidence and fiction, which is the teaching of the ideologists of the revolution.

Burke, like the reactionary ideologists, contrasted the rationalistic ideas of the Enlightenment with traditionalism and historicism, the belief in the invincibility of the course of history, independent of man. When applied to the history of law, this opposition was developed in the teachings of the historical school of law.

Edmund Burke

Whig Party leader

Burke, Edmund (12.I.1729 - 8.VII.1797) - English politician and publicist. Since 1766, Burke has been a member of parliament and soon rose to the ranks of leading figures in the Whig party. Burke was a representative of those sections of the English bourgeoisie who opposed the strengthening of royal power. He advocated a compromise with the rebellious English colonies in North America. Author of the work: “Thoughts on the cause of the present discontents”, 1770, directed against the policies of King George III and his ministers. In 1790, Burke published "Reflections" on the revolution in France..., which reflected the fear of the English property classes before revolutionary events in France. In "Reflections..." Burke portrays the state as the personification centuries of creative activity; therefore, according to Burke, no generation has the right to subject to violent destruction the institutions created by the efforts of a long series of previous generations. Another work of Burke “Letters on a regicide peace” (1796-97) also filled with denunciations of the French revolution.

E. B. Chernyak. Moscow.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. In 16 volumes. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1973-1982. Volume 2. BAAL - WASHINGTON. 1962.

Works: The Collected Works, v. 1-8, L., 1792-1827.

Literature: Marx K., Capital, vol. 1, M., 1955, ch. 24, p. 763 (note); Marx K., Traditional English politics, Marx K. and Engels R., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 11, 1958, p. 609; Macknight T, History of the life and times of Edmund Burke, n 1-3, L, 1858-61, Magnus R., Edmund Burke. A life, L., 1939; Stanlis R. J., Edmund Burke and the natural law, Ann Arbor, 1958.

Philosopher and esthetician

Edmund Burke (January 12, 1729, Dublin - July 9, 1797, Beaconsfield) - British political philosopher and aesthetician, politician and publicist. Irish by birth. In 1766-1794 member of the House of Commons (Whig). In 1755 he anonymously published a parody “A Vindication of Natural Society...”, directed against those imbued with the spirit of freethinking and religious skepticism"Philosophical Experiments" G. Bolingbroke. Taking the ideas of rational-utopian criticism of the state, religion, law, nation, social hierarchy to the point of absurdity, he tried to show their futility and destructiveness, however, the ambiguity in Burke’s depiction of the contradictions and absurdities of the existing society forced many readers, against the author’s wishes, to accept the parody as a criticism of social institutions. Burke's real goal was to justify primordial traditions and social institutions (patriarchal family, community, church, guild, etc.), which, as manifestations of “natural law,” “grow” in the course of a natural process (described by him in biological terms). A supporter of “wisdom” and the inviolability of traditional institutions, Burke considered the “law of prescription” as the driving principle of an organic social order, an example of which he saw in the English Constitution. Based on the traditional interpretation of English common law as protecting the privileges of citizens from lawless encroachments by authorities, on the one hand, and rebels, on the other, Burke defended the principles of the English Revolution of 1686-89, recognized the right of the rebel American colonies to self-defense and independence, and at the same time sharply opposed the French Jacobin revolutionaries, in whose activities he saw an attempt to implement the abstract constructions of the ideology of the Enlightenment. In the pamphlet “Reflections on the Revolution in France...” (1790; Russian translation, 1993), he called for a “counter-revolution”, the consolidation of all the forces of Europe in the fight against Jacobinism. The fierce controversy surrounding the pamphlet (about 40 “responses” of publicists to Burke, among which the most famous is T. Penn) caused polarization of public opinion in England in relation to the Great French Revolution (and as a consequence - the split in the 1791 Whig party).

In his aesthetic concept, Burke relied on the ideas of English aesthetics of the 18th century. In the spirit of sensationalism, Locke recognized feelings as the only source of aesthetic ideas. The basis of the beautiful is the feeling of pleasure, the basis of the sublime is displeasure; a meeting with the sublime confronts a person with reality, giving rise to a feeling of horror and helplessness in the face of the huge, incomprehensible and powerful (i.e., the divine). The influence of Burke's ideas was contradictory: if liberals saw him as a defender of public freedoms and free trade, a two-party system, and the right to self-determination, then the ideologists of conservatism relied on his feudal-conservative concept of political power and criticism of the Enlightenment (L. Bonald, J. de Maistre, S. Coleridge, F. Savigny). Modern neoconservatives have declared Burke the "prophet of conservatism."

A. M. Satin

New philosophical encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Guseinov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Mysl, 2010, vol. I, A - D, p. 259-260.

Read further:

Historical persons of England (Great Britain). (biographical reference book).

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Essays:

The Works, v. 1-12. Boston, 1894-99; The Speeches, v. 1-4. L., 1816;

The Correspondence, v. 1-10. Cambr.-Chi., 1958-78;

A philosophical study on the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful). M., 1979;

Defense of natural society. - In the book: Egalitarian pamphlets in England in the mid-18th century. M, 1991, p. 41-110.

Literature:

Trofimov P. S. The sublime and the beautiful in the aesthetics of E. Burke. - In the collection: From the history of aesthetic thought of modern times. M., 1959;

Chudinov A.V. Reflections of the British on the French Revolution: E. Burke, J. Mackintosh, W. Godwin. M., 1996;

MorleyJ. Burke. N.Y., 1884;

Kirk R. The Conservative Mind from Burke to Santayana. Chi., 1953;

Parkin Ch. The Moral Basis ol Burke's Political Thought. Cambr., 1956;

Fasel G. E. Burke. Boston, 1983;

Nisbet R. Conservatism: Dream and Reality, Milton Keynes, 1986.

Journalism - primarily political and historical, but also literary - is the main genre and “strong point” of a prominent Englishman public figure, politician, lawyer, writer and consummate orator of the 18th century, Edmund Burke (1729–1797), who in English-speaking countries is usually quoted as widely and readily as his compatriots Samuel Johnson and Winston Churchill. By the way, it was Burke, and not Churchill, who first gave an ambiguous definition of democracy. Nowadays they like to quote Churchill’s remark that democracy is the worst way to govern a country, but a better one has not yet been invented. Burke, who sat in parliament all his life and knew firsthand about parliamentary democracy, two hundred years before Churchill expressed a similar and no less provocative thought: “Ideal democracy is the most shameful thing on earth.” The point of what Burke said, of course, is not that democracy is bad, but that there is no “ideal democracy” and that if democracy is ideal, then it is not democracy. At the same time, the activities of Burke himself - both a politician, a publicist, and a lawyer - are one of the few examples of “ideal democracy.”

Burke's fame both in England and abroad rests on five pillars. On a skillful and principled basis - in line with the “Glorious” Revolution, which contrasted the “prerogatives” of the crown with the “privileges” of a bicameral parliament - party building, which is based on the idea of ​​​​a party government hatched by Burke (“Thoughts on the causes of the current discontent,” 1770). On the obsession with “Indianism”: a member of the House of Commons committee investigating the activities of the East India Company led by the Governor-General of Bengal Warren Hastings, Burke uncompromisingly exposed abuses of local power, to which he devoted a number of passionate parliamentary philippics. On close and always sympathetic attention to the American Revolution (“On Reconciliation with the Colonies”, 1775), which is why in America Burke, a prudent and fundamentally “conciliatory” politician, recommended not to separate North Americans from the inhabitants of the metropolis (remember in this regard Wilde’s ironic remark: “ We have everything in common with the Americans, except language”), today they are considered almost among the “founding fathers”. On the “damned” Irish question: Irish by birth, Burke persistently developed bills aimed at easing discrimination against the Catholic population of the “Emerald Isle.” And - not least - on the irreconcilable struggle against Jacobinism as a destructive pan-European social phenomenon (“Reflections on the Revolution in France”, 1790). This treatise, written by a resolute opponent of revolutionary violence and which has become a reference book for every moderate and sober politician, is of far from academic interest to our reader, because there is a lot in common between French Jacobinism and Russian Bolshevism. This classic study, however, was translated into Russian two centuries late, and even with abbreviations1.

1 Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France and the meetings of some societies in London relating to this event. M.: Rudomino, 1993.

We offer readers of “Questions of Literature” ten small “juvenile” essays by Edmund Burke, completely unknown in our country, and not widely recognized in England. These essays were written by the future politician and publicist from 1750 to 1756, shortly after his move from Ireland to England, where Burke came to continue studying law at the capital's Temple College immediately after graduating from the Dublin College of the Holy Trinity, this citadel of Protestant education in Catholic Ireland, where he studied from 1744 to 1750, managing, despite his very young age, to publish thirteen issues of the student magazine “Reformer”. Having settled in London, Burke, however, soon abandoned his career as a lawyer, thereby depriving his father of financial support, married the daughter of an Irish Catholic, a doctor by profession, Christopher Nugent, to whom, by the way, one of the essays presented here is dedicated, and again took up the pen .

Just a year separates Burke’s first literary experiments included in this collection from his more fundamental and much better known works - “Justifications of Natural Society” (1756), translated into Russian and included in E. Burke’s collection “Government, Politics, Society” (M .: Kanon-Press-Ts, Kuchkovo Pole, 2001), “A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful” (1757) and the “Annual Register,” a journal published by Burke in 1758.

Some experts believe that much of this time was written by Burke in collaboration with his distant relative (or simply namesake), his closest friend, as well as Burke, Member of Parliament, William Burke. Most likely, however, W. Burke’s “co-authorship” did not extend beyond the editing of the essays written by E. Burke: many of the observations made by Burke in the 50s were picked up and developed by him decades later in parliamentary speeches and political writings. The early and late Burke are connected not only by similar thoughts, but also by the way of expressing them, which consists of a combination of passion and thoughtfulness, pathos and logic. “The flow of this man’s thoughts is truly inexhaustible,” said the most authoritative English educator, Burke’s senior contemporary, already mentioned here about Burke.
ka Samuel Johnson. And extremely thought out - we will add from
myself.

The “stream of thoughts” of the young Burke is directed for the most part on less serious topics (a panegyric for a beloved woman or a caustic denunciation of bigotry and greed) than in his later works, which were distinguished by the richness of their philosophical, historical and political sound. At the same time, the “inexhaustibility” noted by Johnson, the scale of goals and objectives, sometimes, as is often the case with young people, a certain peremptory nature, the desire to “embrace the immensity” (essay “Religion”), the energy of thought and the persuasiveness of argumentation are striking already in his early works.

In the original, several of the essays placed here contain in the title the word “character”, which was not preserved in translation, generally inherent in literary studies of human nature among the Enlightenment and Romantics (“Characters” by La Bruyère, “Characteristics” by William Hazlitt): “The Character of...” (“ The Ideal Woman”), “The Character of a Fine Gentleman”, “The Character of a Wise Man”, “The Character of a Good Man” - and they are not kept by chance. Back in 1746, Burke said to himself: “I myself did not notice how addicted I was to depicting characters.” Let us note: characters, not types, prevailing in the era of walking caricatures of Smollett and Hogarth. And to be even more precise - to the depiction of types How characters. “So that the portrait of a prudent or good man did not look abstract and inexpressive,” writes Burke in perhaps his most mature essay “The Good Man,” “this portrait should be depicted in all the diversity of its features.” The “variety of features”, the absence of clearly defined boundaries between them in the “characteristics” outlined by Burke can, by the way, be judged by the abundance of phrases like “rather ... than”, “to no less extent than”, “not as much ... as” : Burke the essayist is excellent at the art of subtle psychological drawing and insists on precise nuance in the depiction of human qualities.

Furthermore. Burke depicts a true genius or a true gentleman, a spiritual, successful, prudent or good man, striving, as is generally characteristic of English paradoxists from Johnson and Sterne to Wilde and Shaw, to combine the incongruous, to destroy established ideas about genius, ambition, sanity, kindness, to see in positive there is negative and vice versa. Thus, about a good person, Burke, disdaining stereotypes, writes that “he is driven by vanity”, that he is surrounded by enemies (“I<…>I have never met a good man who did not have many unprovoked and therefore completely irreconcilable enemies”) that his friends “accuse him of imprudence and rashness.” In the tenderness of his beloved woman, Burke feels “firmness and directness,” a successful person is often distinguished, according to Burke, by a lack of talent, a genius can be “stupid and inconspicuous in society” and manifests itself fully “only when fate does not favor him,” a true a gentleman usually has “knowledge<…>not burdened,” a great man is rarely a sane man, but a sane man “cannot be denied courage<…>he realized that life without a goal is not life, and therefore for the sake of a goal he always puts his life on the line...” These conclusions, expressed, as a rule, in a succinct aphoristic manner, may at first glance seem controversial, the arguments risky, but in the context of the entire essay, in accordance with the logic of reasoning, you begin to believe them. It even happens, as, for example, in the mocking “Letter to Sir James Lowther,” that Burke, as if betting on a bet, undertakes to prove the obviously unprovable - and purposefully and inspiredly copes with his task...

Burke's tasks, however, are not limited to psychological studies. Taken together, the essays of the aspiring essayist, who had recently arrived from provincial Dublin to metropolitan London and was, presumably, strongly impressed by the huge number of English Chichikovs and Rastignacs looking for a place in the sun, represent, in addition to all of the above, something like “ collective portrait" successful person XVIII century. Burke's thoughts about genius, kindness, sanity and religion add up to a recipe for behavior and success in society that is not outdated to this day. Twenty-five-year-old Burke draws some rather disappointing conclusions. If you read Burke's early essays from this angle, it turns out that in a society where, as Burke argues, the key to success is not the presence, but the absence of talent, where self-interest, frugality and business acumen are valued above all else, one should be distinguished not so much by intelligence, but by intelligence. how much by intuition and insight; it is important to be known not as talented, but rather as resourceful and far-sighted; It is recommended to avoid harsh judgments, but to practice direct flattery in every possible way, to avoid extremes in your statements and not to contradict your interlocutor... Avoid serious topics - Burke seems to instill in the reader - treat your friends without love, use them to your advantage, with people both treacherous and and devotees, behave with equal caution, avoid rash actions, truly believe only in yourself, do not utter a single thoughtless word, do not demonstrate talents that can cause envy, do not sympathize with your neighbor, do not help the loser. The abundance of negative particles in this phrase clearly indicates: in society, in politics Not having memorable features is better, more profitable than not having them. Are you inconspicuous, not very talented and willing to compromise? Do you say “no” more often than “yes”? Then it will not be difficult for you to overcome any obstacles on the way to high society and big politics... both in the 18th and 21st centuries.

The “discoveries” made by Burke, of course, are not new; They were not original even in the Age of Reason. It is striking, however, that they belong not to a world-wise philosopher and skeptic, but to a recent student taking his first steps in literature, and indeed in life.

Translation based on the publication: A Note-Book of Edmund Burke / Ed. by H.V.F. Somerset. Cambridge at the University Press, 1957.

Letter to Sir James Lowther, the consummate miser, who, out of an annual income of thirty thousand pounds, managed to spend only three hundred

I don’t have the honor of knowing you personally, but your character is known to me so well that I am convinced that in the whole wide world there is no person who could be more helpful to me in this situation than Sir James Lowther. Nature has endowed you with intelligence no less than with wealth, and therefore you will not refuse me a reasonable request just because it is unusual - after all, if there are no objections from the mind, there will be no interference from the wallet. I ask you to lend me a hundred pounds without interest or other obligations. Some will perceive such a request as very modest. Others (among them, I’m afraid, you may be yourself) will consider me the most unscrupulous insolent person alive. I admit that this will be the case, but in this case, you must agree, my persistence will be both a serious argument for satisfying my request and proof of my future gratitude for your kindness. If you give this amount to a modest person, he would be ashamed to consider himself indebted to you and would sacrifice yours to save his own reputation. I declare publicly: Your noble deed will become a public property; I was not ashamed to seek your favor and, in the same way, I am not ashamed to admit how much I owe you. Perhaps, sir, you will think that there is little honor in such actions. I believe you have every reason to think so. And here my insolence will again come to the fore: it will allow me to assert with all confidence that you gave me a hundred pounds more than I asked, and then not a single person in the world will believe that I received even a farthing. By meeting me halfway, you will be doing me an invaluable service - and, believe me, no less a service to yourself. First, you will save me from want. It is not for me to explain to you, a person who has devoted his entire long and difficult life to avoiding need at any cost, what torment, suffering and shame are associated with this word. With such a noble act you will be doing a service not only to me, but also to yourself, which, apparently, is important for you; You will not deprive your heir of anything. And that is to say, can it really be that, with all his love to waste money, just like you, with all your frugality, he will feel the lack of such an insignificant amount?! Such a step will even extend your days: you will spend money and will have to live longer to recoup what you spent. The more often you draw money from your purse, the less this gentleman, your heir, prays that you will not linger in this world, and the more I pray that the Lord will grant you a long life. So judge for yourself, sir, what is more profitable for you. This modest gift will not ruin your heir - I will die without it. He prays that you die quickly in order to receive everything that you have; I pray to God that you live as long as possible, both because of what I have already received and in the hope of receiving more. You and I have common interests; You and him are completely different. You see, I openly admit that I am guided by selfish interests - and you yourself would have a very low opinion of my mental abilities, I neglect such an essential side of life. However, I would seek to meet you not only for the sake of self-interest. I have long had respect for you and your way of life. If similarity of character serves as a guarantee of friendship, you and I would eventually become bosom friends. They say you love money; If I had the appropriate income, they would say the same about me. How are we different? Only one thing: you indulge your desires; I continue to drag out a miserable existence. You have a million; I don't have a penny. It would cost you nothing to ensure that our similarities - and, accordingly, our friendship - become complete. You might argue that my lack of money is evidence that I don't love it as much as I should. To this I would answer you that I am akin to a lover whose feelings are unrequited; such a lover is ten times more ardent and passionate than the one who is loved. However, I will not become a hypocrite and compare myself with you. Perhaps I really don't value wealth enough; a similar deficiency is inherent in youth. However, I give you my word - I will improve. I never had money, and therefore it is excusable that its true value is unknown to me. After all, the more money there is, the higher the value of money, which you and some other wise people whom I would really like to imitate can serve as a living example. You don’t have children, but you hardly need to complain about fate in this regard, because your children could easily waste everything that you have acquired with such difficulty. Give me a hundred pounds - and I will follow your example: I will save, value every penny, save absolutely on everything, scrape by, I will neither eat nor drink, saving every farthing. When they see me, everyone will vying with each other shout: “Here comes another Lowther!” I will not ruin your good name, I will be more faithful to it than a hundred of your sons combined.

Let me finish this long letter. If I have convinced you, give me a hundred pounds and, at the same time, advice on how to manage it. By following your advice, I will finally get rich, and once I get rich, I will live happily. If this letter disappoints you, punish me: give me a hundred pounds and let me spend it as I please. This will bring me new misfortunes and completely ruin me. Do as you please, sir, and in any case you will oblige

Your devoted servant.

Sir James Lowther

Ideal woman1

This essay is dedicated to my ideal woman. If this reader considers the ideal to be at least in some way consistent with a real person, I will be glad, because the woman as I describe her must be a hundred times greater than any image, but I must have such a strong feeling for her that I will not be able to paint her portrait the way it should.

She is beautiful, but not the kind of beauty that comes from regular facial features, soft skin and a slender figure. She possesses all this in full - however, it would never occur to anyone who looks at her to extol such virtues. Her beauty lies in her gentle disposition, in the benevolence, innocence and receptivity reflected on her brow.

At first, her face only attracts attention, but with each next minute it attracts more and more, and one can only be surprised that at the first moment it aroused interest, nothing more.

Her eyes glow with a gentle light, but as soon as she wants, they will make you tremble; they subjugate like a good person who is not vested with power - not with force, but with virtue.

Her facial features cannot be called perfectly correct; such correctness evokes praise rather than love - there is no soul in correctness and perfection.

She is not tall. It was created not for everyone's admiration, but for the happiness of one person.

Her tenderness conveys firmness and directness.

There is no trace of weakness in her complaisance.

Often coquetry is manifested more in the deliberate simplicity and uncomplicatedness of the toilet than in tasteless decorations; in her decoration one cannot find either one extreme or the other.

Her characteristic thoughtfulness softens her features, but does not distort them. Mostly she is serious.

Her smile... indescribable...

Her voice is like quiet, gentle music, not the kind that thunders at public gatherings, but the kind that delights the ears of a select few who know the difference between society and the crowd. Her voice has the advantage of not being heard from a distance.

To describe her body, one must describe her soul; one cannot be imagined without the other.

Her intelligence lies not in the variety of activities to which she devotes herself, but in their careful selection.

Her intelligence manifests itself not so much in the fact that she does and says memorable things, but in the fact that she avoids doing and saying things that are inappropriate to do and say.

She distinguishes good from bad not by intelligence, but by insight.

Many women, including good ones, are characterized by stinginess and selfishness; she is extremely generous and magnanimous. The most wasteful do not give gifts more readily than she; the most greedy do not part with money with more caution than she does.

There is no man who was so young and knew life so well; and there is no person who has been less corrupted by life experience than she. Her courtesy comes more from a natural inclination to help than from a desire to follow rules, which is why she never misses an opportunity to mock both those who have received a good upbringing and those who have been brought up poorly.

Girlish impulses to make friends with anyone are not inherent in her, because such relationships only multiply quarrels and give rise to mutual hostility. She chooses friends for a long time, but, having chosen, she is faithful to them all her life - and the feelings in the first minutes of friendship are no more enthusiastic than many years later.

She is equally alien to harsh judgments and immoderate praise; Bitterness contradicts the softness of her nature, the stability of her virtue. At the same time, her character is direct and firm; it is no more delicate than marble.

She has such undoubted virtues that from her example we men learn to appreciate our own virtues. She has so much grace and dignity that we fall in love even with her weaknesses.

Who, tell me, seeing and recognizing such a creature, would not fall madly in love with her?

Who, tell me, knowing her, and himself too, is capable of living on hope alone?

1 This essay was written, in all likelihood, shortly before his marriage and is dedicated to Burke's future wife Jane Nugent.

About prosperity

There is hardly a single person in the world with outstanding abilities who would not want to demonstrate them on any occasion.

It only takes me a quarter of an hour to talk to a stranger to understand whether he is wealthy or not. If he avoids this topic, then this almost certainly indicates his poverty. The great man reveals himself in a moment; you just have to start a conversation with him, and he will let you understand with which outstanding personality you have the honor of speaking, what he is more successful with, criticism or poetry, whether he is a highly educated person or whether scholarship causes him sincere, although carefully hidden, contempt. However, no matter how such reasoning pleases our vanity, experience tells us: our authority only suffers from them. It is wrong to think that by demonstrating our abilities, we secure a good attitude towards ourselves; no matter how much advice is given on how best to present oneself, the great art of being liked does not consist in showing one’s best qualities, but to hide them for the time being. It is unfortunate that so little has been written on this topic - after all, for example, the success of a writer directly depends on it. Previously, I was always surprised when I saw how a person who was not distinguished by either intelligence, or depth of judgment, or noticeable abilities, or other qualities that could elevate him in the eyes of others, a person who dragged out the most miserable existence - commensurate with his abilities - achieves the highest positions, honors and enormous wealth, and at the same time everyone considers this to be in the order of things and does not ask the question of the reason for his success. Perhaps the most astute ones will notice: “He was always a smart guy and knew what card to bet on.”

I admit, this observation took me by surprise and made me think. You will say that I envied this darling of fate. I deserved such a resounding success much more than he did, I thought in annoyance, consoling myself with the fact that my capabilities, my I would never trade my best qualities for his carriage, although in fairness it should be said: when his gilded carriage appears, even my most brilliant talents fade.

Overcoming sad thoughts, I began to think about how such a person compensates for the obvious lack of talent, what hidden qualities helped him make a career - and ultimately came to the conclusion that it was his lack of talent that contributed to his success, and nothing more. Thus, I concluded, if you want your talent to benefit you, you should hide it, but the best person to hide it is the one who has nothing to hide. I have not the slightest doubt about the validity of these comments. Perhaps the foundation on which they rest is not so strong. At the same time, they are based on observations taken from life, namely: almost every person, no matter how dubious it may seem to others, considers himself in some way a god. If he great person- that means he is a deity majorum gentium1. And this concerns all of us, from the most significant person to the most insignificant.

If we develop this idea, it turns out that anyone who considers himself a god challenges God, and therefore cannot count on His love and support, even if he serves Him faithfully. On the contrary, the person whom He despises most is loved most by Him. And consequently, shortest path to universal recognition - complete self-denial. Isn’t this where the expressive phrase “God’s creature” comes from?! The less this creature has - in body or soul, in thoughts or desires - that is different from others, the more it belongs to its Creator, the more the Almighty loves it and the more surely it will stand out among its own kind.<…>

People value direct flattery most of all. Anyone can tell you: “You are more talented than all the people on earth”; It’s much more flattering to hear from your interlocutor that you are more talented than him. Smart people know how to flatter, but sometimes they express themselves so inventively that they flatter not so much you as they flatter themselves. Such flattery is intended to ensure that people without talent, as well as those who, like me, do not particularly like to demonstrate their talents, are content with what they have.

1 Here: higher order ( lat.).

Man of spirit1

People who neglect decorum in life, conversation or literary writings are often considered great personalities. Their admirers see all their shortcomings, moreover, they are ready to admit them, but they consider eccentricity and extravagance not a disadvantage, but an advantage of a great man. There is not a single monstrous trait in the character of a genius that we would not be prepared to justify. Moreover, we present the weaknesses and quirks of a genius as convincing proof of his unsurpassed talents. Thus, we judge a person’s abilities by contrast - not by what he has, but by what he doesn’t have. It must be for this reason that I have often failed to establish what constitutes true genius. To my amazement, I discovered that those we consider geniuses do not possess the traits associated with genius. If I ask whether the great man is a man of common sense, I am told that he is too hot-tempered to be sensible. If I ask whether he has a good memory, my question makes me laugh: how, in fact, does a person of great intelligence have a good memory? If I inquire about his education, they tell me that he is a genius “by nature.” Our genius is very stupid and inconspicuous in society, but at the desk he is, presumably, not like that. At the same time, when I ask about his writings, I will most likely receive the answer that he is too restless, and therefore is not able to finish what he started. If I manage to get acquainted with some of his works, no one wants to hear about my critical remarks: “Nothing surprising, geniuses, as a well-known fact, consist of continuous shortcomings.” This custom of replacing advantages with shortcomings, of believing that a shortcoming is the highest dignity, is very common to all of us. If you ask a parishioner what he thinks of his priest, he will tell you that he cannot find a better priest. “Is there logic in his sermons?” - “No, there is absolutely no logic.” - “Are the arguments he gives weighty and clear?” - “What are you saying, he doesn’t give any arguments, because the arguments reveal human wisdom, which is unacceptable in a conversation with God.” - “Then maybe he speaks in beautiful language?” - “Beautiful language? - This is vanity!” - “What then is his dignity?” - “The fact that he is a man of spirit.”

Thus, many honest and even experienced people consider a genius to be a person who is rude and cruel in his treatment, leads a dissolute life, is extravagant, arrogant, absurd, frivolous, ungrateful, callous, fickle - can caress a person, and then insult him a minute later. And this is the one who is carried in our arms today and whom I have had the good fortune to see more than once. However, if he had been different, he would have lost all his admirers. Once he becomes famous, he begins to behave as he has to. Half the time he is gloomy, gloomy and dejected - people of great intelligence always have their head in the clouds; the second half, on the contrary, is excessive buen- not cheerful, but rowdy. This is the only proof that he is a representative of the human race just like us: he neglects his own affairs in the same way as he neglects everything else<…>

1 This essay develops the theme of one of the essays published in Burke's student magazine, The Reformer.

True genius

True genius is not easy to find - and it is equally difficult to find a use for it. It comes in handy only in special situations, in cases of extreme necessity. In ordinary times, dealing with him is a difficult ordeal, and it is better to resort to the services of people who are more ordinary.

True genius manifests itself only when fate does not favor it; in all other, more ordinary cases, he has a hard time.

Only he has the right to be called a genius who accomplishes great things with daring and originality, through the greatest effort of the mind.

To prove your genius, one great deed, however, is not enough. The capture of La Rochelle alone would not have been enough for Richelieu to become famous for centuries. A true genius must commit not one act, but several, and all of them must be imbued with a single thought.

Many generals are well trained in military affairs; luck has also been on their side more than once. However, only a great commander is capable of developing a daring and unexpected plan of action, which to a mediocre mind will certainly seem strange and inexplicable, and also fraught with considerable difficulties - and which at the same time will turn out to be the only correct one. Anyone who uses familiar methods acts like a machine: we know how to resist it, we see how it works; We will not be mistaken in saying what her next step will be, and if she succeeds, it will be only through our own fault. A true genius goes to his goal in such a way that we learn about his plan only at the moment of its implementation.

It seems as if the genius has put absolutely everything on the line, as if his risk is unjustified - and yet he hits the nail on the head, not paying attention to the little things. When Hannibal, at the head of his valiant army, reached the middle of Italy, Scipio abandoned his fatherland to the mercy of fate and sent his legions straight to Carthage. Such was his great plan, which, however, was in no way inferior to Hannibal’s unimaginable campaign from Africa, through Spain and Gaul, through the Apennines and the Alps - to Italy.

Let us give an equally striking example from a later time. Pursuing the interests of Spain in France, the Duke of Parma stops the troops entering the Netherlands and gives up his daring plans of conquest - pendent opera interrupta, minaeque murorum ingentes aequataque machine Coelo1.

1 “...all work was interrupted, and the formidable walls

In their heights under heaven they stand as a motionless mass.”

(Virgil. Aeneid. IV, 88-89. Translation by A.V. Artyushkova.)

If God is what we imagine Him to be, He must be our Creator.

If He is our Creator, then there is a connection between us.

If there is a connection between us, a certain sense of duty arises from this connection, because it is impossible to imagine a connection without mutual obligations.

The relationship between God and man is such that man enjoys the good deed of God, but cannot return the good deed. The relationship between God and man is such that man endures evil, but is neither able to return evil to God with evil, nor is he able to avert this evil.

From which it follows that a person can fulfill his duty not by action, but exclusively by feelings.

When someone does good to us, it is natural to give praise.

When we hope that good will be done to us, it is natural to pray.

When we fear evil, it is natural to ward it off with prayer.

This is the basis of religion.

We are in relationships with other people.

We can achieve a lot only with the help of other beings just like us.

They, similarly, achieve a lot only with our help.

We love these people and sympathize with them.

If we count on help, we must provide it ourselves.

If we love, then it is natural to do good to those we love.

Hence, beneficence is the fulfillment of our duty to creatures like us.

This is the basis of morality.

Morality does not necessarily include religion, because it concerns only our relationships with people.

Religion necessarily includes morality, because the attitude of God, our common Creator, towards us is exactly the same as towards other people.

If God has endowed us with obligations, it follows that He wants us to fulfill these obligations.

Therefore, moral obligations are an integral part of religion.

If God created everything on earth, we can honor Him for it, but we can neither love, nor fear Him, nor hope for Him. For there is no basis for all these feelings.

This reduces all worship of God to nothing more than praise and gratitude.

Gratitude is directed to the past: we feel gratitude only for what has already been done.

Hope and fear are the springs of everything that is in us, for they are turned to the future - only to the future are all the aspirations of humanity directed. From which it follows that to despise Providence means to despise religion.

Arguments against Providence are dictated by our reason, which sees a certain method in the actions of God. With the mind, but not with feelings.

Our feelings are in favor of Providence, and not against it.

All dependent beings, if only they are aware of their dependence, cry out to the Almighty asking for help.

There is no person who behaves uniformly, as if the world was ruled by fate.

When turning to the Almighty, people cannot assume that He will not hear them; they do not admit that they may have feelings that do not reach the goal.

They balance their duty to the Divine with their needs and feelings, and not with abstract thoughts.

In the first case they cannot be deceived, in the second they can.

In the first case, we appeal to our own essence, which we understand, in the second, to the essence of God, which we are unable to comprehend.

Abstract and very concrete reflections are not and should not be the basis of our obligations, because they lack any certainty. They are weighty when they coincide with our own natural feelings, and light when they are opposed.

Animals do not need to know God to achieve their goals.

Man needs God to achieve his goal.

Man, unlike animals, has some idea of ​​God.

That is why we admit that there are other goals besides our own.

It is human nature to think about immortality and desire it; he realizes that such thoughts and desires cannot be without cause.

And therefore he admits that he can be immortal.

A person realizes that he has obligations and that the fulfillment of these obligations pleases God, and to please God means to find happiness.

Experience, however, tells him that fulfilling these obligations will not bring him happiness during life, and therefore, he concludes, fulfilling his obligations will bring him happiness after death; if this is so, something in him must survive death.

He sees that such a thought favors the fulfillment of all his obligations; the opposite thought to the fulfillment of obligations is not favorable.

He notices that such a thought improves his essence; the opposite thought reduces him to the level of lower beings.

Thoughts that connect him with others like him and with his Creator and thanks to which he becomes better and happier ultimately turn out to be true. Such thoughts are not drawn from outside.

If his soul survives death, why shouldn't it live forever?

If the soul lives forever, the time allotted for life is not so significant. And therefore, it does not deserve special attention on our part.

We don't know whether our connections with other people will last after death.

But we know that our connection with God must continue after our death.

We know, therefore, that our duty to God is greater than our obligations to ourselves or others.

It is natural to assume that what occupies first place in the hierarchy of obligations determines everything else.

Of what naturally It follows that our fate after death depends on the fulfillment of our duty during life.

There is no doubt that a small part of the whole should serve the whole, and not vice versa.

From which it follows that our actions during life form the basis for our future happiness or unhappiness; that our future sufferings and joys are intended as rewards or punishments according to the performance of our duty during life.

And therefore, this life is just a preparation for the next.

Therefore, we should not engage in activities that lead us to the idea that there is only this life and there is no other.

Therefore, we should deny ourselves a lot, because by indulging in pleasures, we are distracted from more significant goals and our desire to achieve these goals is weakened.

We may have noticed that the passions that arise from self-love often conflict with the obligations that arise from our connection with other people.

But the limitation of our desires is lesser evil than to indulge them to the detriment of everyone around us.

Thus, self-denial becomes the second pillar of morality.

This is the most essential part of our commitment and the most difficult.

If we depend on a supreme being, we can only pray to Him; We have no other ways to clearly express our dependence to Him, although He is already sufficiently aware of our needs and is ready to help us.

If we depend on a higher being, it would be wise to trust Him, although we do not see what goals He is pursuing by His actions. And that said, how else can we preserve people’s good will?

If we have reason to believe that some message has come from Him, we must sincerely believe it, even if we do not fully understand the essence of this message. Otherwise, we lose our dependence on a higher being, just as we would lose our connection with people who were denied trust.

God made us know about Himself, and we believe that this knowledge is of some value to us.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that He will wish to provide us with more extensive knowledge about His essence and His will.

Likewise, it cannot be ruled out that He will find a suitable way to convey this knowledge to us.

If He intends to impart this knowledge to us, then the best proof of such a plan will be such a manifestation of power that will leave no doubt: this knowledge comes from God; thus we will know that He exists and that He is omnipotent and omniscient.

God made people the instruments of the good that He does to people.

The strength of people lies in mutual assistance.

Knowing people is about mutual instruction.

Without a person's faith in a person, help and guidance are useless.

Thus, human testimony is the most convincing evidence, no matter what we are talking about.

We have less doubt that a city like Rome exists than we doubt that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the legs.

Convincing evidence leaves less doubt than any evidence, however convincing.

It is the most obvious, it is the easiest to comprehend.

If God testifies to something with all His power and persuasiveness, we are obliged to believe it.

If this testimony is to live for centuries, means are needed to prolong its life; there must be people who would spread this testimony throughout the world, and there must be books that would perpetuate this testimony.

These people should have distinctive features, so that everyone knows: it is they who spread this teaching throughout the world.

These people are obliged to spread the teaching so that knowledge of eternal truths does not depend on someone else's whim. It is for this purpose that society should exist.

Scattered political observations

1) The success of every person largely depends on what others think about him. Honesty and integrity are most valued among the people, abilities - at court.

2) Eloquence has enormous influence in popular states, restraint and prudence in monarchies.

3) Politics is impossible without pretense. In republics the most profitable thing is simulatio; at court - dissimulatio1<...>

6) A rich monarch, unless he is a miser or a money-grubber, as a rule, has nothing to fear; a monarch who is poor is always dependent and almost always enjoys a bad reputation... If the wealth of a selfish monarch is constantly growing, they forget about his self-interest and greed. Greed is considered to be wisdom, extravagance is considered stupidity.<...>

8) Frequent military trials are harmful. The commander-in-chief should resort to them as rarely as possible. Strictness is good with soldiers, but not with officers and generals. Indeed, as a result, the dignity of the military rank suffers, and the more often such punishment is applied, the more people deserve it. If the general is afraid of anything, it is only shame<...>

10) Elegant reasoning matches the smell of fine wines, which destroy the brain and are much less useful than ordinary wines, albeit coarser ones.

11) A mind overwhelmed by doubts has the same effect on our reason as fermentation on drinks: at first it is impossible to take them into the mouth, but then it is impossible to tear yourself away from them<...>

14) It is not appropriate for someone who comes to ask for mercy to refer to their merits and merits, because this would mean that the applicant is asking for mercy as if in payment of a debt, and people, as we know, are not inclined to repay debts. Justice as such is not the highest virtue for either party: he who shows mercy receives no gratitude; the one who receives mercy does not consider it mercy at all.

15) Young people love to extol all that is good and make amends for all that is bad. That is why many of them do not live up to expectations and become the most ordinary people, because at first they were given too much attention, and then too little.

16) I had to study in several schools. Of the fifty students I remember, there was not a single one who showed even minimal ability in the subjects studied at school. Many, however, were excellent at other things. How wisely Nature decreed that school subjects are rarely useful in life. That is why those of us are contrary to Nature who give money to countless schools and colleges in order to force people to learn something that is either not given to them, or will never be useful.

17) Very few of those who succeeded in school succeeded in life. At the same time, I don’t remember a single mediocre student who became famous. Anyone who did his job well became, as they say, a business man. Par neque supra 2.

I remember how Lord Bath3 met a simple, modestly dressed man in a coffee shop, and when the conversation turned to school, this man remarked:

Remember, my lord, how I did the exercises for you?

Surely,” said Lord Bath, “you did better than me in class.” But in parliament, Bob, I do as well as anyone else.

To the credit of Lord Bath, it should be said that he did quite well at school.

1 Simulation (lat.) - to compose something that does not exist; dissimulation (lat.) - to tell lies about what exists.

2 Par neque supra (lat.) - short for: Par negotiis neque supra - literally: corresponding to business, but not beyond that, that is, a business person.

3 Thomas Thynne, Lord Bath(1734 - 1796) - English politician; in 1765 Viceroy of Ireland; Secretary of State (1768-1770, 1775-1779).

A true gentleman

Educated people do not like it when the concept of “a true gentleman” is seen as something vulgar; Since they treat true gentlemen with unconditional respect, they do not like it when this definition is applied to those whose behavior they do not approve. Therefore, they decisively exclude from this category all those who, although they behave impeccably, lead a frivolous lifestyle, and come to the conclusion that only a person who is virtuous in all respects has the right to be called a “true gentleman.”

Let us not dispute the right of the world to the exact characteristics of certain people; By changing or questioning the generally accepted views established by tradition, we do not expand the boundaries of knowledge, but only waste words. Instead, let's try to figure out what people are who are usually called “true gentlemen”, and try to establish what this concept means. Since the word “character” is too vague, let us consider this variety from a variety of angles - perhaps this will give us a much better idea of ​​it.

A true gentleman displays his best qualities not in the practical sphere, not in specific matters, but in light, casual conversation, which happens rarely, because there are no more complex things in the world than ease in behavior, conversation and writing. When you first come into contact with a true gentleman in society, you will not immediately notice him; To find his strengths, you may need not just one conversation with him, but several.

To put it bluntly, he is not burdened with knowledge; all the virtues that he possesses came to him from nature. There is nothing extravagant in his judgment; for him, expressing sensible thoughts is no more difficult than breathing deeply. At the same time, you cannot call him ignorant: he reads books, but treats reading with disdain.

Wit is not his strong point. However, this quality evokes admiration among interlocutors, but not respect. Wit quickly becomes boring; between him and an ordinary, unpretentious conversation - the distance is so great that a sharp mind interferes with the general flow of conversation, which is valued most in society and is equally pleasant to all its participants.

In the same way, a true gentleman is not able to make his interlocutors laugh, although some of his observations are not without wit. Hidden irony sometimes shines through in his remarks. In his statements, he avoids extremes, he almost never contradicts his interlocutor, makes skeptical remarks and avoids serious topics: he will certainly express his judgment, but will not go into the essence of the matter. He will not dispute your point of view, but you, by doubting his rightness, will achieve little.

To be accepted in society, a person should not demonstrate talents that could cause envy and, as a result, general awkwardness. It is for this reason that the behavior of a true gentleman in society is devoid of any shine. His judgments are rarely remembered, and his bons mots are retold. His speech is easy and relaxed, but does not make a strong impression. There is no sharpness in his speech, but there is an abundance of the finest strokes and shades, equally imperceptible and inimitable. You must have noticed that in life some sage, an ardent debater, or a person who boasts of his knowledge is always surrounded by a large number fans. It’s a different matter in the world: there is no particular need for such people. Noble people, unlike ordinary people, do not tolerate it when their superiority is demonstrated in front of them, especially generally recognized superiority. In their view, a person should be guided by the principle of courtesy, which often turns into lethargy and lifelessness.

From the point of view of undemanding people, a synonym for courtesy is politeness, the ability to behave decently. From the point of view of sophisticated people, politeness is something completely different. In the speech of a true gentleman, the only thing that attracts attention is that it is free and relaxed. In his behavior there is a certain kind of directness and sincerity, which require from the interlocutor exactly the same directness and sincerity. He is stingy with pleasantries and compliments, because nothing confuses his interlocutor more than sincere assurances of friendship; besides, a compliment is a pleasure only if you can respond to it wisely.

The language, behavior, and appearance of a true gentleman are free and relaxed, which can be the envy of business and busy people, all those who take life seriously. He owes such freedom equally to considerable wealth, social glamor and connections at court.

Idleness is the main trait of his character. Diligence, frugality, concern for the future are the virtues of business-minded, thorough people; their restraint and integrity have nothing to do with the excellent mood and ease so characteristic of a true gentleman.

A frivolous lifestyle is also inherent in him. At the same time, a true gentleman is a rake, but not a libertine; he is a man of the world, no more and no less. You cannot call him a valiant warrior or a faithful lover; he is distinguished by dishonesty in business and decency in words. Drunkenness is disgusting to him, but he does not disdain gourmet dishes. He can be accused of being overly fond of gambling, but at the same time, one cannot deny him excellent restraint when losing.

There is no hint of vanity in his reasoning, but an observant interlocutor will discern exorbitant pride behind his friendliness and courtesy.

A true gentleman is never a devoted friend; It has long been noticed that a respectable and thorough person experiences embarrassment in society. On the contrary, it is in society, and not in relationships with a friend, father, relative or close people, that a true gentleman feels at ease. The French set an example of secular polish to the whole world; and that is to say, nowhere are social gatherings so revered and solitude so neglected as in France. A true gentleman is not characterized by tenderness, nor what is commonly called kind-heartedness; sympathy for one's neighbor, helping a loser - all this only contributes, in the opinion of a true gentleman, to the development of melancholy and the spilling of bile.

If you are a timid person, you will never become a true gentleman. However, since a true gentleman is most afraid of accusations of deliberate, ostentatious behavior, then it is important not only to be distinguished by insolence, but also to be able to hide it. A true gentleman must counter arrogance and rudeness with self-control, which is based on self-confidence and self-confidence. He can behave as he pleases, but he must avoid the hypocrisy with which a cunning dealer or an ardent connoisseur of art praises a painting at all costs. A true gentleman moves through life with unparalleled serenity. He is recognized and respected by everyone; They seek his affection, they treat him well - but they don’t really love him.

Here, however, I may be mistaken, for in relation to a true gentleman all the signs of love are manifested, except those that arise between close people who do not consider it necessary to restrain their feelings.

It is very possible that you will never meet this character. I have sometimes seen something similar. In any case, if you want to be known as an impeccable gentleman, you must have all the listed qualities. An impeccable gentleman, not an impeccable man, for this gentleman has many shortcomings. However, without these shortcomings he would not be so attractive.

sane person

The one whom I decided to describe is not the sage of the times of the Stoics, and certainly not the one who in the Holy Scriptures “will make you wise for salvation”1. This is the most ordinary, sensible person, one of those who has chosen a goal in life and persistently, persistently achieves it. It would seem that there is nothing to add to the above - except perhaps to extol prudence and diligence. I, however, take a different point of view. Everything that at first glance depends entirely on reason and prudence is always in some way connected with our feelings; Furthermore: Reason and prudence themselves depend, if not in essence, then at least in their characteristics on our natural qualities, on our mentality and temperament. Sanity, in other words, is not only common sense, but also, no less, a special way of feeling and understanding.

A sane person, however, has only two passions: greed and ambition; all the rest are absorbed by these two and, if they arise, it is only to satisfy the two main ones.

When a sane person sets a goal for himself, he does not lose sight of it for a minute, does not sacrifice it for the sake of something insignificant that promises momentary pleasure. Weak minds are unable to concentrate on one subject. This activity very quickly becomes boring, and although they do not want to completely abandon the task at hand, they are constantly distracted by something else, as a result of which they find themselves even further from the goal than at the beginning of the path.

They live their whole lives depriving themselves of pleasure and infringing own interests, and go to the grave exhausted, dissatisfied with themselves, inconsolable. The life of a sane person is entirely devoted to one goal. He knows that it is impossible to have everything, and therefore he prefers calm and constant pleasures. He never trusts to chance and is ready to sacrifice his life rather than live as he has to. Every day for him is nothing more than a step towards the next, every year is the next step on the upward ladder to future success. It cannot be said, however, that success and money did not bring him joy; however, one success only pushes him to another, and the satisfaction that he experiences from the next success lies in the fact that this success is the key to further success on the path of life.

You can’t deny him courage, and a lot of it; he realized that life without a goal is not life, and therefore, for the sake of a goal, he always puts life on the line, and sometimes even the goal itself for the sake of an even greater goal. However, this courage is not reckless; it is always thoughtful and balanced. He won't do one a rash step, but if he has already done it, he will not turn back, despite any dangers. His step is not fast, but firm and confident. He conquers living space not as quickly as those who are in a hurry to succeed, but, having conquered, he will not give up an inch. He is considered lucky, and he is truly lucky. All people have approximately equal chances, but only those who are consistent and purposeful can use them. Surprises happen to him as often as others, but he knows when they happen and understands how to use them to his advantage. His horizons are not broad, but he does not complain about his lack of intelligence; Moreover, the narrower his horizons, the smarter he is. He is also not distinguished by his rich imagination or originality, and therefore his actions evoke approval rather than admiration.

Ambition is a petty passion, it is easy to suppress, but for the ambitious it is detrimental; This passion will not achieve much, because it does not give up anything and lives exclusively for today. Her appetite is quickly satisfied, but just as quickly it reappears. Often a thoroughly thought-out plan is frustrated because the ambitious person needs not only to achieve the goal, but also to show off his intelligence; a sane person is much higher than such ambitions, because of which he may find himself at the mercy of the last fool; at the same time, he knows his own worth very well, moreover, he is proud; Pride evokes contempt only if the proud person is openly weak, but weak people are rarely proud of themselves. He does everything in his power not to arouse contempt, but he also shies away from admiration; he requires not admiration, but veneration, and he persistently seeks veneration, from which he seeks to profit. He himself does not admire anyone, he respects few people, and those few whom he treats with respect cause him constant fear. He treats with the greatest contempt people who are respectable and not very capable, as well as refined people who are rash and have not succeeded in this world. He knows: one failure, if accepted, leads to another; a proud person, he endures failures hard and is distinguished by his constancy, which allows him not to retreat from decisions taken. That is why, if he plans to take revenge, his revenge will be thoughtful, inevitable and crushing. However, he is not only a ruthless avenger, but also a loyal friend: turn to him with a request - and he will not let you down. He does not forget goodness - and this is already a lot. And friends too - in the sense, at least, that he knows how they can be useful to him. When choosing friends for himself, he cares little about their spiritual or moral qualities; however, having chosen a friend, he will not give up on him, no matter what vices he may suffer. He has long known well: there are no impeccable people in the world. It is not vice that disgusts him, but stupidity, but since he treats his friends without much respect, he is ready to forgive them even stupidity. If he nevertheless betrays his friendly feelings, former friend bad luck.

He is not eloquent, but he knows how to force himself to listen - not a single person in the world has ever heard a single thoughtless, empty word from him. There seems to be more in his words than he meant to say; he speaks deliberately, thoughtfully, and in his reasoning relies more on life experience than on abstract ideas. He strives to be known not so much as a pleasant person, but as a resourceful and far-sighted person, a man of action, and not of phrases. He takes nothing for granted, and every day he lives convinces him of how right he is. He behaves with equal wariness with people who are treacherous and loyal, because he believes that even a devoted person pursues his own interests. His main prejudice is that people, without exception, are on their own minds. He truly believes only in himself, which, however, often harms himself.

He does not have the softness or pliability of a good-natured person; by nature he is harsh, hard-hearted and unyielding. A person is nothing to him if his death is no more conducive to the conduct of business than life. At the same time, you cannot accuse him of cruelty or bloodthirstiness, because he will never do anything unnecessary. He rarely gets angry.

I explain the lack of religious feeling in him by the severity and inflexibility of his character. He is not easily moved, and by nature he is insensitive and distrustful. In addition, he is proud and inclined to reject everything that seems insignificant to him or is accepted on faith by insignificant people. He judges everything as it is customary to judge in the world, and is always ready to suspect his neighbor of evil intent or hypocrisy. In the same spirit, he views religion, which he reveres and despises at the same time. At the same time, he does not at all strive for the dubious reputation of a subverter of faith. His feelings towards religion, if he had not hidden them so carefully, would most accurately be described by the word “indifference.”

As an interlocutor, he is not so bad, but his laugh is usually dry and sarcastic. He is attached to humanity as nothing more than a business partner; there is no person who would arouse his love or hatred. When he gets ready to get married, he invariably makes the right choice, because he chooses with his mind and not with his heart. He appreciates family relationships and prosperity and does not neglect those qualities that will make his wife a useful and pleasant life partner. For his part, he will also be a good husband to her, but he will not pay much attention to her. When she goes to her forefathers, he will undoubtedly experience a feeling of loss, which, however, will not prevent him from reflecting on the fact that now, with the absence of the widow’s share of the inheritance, his eldest son has the right to count on a more profitable party.

His children are well brought up and educated; he does everything in his power to make sure they succeed. Not only are they not a burden for him, but they also serve to satisfy his vanity. By promoting them, he thereby contributes to the growth of his importance in society.

He is loyal to his party and useful to it; he makes a career, but does not serve. The business he is engaged in does not suffer from his dishonor and does not fall into disrepair from his mediocrity. At the same time, it does not become super-profitable and passes to his successor in the same condition as it was before him. He will not hesitate to get involved in any, even the most dubious, business, at the same time, everything new and original will seem risky and unreliable to him.

Because he does not harm anyone over trifles, does not irritate anyone with petty insults and nagging, does not compete with anyone in success or pleasure, provides services to many, without forgetting about his own interests, punishes those who tried to get in his way, is conscientious and fair when he considers it appropriate (and this does not happen often), - he is considered a very efficient person. An exemplary father and a reliable business partner, he is not a capricious or bilious person - he personifies kindness and goodwill. Having lived a prosperous life, causing respect, fear, adulation, and sometimes envy, hated only by a few, and even then secretly, trying to live in accordance with generally accepted rules, to which he always tried to adapt, he finally died -
et; he is opened, embalmed and buried. From now on, he is nothing more than a monument - to his family, his service and his connections.

1 “Moreover, from childhood you have known the sacred scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: 3, 15).

Good man

In the view of a physiologist, all people are divided into melancholic, choleric, phlegmatic and sanguine, but in nature there is hardly at least one person who would be only melancholic or only sanguine. If I were faced with the task of describing an unyielding man, without having anyone in particular in mind, every line on his face would have to express steadfastness and inflexibility, and nothing more. If, on the contrary, I were faced with the need to paint a portrait of a certain person, in whose character inflexibility predominates, I would be obliged to depict all his features, even if they contradict the prevailing one. So that the portrait of a prudent or good person does not look abstract and inexpressive, this portrait should be depicted in all the diversity of its features.

A good person is distinguished primarily by natural kindness, without which friendly feelings and good deeds remain speculative qualities. A good man is more benevolent than just; he is distinguished not so much by the desire to avoid bad deeds at all costs, but by the desire to do good ones. In his actions, he is guided more by spiritual impulses, distinguished by constant generosity, than by the rules of casuistry. His reasoning about morality may lack logic, but his feelings are always pure; his life is distinguished more by greatness, daring, breadth than by impeccable correctness, for which pedantic and sensible people do not like him.

His thoughts amaze with subtlety and nobility, his imagination with liveliness, energy, power and recklessness; it subjugates reason, which, instead of limiting the imagination, readily enters into collusion with it.

And this leaves an imprint on all the actions of a good person, which are distinguished by kindness, spontaneity and sincerity, affecting our feelings more than the mind.

Spontaneity is the most noticeable characteristic of a good person. In fact, how can someone who strives with all his soul to love his neighbor, serve and please everyone around him, figure out and weigh when it’s worth backing down and when it’s wiser to insist on his own? A mind so rich in kindness and affection for people is not distinguished by frugality.

Complaisant, soft, naive, he is attacked from all sides; he is deceived by fraud, overcome by importunity, and need seeks to pity him. From him strengths those around them benefit, and the weak benefit.

There is nothing in the character of a good person that would lead him away from faith - there is no cruelty, insensitivity, or pride in him. At the same time, his religious feeling consists entirely of love and, to tell the truth, does not so much keep him from committing a bad act as inspire him when his actions do not diverge from his natural inclinations. He is devoted to his friends, has warm, even ardent feelings for them, but he is not constancy and knows this about himself.

A good person is disgusted by vanity, and he has no idea that it is behind him. Nevertheless, this is so, he is vain, and even very, and since he does not use any tricks to hide this passion, it catches the eye of the first person he meets. Not suspecting that he is vain, a good man does not take any measures to satisfy his vanity, and therefore, doing everything to deserve praise, he is awarded it extremely rarely.

A balanced person, one who does not follow the lead of passions and base desires, lives within his means, is kind to everyone and does no harm to anyone; one who, distinguished by rare nobility, is content only with the name of an honest person; the one whose mercy does not conflict with frugality - such a person is liked by everyone and does not have a single enemy in the world. I have never met a good person who did not have many unprovoked, and therefore completely irreconcilable enemies. And that is to say, the person whom you have turned against yourself can be calmed down - but what, tell me, means will be needed to appease the one who hates you for your desire to do him good?!

Envy is a powerful feeling, and we experience it to a much greater extent in relation to the wealth that virtue has achieved than in relation to triumphant vice. It is true that a cheater can make us angry; but we are at least consoled by the fact that he achieved a high position undeservedly. When a good person achieves success, our envy is inconsolable: there is no reason for anger, we realize that his success is deserved, and therefore we envy him twice as much.

If bad person accidentally does a good deed, we are surprised and begin to suspect that in reality he is not so bad... If a good person makes a mistake, we, with our characteristic hypocrisy, are inclined to question his kindness.

Need to serve someone? Nominate someone? The rogue is the most suitable figure for this. I am inclined to think that we hold such a high opinion of him for the simple reason that we are afraid of him. A good person has nothing to fear and, therefore, nothing to extol. No one will speak in his favor. Who will really consider it necessary to defend his interests if he himself does not care about them at all?

The life of a good person is a constant satire on humanity, evidence of our envy, malice, and ingratitude.

Unlike the scoundrel, the good man, that godlike, good-hearted being, is entirely at the mercy of circumstances. Therefore, he is forced to spend more than he can afford, borrow more than he can repay, and promise more than he is ready to do, which is why we often see him as not kind, not fair, and not generous.

He provides help to those who cannot do without him. He is unhappy when he deals with the unhappy, and loses all idea of ​​courtesy, for he does not honor those whom the world honors...

Where are his friends when misfortune awaits him? But his friends are the same as himself - and how many of them are there? Before something happens to him, everyone around him begins to accuse him of rashness. Generous people, that is, young and careless people, pity him and sympathize with him, but what do the young and careless people understand about pity? Abandoned by everyone, he risks becoming a misanthrope. This is how even the best wine turns sour and turns into vinegar. It ends with the fact that, tired of the world, disillusioned with life, he seeks other consolations. Transplanted from the soil that rejected him to where he is better understood and appreciated, he eventually dies, and only then does the world finally appreciate him. Now traces of his kindness are visible everywhere, and they pay tribute to it everywhere. The deceased is forgiven even for his misfortunes, and even selfish people feel that they have suffered a loss.

It may seem that the weakness and rashness that I attribute to such a person are not compatible with his impeccable image. They combine, and even very well. I have never seen a single good person who was not extremely rash. When someone is said to be prudent, how do we see him? Doesn't he seem to us like a person who preserves his face, guards his interests, and cares about his reputation? What catches your eye in this portrait? First of all, take care of yourself. Will he care for another with the same care? In any case, much less than about myself. A good person, on the contrary, will think about doing good to another, and not at all about whether the good deed will turn against him.

If you think about it, the feeling with which we take on some important task is always stronger than reason. Therefore, prudence or imprudence is not a greater or lesser manifestation of reason; our discretion depends on how we feel about it. If a person is seized by a selfish feeling - for example, greed or vanity - it will go beyond the limits of reason in the same way as the most reckless love of humanity. And yet, people gripped by this feeling, no matter how strong it may be, act, as a rule, with enviable caution.

And one more note. In fact, selfish feeling is always under the supervision of common sense, which favors it. When does it happen? good deed, our mind always resists the impulse of generosity, without which a truly good deed is impossible.

Introductory article, notes
and translation from English by A. Livergant.

1 The addressee of this comic letter is Sir James Lowther(?-1755), about whom the magazine “Gentlemen's Magazine” said that he was “the richest commoner in Great Britain, whose fortune approaches a million.”

BURKE Edmund
(Burke, Edmund)

(1729-1797), English statesman, orator and political thinker, best known for his philosophy of conservatism. Born in Dublin on January 12, 1729 in the family of a Protestant lawyer; Burke's mother professed the Roman Catholic faith. He was raised in the spirit of Protestantism. He was educated at Ballitore Boarding School and then at Trinity College, Dublin. Initially he intended to follow the judicial line and in 1750 he moved to London to enter the Middle Temple School of Barristers. Little is known about Burke's first years in England. We know that he lost interest in law, decided not to return to Ireland and devoted himself to literary work. His first essay, A Vindication of Natural Society (1756), was a parody of the works of Viscount Bolingbroke, but was passed off as a posthumously published essay by the latter. Burke wanted to show that Bolingbroke's thoughts on natural religion are superficial and, when applied to political issues, lead to absurd consequences. The essay is an important milestone in Burke's development as a writer and thinker, but in itself it is of little interest. A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) is a more serious work that still attracts the attention of aestheticians. At one time, she made an impression on D. Diderot, I. Kant and G. E. Lessing and created the author’s reputation among writers, and also played important role in his political career. Burke's most significant achievement during these years was the publication, together with the publisher Robert Dodsley, of the "Annual Register" (1758). Burke never publicly admitted that he was the editor of this magazine, but in all likelihood he wrote most articles contained in it, including famous articles on history. He worked on the magazine until 1765, then other writers took up the matter, and today it is difficult to say with certainty which articles belong to Burke and which belong to other authors. According to some accounts, he remained "chief conductor" until 1780, and since five other identified authors were his students, there is no doubt that he continued to influence the contents of the yearbook throughout his life. Having entered politics, Burke did not immediately abandon his literary ambitions. But his writings brought in almost no income; In addition, in 1757 Burke married Jane Mary Nugent and soon became the father of two sons. Therefore, in 1759 he entered the service of William Gerard Hamilton as a private secretary. When Hamilton became chief secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Burke had to spend the winters of 1761 and 1763 in Dublin, where he gained his first political experience. In 1765 a fierce quarrel with Hamilton followed. At thirty-seven years old, Burke found himself out of work, and his income fell to 100 pounds a year, which he received while working on the Annual Register. Nevertheless, he was unenthusiastic about the offer to become private secretary to the young Marquess of Rockingham, who in July 1765 became First Lord of the Treasury (in fact, Prime Minister). From now on it began political career Burke. At the end of 1765, with the help of Earl Verney, he became a member of the House of Commons for the county of Wendover. His first speeches at the beginning of 1766 were an extraordinary success. Within a few weeks, Burke had gained a reputation as one of the leading parliamentary politicians. Rockingham resigned in July 1766, but remained the leader of an influential group called the so-called. The Rockingham Whigs remained in opposition for the next sixteen years. Burke spoke on behalf of this group in Parliament, as well as in his writings. The basis of his influence is his success as a speaker. Not distinguished by the sense of tact and flexibility inherent in the great masters of rhetoric, Burke nevertheless sought to obtain complete information about the issues under discussion and was capable of organizing large quantity material and knew how to entertain listeners. The reputation of a member of parliament roughly corresponds to the total number of his speeches. During his twenty-eight years in the House of Commons, Burke was always one of the two or three most popular speakers. In addition, Burke served his party as the author of pamphlets and speeches published in printed form. He won his first success in this field with the pamphlet Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, 1770 - a declaration of the political principles of the Rockingham Whigs. This document contains a well-known definition of a political party and a defense of its role in government. Speculation about the “double cabinet” and in general about the activities of the “friends of the king,” as the politicians under the control of George III were called, were regarded by historians of the twentieth century as unrealistic. Burke's first two fully printed speeches were devoted to the problems of the colonies: On American Taxation, delivered in April 1774 and published in 1775 and On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, delivered and published in the spring 1775). The same topic was discussed in his famous Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, on the Affairs of America, 1777. Burke's thinking about America was pragmatic and conservative. The problem, in his view, was not how to resolve conflicts with the colonies over issues of “right to tax” or “representation,” but how to keep the colonies under Great Britain’s control. This can be done, he believed, only by studying the features of the local political life and accordingly building a political line. England, Burke wrote, had gained a lot from trade with America, and she would receive no less even if she did not take a single shilling from her in taxes. This political philosophy failed to convince the English parliament of the time, although in the 19th and 20th centuries. many researchers admired Burke's insight. Burke's activity in Parliament, his interest in commerce and disagreement with government policies towards the colonies impressed the merchants of Bristol, who in 1774 elected him as their representative in the House of Commons. Burke was flattered to be a member of parliament from the second most important English city, and he sought to carry out the orders of his merchant voters to the best of his ability. However, his zeal ceased to please the people of Bristol when he began to express ideas about the need for relaxations in the rules of trade with Ireland, about the reform of insolvency laws and about tolerance for Catholics. Burke lost his seat for Bristol in 1780 and went on to represent the constituency of Malton, which was under the control of Lord Rockingham and the Earl of Fitzwilliam. The souring relationship with Bristol did not damage Burke's reputation, which reached unprecedented heights in the last years of the American Revolution. Those were the years of close collaboration with Charles James Fox - together they waged a constant war of words with the Prime Minister, Lord North. Burke also played an important role in organizing the county petitions of 1779 and 1780 and in the movement for economic reform, aimed mainly at limiting the power of the king and the extent of his influence over parliament. The opposition, which rarely achieved success, was nevertheless active and knew how to make itself heard. Burke's private life during these years also cannot be called unsuccessful. He continues to communicate with Samuel Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, David Garrick and Joshua Reynolds, is friends with scientists and artists, supports Fanny Burney and discovers George Crabb. His family life turned out to be unusually happy. The Beaconsfield estate was a source of joy to him. He loved guests and took a break from politics by doing agricultural work. After 16 years in opposition, Rockingham's group came to power in March 1782. Burke was appointed not a member of the cabinet, but the chief military paymaster. This position was much less lucrative than before the reforms that Burke himself promoted. But even what little this post gave was lost with the death of Rockingham in July 1782. Burke's position in the party was shaken. He supported Fox in his steps to dismiss the government of Lord Shelburne, and entered into an unsuccessful alliance with Lord North, which, however, allowed him to regain the position of military treasurer for a short time. When George III and William Pitt the Younger achieved success against the coalition in 1784, Burke returned to the ranks of the opposition. Now Fox was real, and the Duke of Portland was the figurehead of a party in which Burke was gradually losing influence. His main efforts in the 1780s were aimed at investigating the activities of the East India Company, which led to the resignation of the Governor-General of Bengal Warren Hastings in 1787 and a trial that lasted seven years. Burke himself repeated many times that “Indian” works were the main work of his life. However, modern historians this stage of it political activity occupies a lesser extent than its other aspects. It is generally accepted that Burke was extremely unfair to Hastings. But time dictated its conditions. It was necessary to attract public attention to moral problems imperial rule, and only the demand for resignation could somehow contribute to the reform. And if British rule in India in the 19th century. became more scrupulous than in the 18th century, then this is partly the merit of Burke. At the height of the Indian campaign, another, more important political issue arose in full force, concerning the French Revolution of 1789. Burke was one of the first to sense the extreme importance of events in France. In November 1790, when British sympathies were still with the revolutionaries, he published his Reflections on the Revolution in France, a pamphlet of more than 400 pages in which he examined the main political principles of the revolution. Burke was poorly informed about what was happening in France; in any case, his primary concern was the impact of “French principles” on English citizens. Burke saw the danger of revolution in its blind adherence to theory, its preference for abstract rights over traditional institutions and customs, and its contempt for experience. Burke himself believed in the classical traditions, coming from Aristotle, and in the Christian traditions, of which he considered the English theologian Richard Hooker to be a representative. Burke's views can hardly be called systematically pursued pragmatism, but he was deeply distrustful of the “metaphysical speculations” of inexperienced statesmen. Expanding on the ideas of his early writings and speeches on America and even earlier work in Defense of Natural Society, Burke opposed the principles of the Age of Reason - or at least against the arrogance of those who believed that with the help of reason the final mysteries of existence could be penetrated. He believed that only the action of divine providence could explain great historical changes. The reflections fulfilled their immediate purpose and attracted public interest in the ideas and events of the French Revolution. The book caused numerous controversies and responses, among which the most famous is Thomas Paine's pamphlet The Rights of Man (1791-1792). However, the significance of Burke's book does not end there. Despite its roughness of style and errors of fact, the Reflections are Burke's most important work. It most fully expresses the philosophy of conservatism, which is Burke's contribution to world political thought. Reflections are also the main victory won by his eloquence. The book evoked an unusually wide response. At a time when there was no threat of war or invasion, it created a sense of crisis that usually only arises in times of disaster. The book is dedicated to specific events, but has the breadth and depth inherent in an outstanding work of literature. William Hazlitt, Matthew Arnold and Leslie Stephen unanimously call Burke a master of English prose. Reflections are the most striking manifestation of his talent. Last years Burke's life was filled with anxiety and disappointment. Six months after the publication of the Reflections, in May 1791, he finally and publicly broke with Foxe due to differences in assessment of the French Revolution. For some time this rupture led to Burke's isolation within the Whig Party; he published An Appeal from New Whigs to Old Whigs the New to the Old Whigs) in August 1791 to prove that his position followed from the traditional principles of the party. Subsequent events confirmed that Burke was right; in any case, they attracted the party elite to his side and public opinion. But even the war with France, which began in January 1793, was not crusade against the Jacobins, which Burke called for. He never ceased to remind the government and the public of the need for more decisive actions, coordinated with other European powers, that could eliminate the danger of the revolution spreading. Burke's resignation in June 1794 did not bring peace to his soul. Personal tragedy - the death of his only son Richard in August 1794 - plunged Burke into despair, his grief was aggravated by a sense of impending national and world catastrophe. He was sensitive to the decision to acquit Warren Hastings in 1795. Burke was worried about the developments in Ireland, and he believed that only significant concessions to the Catholic majority could prevent revolution in this country. Burke supported the Earl of Fitzwilliam's measures as Lord Lieutenant and felt responsible for the failure of the process when Pitt, as Prime Minister, disavowed Fitzwilliam's actions. The mistakes made by the European coalition in relation to France led him to despair. But despair did not mean surrendering positions. Although Burke considered himself a finished man after the death of his son, he continued to help with advice and support his friends and students: Fitzwilliam, Portland, William Wyndham, as well as Irish patriots and French refugees. Burke's correspondence during these years is more intense than at any other period of his life. Those who thought he was out of the game were wrong. At the end of 1795, the young Duke of Bedford spoke unfriendlyly in the House of Lords about Burke and the amount of his pension. With his response - the famous Letter to a Noble Lord - Burke dealt the Duke a crushing blow. This letter is considered by some historians to be "the most delightful retaliation in the history of English literature." There was also a more serious reason for expressing my thoughts about what was happening. The war with France took place without special success, and, of course, there were people in England who wanted negotiations and peace. For Burke, nothing could have been more shameful. He considered all French leaders "robbers and murderers" - Danton, Robespierre and the Directory. To believe that it was possible to come to an agreement with such people, Burke believed, meant to engage in self-deception. Late in 1795, provoked by the peaceful sentiments that had been expressed in a pamphlet by his old friend Lord Auckland, Burke began the first of his Letters for Peace with the Regicides. This work was never completed, but was published as a fragment after Burke's death. In Burke's Works the first letter is located in fourth place. The letters, which today are called the first and second (in fact, two parts of a single whole), were published in the fall of 1796 under the title Two Letters... on Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory of France). The letter today called the third (written last), like the fourth, is in the nature of a fragment and was published in 1797 after the death of the author. The third letter was never completed. Burke died in Beaconsfield (Buckinghamshire) on July 9, 1797.
LITERATURE
Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M., 1993

Collier's Encyclopedia. - Open Society. 2000 .

See what "BURKE Edmund" is in other dictionaries:

- (1729 97) English publicist and philosopher, one of the Whig leaders. Author of pamphlets against the French Revolution. 18th century.BURKE (Burke) Edmund (January 12, 1729, Dublin July 9, 1797, Baconsfield), English thinker, publicist and politician, ... ... Big encyclopedic Dictionary

- (Burke, Edmund) (1729–97) Politician, belonged to the Whig party; sat in parliament, with a short break, from 1766 until his death. He fought for the prosperity of his native Ireland, opposing the ownership of land by landlords,... ... Political science. Dictionary.

J. Reynolds. Edmund Burke Edmund Burke (English Edmund Burke; January 12, 1729, Dublin July 9, 1797, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire) English parliamentarian, politician, publicist of the Enlightenment, ideological founder of the British ... ... Wikipedia

- (Burke) Burke Edmund (1729 1797) English publicist, political figure. Born on January 12, 1729 in Dublin, Ireland, in the family of a Dublin lawyer. He studied at a Quaker school and at Trinity College in Dublin. 1750 entered the London... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was an English thinker, essayist and politician, he was also an ideologist of conservatism.

E. Burke began his literary work in the field of philosophy with the pamphlet “Defense of Natural Society” (1756), in which he responded negatively to the rationalistic philosophy of G. Bolingbroke, and in 1757 - “A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful” , which had big influence on the formation of European aesthetics. From 1758 to 1790 he was the leading author and editor of the Annual Register.

Political conservatism as a holistic worldview first revealed itself in 1790, when E. Burke’s “Impressions from the Revolution in France” Philosophy and socio-political values ​​of conservatism in the public consciousness of Russia (from origins to the present) were published. Digest of articles. Issue 1. - Ed. Yu.N. Corned beef., p. 70-71. . Burke's teaching arose as a reaction against the promising French Revolution and the exaltation of reason by the Enlightenment philosophers G. Skirbeck and N. Guillier. History of philosophy. . At the same time, conservatism is considered as the opposite of radicalism, investing in both concepts, in addition to the purely formal, abstract and ideological content, characteristic and more accessible to the traditions of English politics.

The emergence and development of E. Burke’s beliefs were influenced by the political ideas of a number of ideologists such as G. Bracton, J. Harrington and J. Locke, as a result of which E. Burke formed an opinion about the system of separation of powers, a strong state and the inherent advantage of property . The direct influence of modern philosophy helped E. Burke: understand the process of formation and functioning of society; find out the place of the individual in nature and society; come to the idea and develop from a conservative position ideas: “freedom”, “freedom of property”, perception of morality and politics; characterize the processes that took place in society in the second half of the 18th century. Both the political and socio-economic environment for the formation of E. Burke’s conservative views are revealed.

In "Reflections on the French Revolution" (1790) by E. Burke, the first manifesto of European political conservatism, there are already anthropological issues. Burke saw at the very initial stage of the French Revolution its true political and moral meaning and opposed all analogies between the English liberal movement of the 17th century, which respected traditions, and the French revolutionary movement, which set out to implement a completely new socio-political order. “I would not rule out the possibility of changes, but there are things that must be preserved. I would resort to medicine only when the patient is really unwell. By renovating the building, I would preserve its style.” Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M., 1993.S. 143., - argued E. Burke.

Reproaching his rivals for political shortsightedness and incompetence, the Scottish philosopher based his accusations on a different, more realistic understanding of human nature. For the mastery of politics, the skills of which are not acquired in one day, requires at least an absolutely complete knowledge of human nature and its needs, which, from the point of view of the philosopher, to one degree or another constitutes a problem for the “destroyers” of the French old social buildings seeking to erect new ones. These specimens are predisposed to wild and uncontrollable politics in a way that they do not comprehend the significance of the political essence: “Human nature is complex and confused, public interests are also extremely complex, and, therefore, there is no such political direction, there is no such power that would suit everyone. When I "I hear about the simplicity of the plan, the goal of which is a new political system, I cannot help thinking that its inventors do not know their craft or neglect their duty. The idea of ​​​​a simple political system is inherently flawed, to say the least." Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M., 1993.S. 72., - recorded E. Burke in his “Reflections”.

Thus, without focusing on the sinfulness of “human nature,” the ideologist, in fact, continued the Machiavellian tradition of the psychological approach to understanding human nature, which is interpreted as a kind of interweaving of the rational and irrational, conscious and unconscious. Therefore, the English thinker emphasized that the state is a “wise invention of humanity,” designed to provide for human needs and at the same time to restrain human passions and desires within reasonable limits. This is a kind of educational institution, which, together with other social institutions - such as family, church, educational institutions- promotes the moral improvement of a person and restrains his irrational impulses through a system of social rules and duties, which is formalized by society throughout the life of more than one generation.

E. Burke is considered the founder of a new movement within the framework of natural law, called the historical school of law.

The combination of natural and positive law for Burke is significant on the grounds that the principle established in them acted on the basis of strict prohibition and was valuable in periods of social and political crises. It was precisely this right that prevented the rift internal order, carried out a moral and legal prohibition and contributed to the preservation of cultural values, helped ensure the normative behavior of large masses of people.

Meanwhile, Burke also demanded the theory of the social contract in order to argue his thoughts about the groundlessness of George III’s demands to restore the form of government in England in the form of an absolute monarchy. E. Burke fostered ideas about a constitutional monarchy, consolidated as a result of the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. He saw the treaty as one of many concepts about the origin of society and the state, explaining the origin of these institutions with the help of the evolutionary theory of the Greek sophists and Cicero.

Built on the basis of the social structure of England, the concept served Edmond Burke as a method of explaining the rights and responsibilities of a person to society and the state. In it, E. Burke did not allow one principle - social equality, which leads to the disintegration of personality. In the knowledge of human rights, E. Burke proceeded from the mind of the people, which collectively are smarter than one person, for society carries within itself the wisdom of generations. Burke constantly reminded of the need to respect the experience of past generations and follow the “natural course of things.”

E. Burke sees the stability of society in the guarantee of inalienable human rights to property. According to the philosopher, property connects the basis of any civilized society, since it is the determining factor from which the form of government and the distribution of power, and boils down to: the right to make decisions; right of ownership.

Hence, the condition for the harmonious development of man and society was the observance of property rights, which allowed a person to develop his abilities and talents.

“We are afraid to let people live and act only with their own minds, because we suspect that the mind of the individual is weak and it is better for the individual to draw from the general fund that stores the acquired wisdom of the nation over centuries.” Burke E. Reflections on the revolution in France. M., 1993.S. 86., wrote E. Burke.

During the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783, Burke denounced government repressive measures. In 1780-1782, Burke played an important role in carrying out economic reform - the elimination of sinecures, which were used by the king to bribe parliamentarians. At the same time, Burke invariably rejected the idea of ​​parliamentary reform put forward by the left Whigs (a party in England) and radicals. In 1784-1786, his parliamentary speeches demanding the resignation of the Governor-General of India W. Hastings for abuse of power became widely known. Having an extremely negative perception of the Great French Revolution, Burke sharply criticized it in a series of parliamentary speeches and journalistic works(1790-1797), the main of which was his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (1790). This book caused a lot of controversy, in which many prominent politicians and thinkers of Europe took part, and went down in history as a classic presentation of the principles of the ideology of conservatism. Chudinov A.V. Edmund Burke - critic of the French Revolution Chapters from the book "English Reflections on the French Revolution: E. Burke, J. Mackintosh, W. Godwin"., M., 1996.

Edmund Burke is traditionally considered the founder of conservative thought. His work “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (1790) gave impetus to the development of such different directions of political thought as French counter-revolutionary traditionalism, German political romanticism, and English liberal conservatism.

The reflections fulfilled their immediate purpose and attracted public interest in the ideas and events of the French Revolution. The book caused numerous controversies and responses, among which the most famous is Thomas Paine's pamphlet The Rights of Man (1791-1792). However, the significance of Burke's book does not end there. Despite its roughness of style and errors of fact, the Reflections are Burke's most important work. It most fully expresses the philosophy of conservatism, which is Burke's contribution to world political thought. Reflections are also the main victory won by his eloquence.

Burke believed that the social process is a process of trial and error. The experience accumulated and passed on from generation to generation is embodied in social institutions and values ​​that are not consciously constructed by man and are not managed by him according to a rationally justified plan. Burke wrote, “the mind of an individual is limited, and it is better for the individual to take advantage of the common bank and capital of the peoples accumulated over the centuries Burke E. Reflections on the Revolution in France. N. Y., 1955. P. 99.” Burke's conservatism does not support the concept of complete laissez faire and does not accept the ideas of “natural rights and freedoms,” “natural goodness of man,” “natural harmony of interests.” Burke, in particular, noted that the British owe their rights and freedoms not to some rationally formulated abstract and universal principles, but to the process of development of English society from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights; over the course of many centuries these rights were expanded and passed on from generation to generation Burke E. Id.R. 37.

Burke was a defender of classical natural law and a representative of the English liberal tradition; an opponent and at the same time a supporter of historicism; a defender of freedoms and a supporter of the authoritarian state. At the center of his "Reflections" is the defense of History in its duration and natural flow, as opposed to the revolutionary project of conscious reconstruction of the social order; defense of prejudice against Reason; social experience - as opposed to individual experience.

"Reflections" were written by Burke on the attempt of the London "Society of Revolution" to put together two very different revolutions and two different constitutions developed during them - the English constitution of 1688, permeated with the spirit of Protestantism, which reflected the centuries-old traditions of English national freedoms, and the French The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, destructive and atheistic, created by the mind of theorists, and therefore artificial and erroneous.

According to Burke, the English Revolution (unlike the French) was legal to the extent that it did not express the subjective will of Parliament, was the highest historical necessity and restored historically acquired freedoms, a single plan for the development of English history. With all this, Burke did not accept rationalist schemes.

When a statesman is faced with a huge mass “permeated with passions and interests,” there can be no simple solutions. Simple can only be superficial! Therefore, the concept of “freedom in general” is alien to the true nature of man, regardless of anything - only specific freedoms have meaning, as they were formed in the process of development of a particular people. “Our freedom has its own genealogy, features, gallery of portraits” Burke E. Reflexions on the Revolution in France. Oxford, 1877. P. 40. .

Mainham wrote about E. Burke: “The remarkable thing about Burke is that he was the first author to criticize the French Revolution. He was the initiator of anti-revolutionary conservatism. All later conservative critics of the French Revolution remained under more or less of his influence. It was Burke more than anyone, gave ideas and slogans to the anti-revolutionary camp. His "Reflections on the Revolution in France" was a pamphlet directed against the pro-revolutionary societies and clubs that arose in England. England offered a particularly favorable perspective for the correct political understanding of the revolution, so each specific remark turned into a fundamental thesis, became “philosophical” - even for a fundamentally non-philosophical mind, which was what Burke was endowed with.” Mannheim K. Diagnosis of our time.S. 629.

Hayek believed that the philosophy of Edmund Burke was based primarily on an evolutionary scheme: “Everything changes,” he writes in “Reflections,” “all the illusions that made power benevolent and submission liberal, that gave harmony to the various shadow sides of our lives and quite gently everything that was used for the benefit of politics, all the feelings that softened and embellished private life - everything will fade before the indomitable attack of Reason." Burke E. Op. cit. P. 158. .

Burke defends, first of all, the “spirit of freedom” that permeated the previous institutions and the “knightly morals.” Thus, the dilemma of freedom and equality is resolved by Burke in favor of freedom outside equality - in a traditional hierarchical society.

In Burke's philosophy we observe constant fluctuations between the principles of early bourgeois political philosophy, which formed the basis of the liberal tradition, and the traditionalist postulates, which later formed the core of conservative thought.

Considering Burke the founder of the conservative trend in political philosophy, it should be noted that his beliefs developed in a liberal direction. Speaking about the conservatism of Edmund Burke, we must emphasize the liberal nature of this conservatism. The entire development of English conservatism would subsequently follow the same path until R. Peel and Disraeli, who proclaimed a conservatism that was reformist in nature, however, such conservatism used reforms only to preserve the old. From the absolute of freedom to the romance of equality (from the history of political philosophy), ed. Fedorova M.M., Hevesi M.A., M., 1994. - 62 p. - 212 s.