I was intrigued by “Village Politics” because of the stark
contrasts between it and Burke’s piece. Granted, the authors had two very
different audiences they were writing for, but I think More does a better job
of attacking the revolution for two reasons. Her anti-revolutionary character, Jack
Anvil, is not “doom and gloom” like Burke and he actually addresses some of the
concerns of the Revolution.
One would think that More would’ve used doom and gloom since
she was writing to a less educated populace that would be more swayed by words
about the end of civilization, but she doesn’t. Sure, Jack compares the
revolutionaries to butchers, but they will not lead to the end of education and
trade as Burke claims. Also, Jack addresses the very valid question of extreme poverty
that lead to the revolution by turning the issue on its head. He states that
the French poor paid “all the taxes” and that they have no social safety nets
such as the Bristol Infirmary.
More’s piece maybe be called “Burke for Beginners,” but I
think this beginner’s guide to anti-revolutionary sentiment is much stronger
than Burke’s.
Thought "Village politics" has a lighter tone than Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France," I don't believe More's Jack Anvil is completely devoid of a "doom and gloom" attitude. When Anvil “sums up the evidence” pertaining to the revolution towards the end of the piece he states, "To cut every man’s through who does not think as I do, or hang him up a lamp-post! – Pretend liberty of conscience, and then banish the parsons only for being conscientious! – Cry out liberty of the press, and hang up the first man who writes his mind! – Lose our poor laws! – Lose one’s wife perhaps upon every little tiff! - March without clothes, and fight without victuals! – No trade! – No Bible! No Sabbath nor day of rest! – No safety, no comfort, no peace in this world – and no world to come!” Anvil’s depiction is grim and melodramatic, and though he may not mention the end of this world he does reference the end of the world to come. Towards the conclusion of the dialogue his argument seems to break down into simple insults as he attacks the ideology of the revolution, branding concepts like “organization and function, and civicism and incivicism and equality” as “Nonsense, gibberish, and downright hocus pocus.” While name-calling isn’t generally the most effective rhetorical method, I don’t doubt that many commoners viewed these lofty terms as pretentious unintelligible babble and would have been receptive to this strategy.
ReplyDelete