Daniel Tahmazyan_Seminar_Paper.docx

Daniel Tahmazyan Seminar Paper Britain and Austria 1750-1850: Cultural Perceptions, International Exchange and Political Relations Dr. Laurence Cole 01/06/2018 Counter-Revolution and Conservatism: British and Austrian Reactions towards the French Revolution The following is an attempt at explaining the forces and forms of the Counter-Revolutionary movements in Britain and the Habsburg Empire, which were triggered by the sudden and unexpected turns and developments of the French Revolution. By categorizing this movement in two: the intellectual Counter-Revolution and the political one, the paper aims to show that the British reaction belonged to the first category while Austrians conditioned by the specificities of their situation followed the second path. “…And to make an end is to make a beginning. The end is where we start from”- T.S. Elliot Elliot, T. S. (1968). Four Quartets. New York, NY: Mariner Books. I 18th century can be hardly viewed as a century of peace in Europe partly because of the devastating wars, whether minor or major, that swept throughout the continent multiple times. However, it was not these seemingly endless conflicts and wars that left a significant impact on the coming centuries but an event that happened towards the end of it, which though again led to a major war between European powers, should nevertheless be understood in its initial context: that of Revolution. Now hardly any student of history can undermine the historical significance of the French Revolution, because it was this event that, in the long-run altered, reformed, changed or perhaps forced the old systems to change their structures in the face of the new Revolutionary age. The Revolution was welcomed by many but many others saw it as an immediate danger to the social order that should be quenched before it would spread itself further. It is in the latter point that the task of this paper is constituted, that is to understand and compare the forces and forms of reaction towards the French Revolution in Britain and the Habsburg Empire. As the Revolution was by no means confined only to military and political conflicts, even at its very inception it incited intellectual debates, which started in Britain and gradually transcended themselves onto the continent The Revolution itself was by no means destitute of ideological background, and as it has been claimed: “die Revolution glaubte und dachte, Tochter der Aufklärung zu sein…” (Bergeron, Furet & Koselleck, 1990, p. 33). , we will pay considerable attention to the literary developments during the years of the Revolution. Through the analysis of these various forms and aspects of the reaction, we will show that while Britain was the cradle of the intellectual reaction, the role of Austria was different, its reaction laid in military actions rather than ideological speculations about the Revolution. The existing literature on this subject suggests that the other European powers, based on their interests at one time or another, became concerned about the situation in France, and this led to their challenging of her position and her inclination of spreading the Revolution Perhaps another striking feature of the existing literature is the ubiquitous struggle with the uncertainty around this subject conditioned of course by the historical facts and actors only few of which could see their own time in its full complexity, and were every moment dependent on the further developments of the events in France. . This paper then cannot say anything completely new on the subject, since so much has already been said, but it will try to illustrate certain aspects of the Counter-Revolution, which at the end made it the winning ideology in this struggle, and which as mentioned above did not only involve political affairs but also intellectual ones. Let us, then turn to the subject proper of this essay, and let us first briefly sketch the general political situation in Great Britain when the news of the French Revolution crossed the channel. II The French Revolution, was not and perhaps could not be an event that would have an unequivocal support even amongst its followers, since as the time would show there would rise many political groups that suspected each other’s betrayal of the Revolution. It is by following this notion that we should start understanding the British Response to the French Revolution, which was far more ambivalent perhaps than those of all other forces that would later fight against the revolutionary France. This may as well be attributed to the somehow, at least by 18th century standards, special case of the British society, it was not and never had been a fully centralized and absolutist state, while the continental powers even if were not absolutist in structure have always had eagerness or inclination towards Absolutism. The British society, on the other hand had liberties, had a parliament and by the time of the French Revolution was going through the first phase of industrial transformation, which would occur in continental Europe only later in the 19th century. The fact that the British society had at least some liberties, which would allow for a certain amount of balance of power between the public and the crown should be seen as an important aspect of how the British reacted towards the French Revolution “Seine [Englands] soziale Entwicklung hatte ihm erlaubt, die Antagonismen von Klassen und Ständen, die in der Französischen Revolution eine entscheidende Rolle spielten, hinter sich zu lassen… Gewiß, in der englischen Gesellschaft keimten andere Konflikte: der einer vor der Industriellen Revolution schon betroffenen Gesellschaft; die Unzufriedenheit des kleinen und mittleren Bürgertums über den aristokratischen Zuschnitt des politischen Lebens.“ (Bergeron et. al, 1990, p. 102).. Politically as well as ideologically the British stance on the Revolution was split from the onset. However, this division too was by no means definite as would show the famous case of Edmund Burke, the man who originally a Whig became the founder of the Conservative political thought Burke was initially neutral if not supportive to the Revolution as his letter to Lord Charlemont on 9th August 1789 illustrates. It contains the following line: “England gazing with astonishment at a French struggle for Liberty and not knowing whether to blame or to applaud!” (Copeland, Cobban & Smith, 1967, p. 10). . One, however, should be careful and not make hasty conclusions, since most politicians, instead of opposing or supporting the Revolution just waited to see how the further unfolding of the events would render France weaker and powerless: an arch enemy was on a verge of dissolution, and “most government ministers and politically conservative commentators reacted to events in France only with mild interest and a degree of Schadenfreude” (Macleod, 2013, p. 380). This is perfectly illustrated in a letter William Grenville wrote to Duke of Buckingham in September 14th 1789: “The main point appears quite secure, that they [the French] will not for many years be in a situation to molest the invaluable peace which we now enjoy.” (Duke of Buckingham & Chandos, 1853, p. 165). Notwithstanding the apparent proposition that decaying France was all but of avail to the British interests, one could also find other reasons for the British political neutrality towards the Revolution in France. First of all, there was a tension between Great Britain and Spain over sea trading, which challenged the British interests directly and became known as the Nootka Crisis, it came to a formal end only in 1790 when the Nootka Convention was signed on 28th of October. Moreover, 1789 was a year of Revolution not only in France, but also in the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, of which special importance to the British was the Austrian Holland (Belgium). Since 1787 the increasing discontent of the locals, who were dissatisfied by the reforms that Emperor Joseph II was forcing upon them, has grown to a full-scale uprising against the Austrian rule by 1789. The British stance on this issue was not straightforward, a number of issues were of central character: Belgium should not in any case become a possession of France, neither should it be under the full control of the Habsburg Monarchy, it should maintain a somewhat independent existence (in this case continue to have its own Constitution) while being part of the Habsburg Empire, towards this end were directed the political exertions of the British (Ward & Gooch, 1922). The Brabant Revolution came to an end only on December 3rd 1790, by which time the French Revolution was well underway, the Fall of Bastille and the October March were already a year old. Beginning with 1790, however, the political opinion in Britain was becoming incrementally interested in the affairs of France and the French Revolution. One sign of it became Edmund Burke’s famous Reflections on the Revolution in France published in November of 1790. The book indeed heralded the beginning of a shift in British stance towards the French Revolution. This, however, stirred the minds of only the intellectuals in Britain and triggered ideologically rather than politically orientated series of debates, which will be treated in a more detailed manner in the following parts of the essay. The real shift in the political circles of Britain took place during the run of the year 1792. To quote Emma Macleod: … Most conservative observers changed their minds about the Revolution over the course of 1792, because of events in both France and Britain during that year. The increasingly violent and radical progression of events in France was clearly crucial – notably the abolition of the monarchy in August, the ‘September Massacres’ in Paris, and the aggressive foreign policy pursued by the National Convention in November and December. (2013, p. 381). What this comes to show then, is that Britain tried to keep herself distanced from the political events on the continent, and one of the main reasons for this could have been the fact that the Pitt government wanted to escape war, since it at last managed to bring stability to the financial situation of the state (Cooper, 1982). In 1792, however, the events in France started to take dramatic turns and it became increasingly important to see that the Revolution did not cross the borders of France into those of other monarchies, towards this end Austria and Prussia forged an alliance, albeit short-lived. What brought the British to an open conflict with France, however, were mainly the British interests in continental affairs that were put under a high risk because of the growingly threatening character of the French Revolution. The events, thus progressed in a rather swift manner, in August 1792 after the abolition of monarchy the British withdrew their ambassador from France, after the execution of Louis Capet in January 1793 the British expelled the French envoy and finally the British were preparing for an open conflict, because the safety of the Dutch Republic, an ally of Britain, was becoming undermined by the actions of the French. It was the result of these steps taken by the British, and perhaps the result of the ever-increasing incontinence of the French Revolutionary aims that led the French to declare war both on Britain and the Dutch Republic on February 1st 1793. What came as a result of that is not of relevance to this paper, what, however, should be emphasized is that this declaration of war once again rejuvenated the old unnatural, natural alliance between the British and the Habsburg Empire (Roider, 1988). III It was Isaiah Berlin, who first considered Edmund Burke to be the part of a general movement, which he identified as the Counter-Enlightenment, a movement that was constituted in an “opposition to the central ideas of the French Enlightenment” (Berlin, 2000, p. 243). It is in this respect that Novalis called the Reflections of Edmund Burke to be a “revolutionary book against the Revolution” (1978, p. 279). Finally, it is to Burke’s ideas and work that we shall turn, since his ideas became the benchmark for the further development of various approaches towards the French Revolution. What was at first intended to be a letter addressed to a Frenchman, which would disclose the opinions of Burke about the events in France ended up being a book that would define a new ideology and would lay the basis for the Counter-Revolutionary movement, influencing intellectuals and politicians alike. Burke born in 1730 in Dublin, Ireland raised by a Protestant father and a Catholic mother pursued a political career and since 1765 became a British Parliament member. It is partly due to his political affiliation as a Whig and partly due to his support for the American Revolution, that his stance on the French Revolution was assumed by some as “evidence of Burke’s eccentricity and extravagance, even madness” (Beales, 2005, p. 415). This statement and evaluation of some of his contemporaries, nevertheless, should not be taken at the face value and we should take a closer look at the literary developments in Britain during the time of the French Revolution to understand what caused Burke to write his Reflections. Burke’s seminal work, then should not be viewed separately from its context, one should rather try to understand the reasons that brought about such a drastic change in the thinking of a man, who was the follower of liberal enlightened ideas of the 18th century. According to Thomas Schofield the events of 5-6 October 1789, were the first which provoked hostility in British stance generally and in Burke’s views specifically towards the Revolution (1986). The reasons behind the shift in his political conceptions regarding the Revolution can be found in the Reflections itself, when Burke treats the issue of the French monasteries, which were effectively destroyed, and their property confiscated by the National Assembly, as a result of the French Revolution: A man full of warm speculative benevolence may wish his society otherwise constituted than he finds it; but a good patriot, and a true politician, always considers how he shall make the most of the materials of his country. A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman. Everything else is vulgar in the conception, perilous in the execution. (Burke, 2009, pp. 157-58). What this quote comes to show is that Burke did not believe in the abstract ideas that were followed by the French Revolutionaries, instead he believed that a change must be grounded in the cultural and historical traditions of a given state, in brief, that reforming your institutions is better than to destroy them and then try to make a new beginning Expressed more convincingly in this quote “…I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to any-thing which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction.” (Burke, 2009, pp. 7-8). . The reason why Reflections turned out to be a book rather than a letter as it was originally intended, can be attributed to the fact that during the time when Burke started writing his letter, he read A Discourse on the Love of Our Country, a sermon written by Dr. Richard Price, which was published in 1789 (Dreyer, 1978) While to claim that the sermon by Dr. Price was the only reason, which made Burke write a book regarding the Revolution in France, would not be correct, it should be stressed that it could have been a deciding factor, since Burke’s Reflections was also a reply to the ideas proposed by Dr. Price in his sermon. . The sermon explicitly called for a transformation of the existing norms in Britain, argued that the Revolution of 1688 warranted prospects of changes of the given state of the society based on three principles, which as Burke himself identifies while discussing the work of Dr. Price in his Reflections are: “To choose our governors. To cashier them for misconduct. To frame a government for ourselves” (Burke, 2009, p. 16). Burke only turns to the topic proper of his Reflections after he thoroughly analyzes and rejects the aforementioned principles put forth by Dr. Price, which offers a substantial ground to the argument that his Reflections should also be read in part as a response to the proposals of Richard Price. When at long last Burke finally turns to the events ensuing in France his eloquent style renders all the faults of the French Revolution apparent, albeit exaggerating some things and vehemently protecting what there has been against what there is. To Burke’s view the French Revolution made a break with the past, and this was a specific break since it declared that in a sense all that has been is in its nature inferior to the Revolution. Your [French] constitution was suspended before it was perfected; but you had the elements of a constitution very nearly as good as could be wished. In your old states you possessed that variety of parts corresponding with the various descriptions of which your community was happily composed; you had all that combination, and all that opposition of interests, you had that action and counteraction which, in the natural and in the political world, from the reciprocal struggle of discordant powers, draws out the harmony of the universe… You had all these advantages in your antient states; but you chose to act as if you had never been moulded into civil society, and had everything to begin anew. Italicized by the author of this paper. (Burke, 2009, pp. 35-36). To this he compared the experience of the British stating that “by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we [the British] improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete” (Burke, 2009, p. 34). This quote once, again reinstates the fact that for Burke that idea of rights or the privileges of a certain public should be grounded in the past and traditions of that society. Hardly anyone did present such arguments and in such a style against the French Revolution, and this initiated the soon to be prevailing idea of the Counter-Revolution. The book though was an instant success, but led to the alienation of other Whig parliamentarians from Burke, specifically noteworthy is the parting with his old friend Charles James Fox then the leader of the Whig party (Prior, 1854; O’Gorman, 1967; McCue, 1997). Nevertheless, the split in the Whig party, which began by the changing-of-ideas of Burke was soon extrapolated to the other party members too, such as William Windham, who also being an initial supporter of the Revolution in the course of 1791 converted to the ideas of Burke. The brief adumbration of these facts shows indeed how important a book Burke had written. The importance of the book, of course, goes well beyond its’ time, with scholars even nowadays trying to extract whatever theory it was that Burke has had in his mind while writing the book. Martyn P. Thompson, for instance holds that Burke also had a certain idea of Europe, a Europe that was fading away because of the violent Revolution in France (1994) Although, it will be hard to attest to this claim, since Burke’s Reflections, are also considered a reflection inwards, that is a consideration of the state of the British society in the time of the French Revolution as L. G. Mitchell does not fail to point to in his Introduction to Reflections in the Oxford publication of the book. Notwithstanding this, however, Burke gives hints that he may have as well been solicitous for the state of affairs in whole Europe as this quote, “It looks to me as if I were in a great crisis, not of the affairs of France alone, but of all Europe, perhaps of more than Europe,” (Burke, 2009, p. 10) demonstrates. . To some as Emma Vincent Macleod states the book was not systematic and did not provide any consistent theory of viewing the things (2007). These are however, speculations, which could not have been applied to the book written by Burke in 1790’s. The liberal or Pro-Revolutionary minds of his time, were mainly concerned to provide an adequate answer to all the criticism of the Revolution that Burke has presented in his Reflections. In this paper, we shall turn our attention to only two of Burke’s critics, namely Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine, for the simple reason that they stand out as the most prominent of all those who rejected the ideas of Burke It should be mentioned, however, that the discourse amongst the intellectuals was not limited only to two or three eminent political thinkers, in fact there were many others, such as William Playfair and Francis d’Ivernois, who either from their own convictions or being commissioned by the government wrote pamphlets on the French Revolution (Mori, 2003). . The first response to Burke was written by Mary Wollstonecraft who laid down her ideas in her A Vindication of the Rights of the Men published just within a few weeks after the publication of the latter’s Reflections. Wollstonecraft mentions in the beginning of the book about her intentions and the reason she embarked on this task, which is made manifest in her words: Mr. Burkes Reflections on the French Revolution first engaged my attention as the transient topic of the day; and reading it more for amusement than information, my indignation was roused by the sophistical arguments, that every moment crossed me, in the questionable shape of natural feelings and common sense. (1997, p. 33). These words, despite their express pathos, should not make us believe that Wollstonecraft was in her views comparable to Thomas Paine, who in his right can be considered even a radical rather than a moderate supporter of the Revolution. Wollstonecraft, on the other hand while did not praise all of the acts that the Revolutionaries in France carried out, was firm in her belief that this Revolution was for the better that it was the first step towards an improved society. To render the difference between Burke and Wollstonecraft in more precise terms: For Wollstonecraft… the appropriate assessment of the French Revolution involved not, as it had been for Burke, a comparison only of reform and chaos but a three-way comparison between France as it had been, as it was now and as it one day would be. (Conniff, 1999, p. 310). In a sense, then, Wollstonecraft did not criticize Burke’s assessment of the current events in France, but rather his inability or unwillingness to see that in the future these events would generate prosperity. Wollstonecraft’s discontent, of course, was not restricted only to Burke’s attitude towards the Revolution, she also addressed Burke’s position on reason and rationality. In this regards, she saw Burke as “a sentimentalist intent on obscuring the truth in the interest of the powerful (Conniff, 1999, p. 311). With this said, hers was not the strictest and the sharpest criticism of Burke, the latter’s real adversary in the field of political philosophy was Thomas Paine, to whose work we shall turn now. Thomas Paine was the Revolutionary thinker par excellence, he supported the American Revolution, and he did not flinch at supporting the French one with his utmost devotion and rigor. In some respects, if not in all, he can be considered as the complete opposite of Burke, since he was the bearer of the ideas of the French philosophies and of the tradition of revolutionary Enlightenment. This is rather well illustrated in the fact that he visited Revolutionary France in 1789 and in 1791, which means also that he had first-hand experience of the events ensuing there. He published the first part of his book Rights of Man in February of 1791, with the express intention of refuting the ideas of Burke, while the second part was published in 1792 (Kates, 1989). Regardless, of the fact that the two parts are considered to be continuation of one and the same scheme, it should be noted that within a year Paine’s views had a marked development towards the more radical positions of the Revolutionaries in France. In this regard, the first part can be read as a justification of the Fayettian The system intended by Marquis de Lafayette, which at its core aimed at having a Constitutional Monarchy. interpretation of the Revolution as opposed to the ideas of Burke, while the second part is to be understood in terms of Paine’s increasing affiliation with the more radical actors of the Revolution, namely the Brisotins (Kates, 1989). While writing the first part then, Paine should be seen as a moderate who wanted to repudiate the ideas of Burke by defending the Revolution. He firstly defended the electoral laws established in France after Lafayette came to power: The Constitution of France says, that every man who pays a tax of sixty sous per annum… is an elector. What article will Mr. Burke place against this? Can anything be more limited, and at the same time more capricious, than the qualifications of electors in England? (Paine, 1984, p. 73). This in effect meant that even considering the fact that the right to vote in France was granted only to taxpayers, this system established by the Revolutionaries was still better than the one existing in England. But perhaps, a sharper criticism of Burke can be seen in Paine’s defense of the Revolutionary aims, again answering Burke, who in his turn claimed that the calamities and the violent actions of the Parisian mob were the results of the Revolution: …Why then does Mr. Burke charge outrages of this kind on a whole people?... These outrages were not the effect of the principles of the Revolution, but of the degraded mind that existed before the Revolution, and which the Revolution is calculated to reform. (Paine, 1984, p. 58-59). In short, one can see in Paine the sincerest desire to protect everything that the Revolution brought with itself against, to his mind, the vile arguments of Burke. The fact that in a run of a single year, he then became the supporter of those, who preached Republicanism and complete Democracy can also be understood in the context of the aforementioned sincere desire, since unlike Burke Paine had trust in abstract ideals, and believed that making a new beginning is possible. Was Burke’s Reflections still viable in the face of these criticisms raised against him by the two of his most-prominent contemporaries? This question suggests an answer so long that may lead us well beyond the scope and the topic of this paper. One thing is, however, certain, the phenomenon of Edmund Burke cannot be viewed only in the British context rather in a more general European one, and perhaps while analyzing the Austrian reactions towards the Revolution, we might find an answer, at least a partial one, to the question raised above. IV If the political situation in Great Britain was not favorable for a full consideration of the events taking place in France, the domestic and international situation of the Habsburg Monarchy was in such a turmoil that the Empire was effectively crippled, hence could not be actively participating or be occupied with problems other than the ones directly challenging its established order whether within or without its borders. The last years of reign of Joseph II, were marked with alarming signs from almost every corner of the Empire. Since 1787, as already mentioned there has been a growing discontent amongst the people in Austrian Holland, resulting from the many unwanted, rushed and centralizing reforms of Joseph II. Eventually, the Brabant Revolution and the events ensuing corollary with it outlived the emperor himself who died in February 1790, and left his successor Leopold II, an empire in a deep crisis, but certainly as it soon proved to be not in an irremediable one (Hochedlinger, 2007). But before, moving on to the short reign of Leopold II, it will be right to consider two other problems that ran parallel to the Brabant Revolution and were again the result of the actions of Joseph II. Due to his insatiable desire to reform the Empire that he had inherited, his reforms, which mostly were inconsiderate of the different traditions that existed within the Empire, incited a huge discontent among the Hungarians. The alienating effect of this centralizing reforms, had pushed the Magyar nobility so far as to conspire with the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm II, who was ready to assist them in bringing about a revolution within the Habsburg realms. The situation seemed so grim that even the chief of police Johann Anton Pergen felt it was his duty to advise the Emperor to step back from his reforms (Bernard, 1991). The third and perhaps even more alarming of all these intricacies was the war with the Ottomans. This war proved to be a disaster for the Austrians in the first year of the campaign, so much so that Joseph renounced his initial notions about gaining territory at the expense of the Ottomans, and was ready to negotiate peace. But this problem also did not find its solution while Joseph was alive, and it was under the rule of Leopold II, who hastily stepped back from the policies and views of Joseph, that peace became reality (Hochedlinger, 2007; Roider, 1987). This rather succinct account of the events that convulsed the state of the Habsburg Monarchy, shows that its primary concern in the years 1789, 1790 and even 1791 could not be the events which were underway in France This can be seen in the fact that in August 1790, Leopold II ordered the then Austrian ambassador in France Mercy d’Argenteu to head to Hague, where he was needed in order to restore the Austrian rule over Belgium (Roider, 1987). . With this said, however, the Austrians were well aware of what was happening in France, but did not want to take steps that would provoke the French. Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz, the result of whose endeavors was the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, which made the Habsburg Monarchy and France allies, was still skeptical towards any action whatsoever from the Austrian side, and preferred neutrality. Leopold, on the other hand, had his own views and believed that the deteriorating situation in France might inevitably have its consequences for the Habsburg realms also. Pivotal for the changing of the situation was the failed flight of the king and queen of France in June 20-21 1791, which was cut short at Varennes, from this point onwards it became rather impossible to avoid being embroiled in the internal affairs of France As it is known the queen of France Marie Antoinette was also the sister of Emperor Leopold II, during the time of their failed flight, rumors were circulating amongst the French public that Baron von Thugut - the future minister of the foreign affairs of the Habsburg Monarchy, who happened to be in France at this time - was actually had his part in the failed flight plot. . It were these by no means unrelated incidents that brought the alliance with Prussia into reality. At first it may be considered that the alliance was to perform mainly defensive functions, since Leopold himself did not like the idea of waging war against France (Roider, 1987). However, as time and again it has been proved the Revolutionary France was changing so rapidly that it made impossible for the other European powers to be fully prepared for the actions that it might undertake. Perhaps for a better understanding of the general development of the events, we need to briefly describe the situation in France. In 1791 after the failed flight of Varennes, Louis XIV was forced to agree to the Constitution made by the Revolutionaries, by this time, however, Lafayette who largely aimed for a Constitutional Monarchy was losing support amongst the Revolutionaries, it was the Girondins led by Jacques Pierre Brissot, who were gaining power, and amongst them of great importance was the fact that the Habsburg Empire personified the Counter-Revolution, that it was the latter’s aim to restore France to its former pre-Revolutionary state (Savage, 1998) It is interesting to understand how conservative the French Revolutionaries were in terms of diplomacy. Since what they did by calling the Habsburg Monarchy as the main enemy of the Revolution in particular and France in general, was nothing more but an attempt to go back to the old diplomatic system where the Habsburgs were considered as the main enemies of the French, which at last succeeded. In this respect, particularly illustrating is the article written by Gary Savage Favier’s Heirs: The French Revolution and the Secret du Roi, which shows that ever since the concluding of alliance with the Habsburgs there were people in France who did not favor this development, and among them was Jean-Louis Favier whose pamphlets and ideas gained popularity and following. It was his legacy that through his students became instrumental in convincing the Revolutionaries that it was the Austrians whom the French should fight. . Inter alia, the Circular of Padua and the Declaration of Pillnitz also played their part in making the already hostile France even more so. These events certainly proved to be crucial for the changing of the situation in the Austrian side, that the war was coming it was certain as Mercy’s letter to Kaunitz in 1791 rather clearly demonstrates: “war is coming, as is a republic” (Roider, 1987, p. 93). The growingly radical state of France along with the death of Emperor Leopold II in March 1792, made the conditions ripe for the beginning of the war, and it came on April 20th 1792, when the French Legislative Assembly declared war on the Habsburg Monarchy who was then ruled by Leopold’s son Francis. From this point, onwards the Austrian official stance on the French Revolution became crystal clear, especially after when Baron von Thugut was appointed as the minister of the foreign affairs, after the serious diplomatic blunders made by Phillip Cobenzl and Anton Spiellman in 1793. One could certainly say that the Habsburg policy by and large was conditioned by the personal views of Thugut, who never hid his disgust towards the Revolution, and who in the upcoming eight years in his office did his utmost to put an end to the chaos and disturbances caused by the Revolution. This, however, would not convey the image in its entirety and it should be mentioned that Thugut had the support of his Emperor and the support of other important persons, this at least in the beginning years. To quote Volker Press: Die Regierung des neuen Kaisers bedeutete den Erfolg der konservativen Kreise innerhalb der Wiener Hocharistokratie, die die traditionelle Trägerschicht des Wiener Hofes war. Österreich wurde seit 1792 der dezidierte Gegner der Revolution - damit aber konnten Adel und Stände wieder in die Gefolgschaft des Hofes eingebunden werden; sie waren bereit, in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem revolutionären Frankreich auf das engste mit dem Hof zusammenzugehen. Der Schüler und faktische Nachfolger des Staatskanzlers Kaunitz seit 1794, der Staatsvizekanzler Baron Franz Thugut, der „Kriegsbaron", ein hochintellektueller, zynischer To what extent Thugut can be seen as a cynic is still debatable, one should mention, though, that his biographer Karl Roider Jr. did not consider him to be one. Aufsteiger, der sich vielleicht gerade deshalb dem Alten verpflichtet sah, wurde zum entschiedensten Exponenten dieser Politik und zum unerbittlichen Gegner der Französischen Revolution. (1988, p. 244). Needless, to say that as the situation was getting worse after the multiple defeats of the Austrian army at the hands of the Revolutionary France, Thugut’s position became weakened, and with it also Austria’s desire to continue the war against France This point is reflected not least in the fact that there were groups of Jacobins among the Austrian public who identified with the Revolutionary ideas, peasants already from 1792 onwards started to complain about their lot: “Sie waren aus familiären Gründen, wegen ihrer Arbeitsweise und der erforderlichen Arbeitskräfte nicht bereit, das Leben ihrer Söhne oder ihr eigenes aufs Spiel zu setzen für einen Krieg, der keine Berührungspunkte zu ihren eigenen Interessen aufwies.“ (Reinalter, 1988, p. 197). (Roider, 1987). While interesting as this topic might be, it is time to turn our attention to the second aspect of the Austrian reaction, that of its intellectual response towards the French Revolution. In the following paragraphs, then we will try to show the influence of Edmund Burke on the German-speaking intellectuals of the continent, with a specific attention to the life and work of Friedrich von Gentz. V On the 30th April 1795, Franz Joseph, Prince of Dietrichstein wrote to Baron von Thugut: “All the world has writers, why don’t we have any?” (Vivenot, 1866, p. 309-10). These words, though short are direct and precise, and therefore are a proper place to begin the investigation into the Austrian literary and intellectual circles of late 1780’s and early 1790’s. In this respect, one certainly cannot ignore the fact that with comparison to their British counterparts in Austria writers should have conformed with the existing rules of the regulation that the censorship commission applied. Thus, the strict scrutiny of the censorship commission might have delayed publishing or indeed completely ban the publication of certain books that did not meet the standards of censorship. This argument applies also to the books that were printed outside the realms of Monarchy, meaning as long as they did not satisfy the requirements they could not be brought or sold in the Empire, which is quite well manifested in an incident which involved Johann Anton Pergen in the year 1761. The latter had to move to Vienna, but could not bring all of his books with him because they did not meet either the religious or political views of the censorship commission at that time (Bernard, 1991). This type of strict regulation continued until the beginning of the sole reign of Joseph II, who when presented with the opportunity ameliorated the existing system granting somewhat less restraining rules, and indeed establishing a form of freedom of press, which even allowed for open criticisms against the Emperor himself This even can be seen in the fact that even obituaries written after Joseph’s death did not only hold messages of glorification towards the deceased Emperor but also criticisms of his conduct: “Wir wissen jedoch, dass in Österreich sogar einige der offiziellen Trauerreden für den verstorbenen Fürsten, eine literarische Form, die bis dahin immer nur Laidatio gewesen war, merhr an Kritik enthielen und bedeutendere Schattenseiten für die Betrachtung der Nachwwelt festhielten...“ (Wangermann, 2004, p. 213). . From this observation, it follows that the Josephian reforms in the censorship regulations made more room for the thinkers of Enlightenment, and not only, for expressing their opinion, though again there should have been a degree of caution, because certain ideas could not be tolerated even within this relaxed system. One thing is, however, certain this extent of the freedom of press and expression would not be seen in the following decade of 1790’s where the rise of the police state under Emperor Francis II who essentially reverted back to the pre-Josephian era, if not to even stricter regulations, under which certain types of political pamphlets could not be tolerated within the realms of the Monarchy (Bernard, 1991). This process of tightening the censorship, however, began already in the final regnal years of Joseph himself. Concerned with the recent expression of Freiheitsdrang (desire of freedom), which could potentially harm the established order within the Monarchy, Joseph thought it due to restrict certain types of writings that might be seditious for the Austrian public “Dieser Freiheitsdrang artikulierte sich… auch in einer Flut von Druckschriften, die über Volksbewegungen berichteten und sie in den meisten Fällen mit glühenden Farben schilderten.“ (Wangermann, 2004, p. 203).. Certainly, then it would seem logical that under this type of heavy censorship even given some years of freedom of press, not many could venture writing pamphlets about the most turbulent conflict of the era, namely the French Revolution. However, one can find in the book of Ernst Wangermann Die Waffen der Publizität, at least some excerpts which point to a different direction, that is, there were Enlightened writers who welcomed the events in France with their writings in the Austrian press of that time (2004, p. 155). In an essay written again by Wangermann, we then find a more complete analysis of the reactions towards the French Revolution in the Austrian press. Specifically, noteworthy in this aspect is Conrad Dominik Barstch who was at that time the editor of Wiener Zeitung, and whose views has been described by Wangermann as follows: His [Bartsch’s] reporting of the ... developments in France was profoundly marked by the vision of humanity's progress into the realm of political maturity and freedom; and the same applies to most of the newspapers available in the Habsburg territories at this time. (1990, p. 4). However, scant the evidence might be it at least lets us have glimpse of the tendencies of the intellectuals in the Habsburg Monarchy at the time of French Revolution. However, to say that the Revolution received only positive reactions, is to look at the one side of the story only. There were authors, who rejected Revolution in its every appearance and form, of which the most notable seems to be Leopold Alois Hoffmann, who in his book Höchstwichtige Erinnerungen zur rechten Zeit, über einiger der allerernsthaftesten Angelegenheiten dieses Zeitalters published in 1795, goes even as far as to succinctly delineate the Conservative reaction towards the Revolution, which existed in Austria at that time: Der Fürst giebt was er kann – das Volk verlangt, was es will. Der Fürst ist nur im Stande, Einiges zu geben – das Volk verlangt Viel oder Alles. This quotation from Hoffmann’s aforementioned book is in its turn taken from Ernst Wangermann’s Die Waffen der Publiztät p. 155. From the above-adduced information we then can safely deduce that in reality there were authors who occupied themselves with either embracing or rejecting the ideology of the French Revolution. The fact, that we know so little of them should be then attributed either to our own negligence of the topic, which is still in need of researchers who could bring all the facts into the light, or to the assumption that these thinkers were not important enough and hence, their work also held little to no influence in this era, but the elaboration of this hypothesis should be left aside for another time. So far we have been trying to render a clearer depiction of the literary situation in Austria in the time of the French Revolution. Now it has come time to look at how Burke’s Reflections affected the political thought of the thinkers in German-speaking realm, with, as mentioned before, a specific emphasis on the man who has introduced Burke and his work to that realm, Friedrich von Gentz. Gentz was born in 1764 in Breslau (Wrocław) former Kingdom of Prussia, but it was his destiny to rise to prominence in the court of Vienna as the adviser of Austrian State Chancellor Prince von Metternich. It is his later conversion to the Austrian cause that gives us the right to speak of him as an Austrian intellectual On a wider scale, of course, Gentz could be considered as one of the most prominent representatives of the German Conservatism. , who being the student of Burke became of invaluable importance in spreading the Conservative ideology on the continent. The development of his career as a political philosopher, he owed to the French Revolution and of course to the ideas of Burke during the translation of whose work he slowly became convinced that what Burke had said against the Revolution was not a mere polemic adorned with eloquent rhetoric and style, but also an almost prophetical augury about the form which the Revolution shall take (Kronenbitter, 1994). At the beginning, however, Gentz fully embraced the tenets of the Revolution, in which he also saw the projection of his own personal ideas, he believed that, as he himself so delicately put it in a letter to Christian Garve, the Revolution was “der erste praktische Triumph der Philosophie” (Gentz, 1909, p. 178) “As a student of Kant and a progressive child of his age, he believed in the idea of social regeneration through revolution, in the perfectibility of man, and in the future reign of peace and liberty.” (Bond, 1973, p. 1). . Soon, however, these positive and rather optimistic views would change themselves making Gentz one of the fiercest opponents of the Revolution and Revolutionary ideas. The reasons behind his political conversion are certainly multiple and one cannot simply argue that it was the translation of Burke’s Reflections that made him amenable to the ideas of Counter-Revolution. While certainly the role that the translation played in this political conversion should not be downplayed, one should also look at the changing of the general features of Gentz the man and not only of Gentz the philosopher. In this sense, his growing discontent with his own work in Prussian civil service, the events ensuing in Paris aligned with the reading of Burke’s Reflections paved the way for not only the changing of the political convictions of the young Gentz but also for a much deeper reorientation of the way of his thinking: His [Gentz’s] immersion in the small round of the Prussian administration taught him, however, that there were other – and more important – elements in the world of politics than the philosophical concerns of his student years in Königsberg. The philosophical and the practical spheres slowly coincided in his study of contemporary events in France, which he analyzed in terms of their immediate utility as well as their theoretical principles. (Bond, 1973, p. 10). To be more precise he slowly became disillusioned about the strength of the abstract ideas in the development of the society Perhaps his growing appreciation of the importance of history and historical transformations can be seen in this passage from his work Über den Einfluß der Entdeckung von Amerika auf den Wohlstand und die Cultur des menschlichen Geschlechts - the following quotation is taken from the book of Günther Kronenbitter-: “Monarchische Zentralisierungsbemühungen und die Förderung des wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Fortschritts durch die Reformpolitik der Regierungen seien Folgen und Verstärker der gesellschaftlichen Transformation.” (1994, p. 72). This quote that goes on to show that the deeply-entrenched historical transformations of the society are responsible for the shift and for the tendency to progress, already expresses Gentz’s changing mode of thinking. . It was in this slowly transforming mode of mind and thinking that he set to translate the Reflections of Burke, which in its turn shaped the ideas of Gentz. To continue discussing Gentz’s philosophical odyssey it is necessary to ascertain some factors, which surround him and his translation of Burke’s work. Adam Müller once conjectured that Burke was better understood by the Germans than by the British (Thompson, 1994). Whatever his idea indeed was may still be obscure to us, who cannot fully understand the circumstances, which generated such a thought, one thing is, however, certain that it was Burke and his ideas that fostered the development of the German Conservatism. Nevertheless, the German intellectuals were presented with then the predominant translation of Burke’s work, that is the translation done by Gentz in the early 1790’s. It is the nature of Gentz’s translation that we shall look into, first of all to understand the extent to which Gentz himself was shaped by the ideas of Burke, and secondly as a logical consequence of this to see how Burke was presented to German-speaking intellectuals. Gentz’s translation of the Reflections was not the first, Burke’s work has already been translated by a man named Joseph Stahel, interestingly enough it was published in Vienna in 1791 (Green, 2014), which will let us suggest that the Habsburg Monarchy was slowly adopting, or at least trying to do so, the intellectual side of Conservatism, a process that was already underway in Britain. Despite this Gentz thought that the translation did not do justice to the masterly style of Burke, and believed that there was a need of a better version of the book in German, a task which he undertook in mid-1791. In his translation, however, he did not merely try to convey the ideas of Burke, he also was involved in actively interpreting and even editing them to make them more suitable for the German-speakers “To systematize the Reflections’ incipient worldview, he penned five long essays... and appended them to his translation. He prefaced this amalgam of translations and exegesis with a substantial introduction… included an annotated index of works written in response to the Reflections, both defensive and critical… In sum, his two-volume edition totaled over 650 pages, almost twice the length of the English original.” (Green, 2014, p. 643) . He tried his utmost to present Burke as a rationalist, who was nevertheless against the nonsensical developments in France, in short as a man who tried to defend the ideas of 18th century Enlightenment against the splenetic interpretation and manifestation, which they found in the French Revolution. This was the Burke that the German-speaking intellectuals read, and this was the Burke that appealed to and indeed founded their Conservatism A more elaborate and extensive treatment of this most-interesting topic can be found in the article, (2014). Friedrich Gentz’s Translation of Burke’s Reflections. The Historical Journal 57(3), 639-659, written by Jonathan Allen Green, whose article was the main source of this curious information about Gentz’s translation of Burke’s Reflection. . In a sense, then one could assign to Gentz’s translation of the work the same function and indeed the same motive, which Martin Heidegger found in the Roman translation of Greek terms “This translation of Greek names into Latin is by no means without consequences- as, even now, it is still held to be. Rather, what is concealed within the apparently literal, and hence faithful, translation is a translation [Übersetzen] of Greek experience into a different mode of thinking. Roman thinking takes over the Greek words without the corresponding and equiprimordial experience of what they say, without the Greek word.” (Heidegger, 2002, p. 6), that is not a mere faithful translation of the original but its adaptation into a different experience and mode of thinking. Thus, with respect to Burke’s influence on the German-speaking intellectuals of that era one could make distinction between Burke as such and Burke as presented by Gentz. Nevertheless, these philosophical speculations should not deter us from continuing to extract Burke’s undeniable influence upon Gentz himself, which immediately becomes apparent in the preface Gentz has written for his translation of Burke’s work. In the following excerpt, Gentz is seen rejecting ideas he earlier accepted and viewing them through the prism of Burke’s ideas: Die Schwärmerey von 1789 war nur der Embyro des ausgewachsnen Wahnsinns von 1792: was damals in einem öffentlichen Vortrage noch für trunkne Ausschweifung oder für starfbare Frechheit galt, ist jetzt gemeine Beredsamkeit, und die ‘Ordnung des Tages’ geworden. [...] Von der andern Seite haben Burke’s Reflexionen eben deshalb einen vorzüglichen Werth, weil sie die Frucht im Keime ausspähten, weil sie das, was jetzt wirklich erfolgt ist, so meisterhaft vorausverkündigten, weil sie die Quelle ergründeten, aus welcher alle Irrthümer, alle Verbrechen, und alle Calamitäten Frankreichs geflossen sind. (Gentz, 1793, p. XXXVIII). This masterfully penned paragraph demonstrates how much Burke’s historical, experience-based thinking became entrenched in the mindset of Gentz. All the later vehement protests of his against the Revolution can indeed be referred back to this point. Jonathan Allen Green suggests that Gentz used Burke’s Reflections also to announce himself as a Verteidiger der Alten (a defender of the old) (2014). One can view Gentz’s translation as a process of reorientation as well as a process of ascertaining his new mode of thinking, this German translation of the Reflections then can be considered as both a book by Burke and a book by Gentz “Seine eigene Revolutionskritik hatte Gentz bei der Übersetzung und Kommentierung der Reflections entfaltet...“ (Kronenbitter, 1994, p. 328). . Maybe one could observe the full transformation of Gentz’s thinking, which in some respects was drastic but in many still gradual, in 1799, when he founded Das Historische Journal, where Genz finally comes in terms with both his theoretical interpretations and also his practical perceptions “ Zugleich ist das “Historische Journal” aber auch Abschluß einer neun Jahre dauernden, Entwicklung, in der sich Genz um eine rechtstheoretisch abgesicherte und zugleich erfahrungsoffene Analyse der Französischen Revolution bemüht hatte.” (Kronenbitter, 1994, p. 331).. Here we should end the narration about Gentz’s intellectual odyssey, whose development beyond the year 1799 also lays beyond the scope of this paper. Moreover, as a further justification, we should also state, not to put too fine a point on it, that by this time Gentz was already an established thinker who has reached the mature state of his reasoning. We can now go back to the question raised earlier in this paper about the viability of Burke’s Reflections to see if we answered it at least partially. One can see from this long albeit not so thorough relation of the facts and events that Burke even though met with criticism in the intellectual circles of Britain had seen his influence spread in the continent, which may stand as a sign of the viability and of course strength of the ideas of Burke, whose mode of thinking was first translated and then adapted and at last adopted by his future followers in the German-speaking realm. The role of Friedrich von Gentz, then in this process of the propagation of Burke’s ideas, both as an independent thinker and as a representative of Burke cannot be understated. VI In the beginning of this paper we stated that French Revolution was an event which could not help but bring about reactions whether positive or negative, and we also made it clear that one has to make a distinction between the intellectual and political reactions when the case comes to Britain and Austria. This distinction however blurred, due to the interwoven characters of politics and intellectualism of the era, is needed in order to understand in what ways and aspects where the British and Austrian reactions different. One might claim that there is indeed no difference, since both fought with the aim of defeating France, but this is a rather simplistic view of the facts, because as we have already seen the reaction towards the Revolution was not only determined by the structure of the societies of Britain and the Habsburg Empire, but even internal layers of these societies, hence there was a multi-faceted and by no means a straightforward reaction. As it has been claimed in the beginning paragraphs of this paper about the literature on this topic, and the topic itself share one common thing and that is the uncertainty that is latent within this historical era, and that is inevitably transferred to each and every attempt that endeavors to create a more comprehensive image of the era, to understand the Zeitgeist of the Revolutionary age. This paper then is also a part of that greater uncertainty, and should be regarded as an attempt towards eliciting and extracting whatever was found to be certain and discernable in the age of change. As far as the British and the Austrian reactions are concerned one can safely accentuate the point made in the beginning, that the former was indeed more of an intellectual response and even the political reaction in Britain can in some ways be referenced back to the existing intellectual debate, while in the latter case we see an inescapable political reaction, which stays predominant and almost eclipses the intellectual one. The reasons behind this difference are many but perhaps the most explaining one can be found in geography of each state which in its turn preconditioned the different models of reaction that were to take place. While Britain was divided from the mainland Europe and at least in some respects had a peaceful isolation and also the chance of taking look at the developments in Europe from the unique perspective of a society that had already gone through the turbulence of the Revolutionary age and was now in an age of gradual reform, whereas Austria being a part of the continental Europe was also one of its foremost powers, which at least to the mind of the French Revolutionaries represented and was the ancien Régime par excellence. What is more it was bound with France through an alliance, and also through close personal connections As already mentioned the French queen Marie Antoinette was the sister of Emperor Leopold II. , which made the danger of the Revolution more immediate for the Habsburg Empire. These factors aligned with the ever-tightening rope of censorship and regulations can be held responsible for Austria’s mainly political and military reaction to the Revolution, whilst the absence of the self-same factors and also the presence of many others explains why the British reaction was so preoccupied with the intellectual side of the question. Finally, what was so unique about the reasoning behind the Burkean Counter-Revolutionary ideology, which became the basis for the formation of Conservatism? The answer to this seemingly simple question, lays in Burke’s Reflections. The passage cited below expresses how right Burke was about the future of the Revolution: It is besides to be considered, whether an assembly like yours, even supposing that it was in possession of another sort of organ through which its orders were to pass, is fit for promoting the obedience and discipline of an army. It is known, that armies have hitherto yielded a very precarious and uncertain obedience to any senate, or popular authority… In the weakness of one kind of authority, and in the fluctuation of all, the officers of an army will remain for some time mutinous and full of faction, until some popular general, who understands the art of conciliating the soldiery…shall draw the eyes of all men upon himself…the moment in which that event shall happen, the person who really commands the army is your master…the master of your whole republic. (Burke, 2009, pp. 220-221) Many scholars have read these lines as a harbinger of Napoleon, Burke of course did not specifically mention who that person will be, but nevertheless he predicted the phenomenon that is he saw the rising dictatorship behind the banners of liberty and equality, and this yet again proves the strength and the importance of Burke’s views. By way of conclusion we should perhaps once again recapitulate the general description of the 18th century: torn apart between Absolutism and Enlightenment, reform and revolution it set the stage for the development of the modern-day political world order. This century owes its unique flavor to the Revolutionary wars, and the Revolutionary ideology, which awoke the reaction of the Conservatives. Though its results were that of turmoil and destruction, the French Revolution brought with itself a clash and discourse of ideologies that ran corollary and even antedated the Revolutionary wars. The final outcome of these ideological and military collusions while certainly not unequivocal, was by no means indiscernible, Conservatism, or Counter- Revolution won. The fact that Conservatism came about as an ideology that prevailed in this clash, takes us to a point made by British philosopher Roger Scruton, who during one of his interviews remarked that there is an alternative to revolutionary change, and that is simply no change (Scruton, 2017) – and as far as we have not completely comprehended the importance of the Counter-Revolution, of which Britain and Austria were representatives, time and again we shall go back to Burke and his German/Austrian students to understand and perhaps to reevaluate our past achievements before we take a step forward. In other words, the French Revolutionaries desired to make a new beginning but they forgot that “to make an end, is to make a beginning, the end is where we start from,” and perhaps the greatest legacy of Burkean Counter- Revolution is to not forget where we started from. Bibliography Beales, D. (2005). Edmund Burke and the Monasteries of France. The Historical Journal, 48(2), 415-436. Bergeron, L., Furet, F., & Koselleck, R. (1990). Das Zeitalter der europäischen Revolution (Vol. 26, Fischer Weltgeschichte). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bücherei. Berlin, I. (2000). The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (1st ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Bernard, P. P. (1991). From the Enlightenment to the Police State: The Public Life of Johann Anton Pergen. Urbana & Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Bond, M. A. (1973). The Political Conversion of Friedrich von Gentz. European History Quarterly, 3(1), 1-12. Burke, E. (1793). Betrachtungen über die Französische Revolution (F. Gentz Von, Trans.). Berlin. Burke, E. (2009). Reflections on the Revolution in France (Oxford World's Classics) (L. G. Mitchell, Ed.). Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. Conniff, J. (1999). Edmund Burke and His Critics: The Case of Mary Wollstonecraft. Journal of the History of Ideas, 60(2), 299-318. Cooper, R. (1982). William Pitt, Taxation, and the Needs of War. Journal of British Studies, 22(1), 94-103. Copeland, T. W., Cobban, A., & Smith, R. A. (Eds.). (1967). The Correspondence of Edmund Burke (Vol. 6). Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press. Dreyer, F. (1978). The Genesis of Burke's Reflections. The Journal of Modern History, 50(3), 462-479. Elliot, T. S. (1968). Four Quartets. New York, NY: Mariner Books. Gentz, F., Von (1909). Briefe von und an Friedrich von Gentz. (F.P Wittichen, Ed.). (Vol. 1.), Berlin: Oldenbourg. Green, J. A. (2014). Friedrich Gentz's Translation of Burke's Reflections. The Historical Journal, 57(3), 639-659. Grenville, R., Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. (1853). Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George the Third (Vol. 2). London: Hurst and Blackett. Heidegger, M. (2002). Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press. Hochedlinger, M. (2007). Who's Afraid of the French Revolution? Austrian Foreign Policy and the European Crisis 1787-1797 (F. C. Schneid, Ed.). Warfare in Europe 1792-1815, 21-46. Kates, G. (1989). Tom Paine's Rights of Man. Journal of the History of Ideas, 50(4), 569-587. Kronenbitter, G. (1994). Wort und Macht: Friedrich Gentz als politischer Schriftsteller (Vol. 71, Beiträge zur politischen Wissenschaft). Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt. Macleod, E. V. (2007). British Attitudes to the French Revolution. The Historical Journal, 50(3), 689-709. Macleod, E. V. (2013). British Spectators of the French Revolution: The view from across the Channel. Groniek, (197), 377-392. McCue, J. (1997). Edmund Burke and Our Present Discontents. Claridge Press. Mori, J. (2003). Languages of Loyalism: Patriotism, Nationhood and the State in the 1790's. The English Historical Review, 118(475), 33-58. Novalis. (1978). Werke, Tagebücher und Briefe (R. Samuel & H. J. Mähl, Ed.). München, Bayern. O'Gorman, F. (1967). The Whig Party and the French Revolution. London: Macmillan. Paine, T. (1984). Rights of Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin UK. Press, V. (1988). Österreich, das Reich und die Eindämmung der Revolution in Deutschland. Geschichte Und Gesellschaft. Sonderheft, 12, 237-258. Prior, J. (1854). Life of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke (5th ed.). London: Henry G. Bohn. Reinalter, H. (1988). Soziale Unruhen in Österreich im Einflußfeld der Französischen Revolution. Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Sonderheft, 12, 189-201. Roider, K. A., Jr. (1988). An Unnatural 'Natural Alliance': Introduction. The International History Review, 10(4), 517-521. Roider, K. A., Jr. (1987). Baron Thugut and Austria's Response to the French Revolution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Savage, G. (1998). Favier's Heirs: The French Revolution and the Secret du Roi. The Historical Journal, 41(1), 225-258. Scruton, R. (2017, July 17). Sir Roger Scruton: How to Be a Conservative [Interview]. Retrieved from https://www.hoover.org/research/how-be-conservative Schofield, T. P. (1986). Conservative Political Thought in Britain in Response to the French Revolution. The Historical Journal, 29(3), 601-622. Thompson, M. P. (1994). Ideas of Europe during the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Journal of the History of Ideas, 55(1), 37-58. Vivenot, A., Von. (1866). Herzog Albrecht von Sachsen-Teschen als Reichs-feld-marschall. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Reichsverfalles und des Baseler Friedens (Vol. 3). Vienna. Wangermann, E. (2004). Die Waffen der Publizität: Zum Funktionswandel der politischen Literatur unter Joseph II. (Verlag für Geschichte und Politik Wien). München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. Wangermann, E. (1990). The Austrian Enlightenment and the French Revolution (Austria in the Age of the French Revolution, 1789-1815) (K. Brauer & W. E. Wright, Eds.). Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. Ward, A. W., & Gooch, G. P. (1922). The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, 1783–1919 (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University. Wollstonecraft, M. (1997). The Vindications: The Rights of Men and the Rights of Woman. Toronto: Broadview Literary Texts. 16