Hide table of contents

Many thinkers worth reading wrote in past centuries:

  • 1600s: Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz
  • 1700s: Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Burke, Bentham
  • 1800s: Schopenhauer, Mill, Sidgwick

Some of them wrote in English and their texts are usually presented in the original, even when they use archaic spelling, punctuation, and style. (This is in contrast to foreign-language works which are often translated to a modern style.)

For example, in the past there were more uses of the comma, such as

  • Before any relative clause:
    • Dickens: “The objects he had lately pursued, turned worthless beside her”
    • Melville: “This august dignity I treat of, is not the dignity of kings”
  • Before any clause starting with “that” for any reason:
    • Austen: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that…”
  • After any clausal or compound subject as far as I can tell:
    • J Robertson: “Whoever is capable of forgetting a benefit, is an enemy to society”

And these examples are from the 1800s. The situation was worse in prior centuries when punctuation was mainly prosodic rather than syntactic, i.e. it followed rules of rhetoric rather than logic. For example, Daines’s Orthoepia Anglicana (1640) advised using a comma to indicate one unit of spoken pause, a semicolon for two, and a colon for three. Before widespread literacy, most consumers of a book would be listening to it being read aloud, so prosodic punctuation made more sense, but as literacy rates improved, more consumers read books silently and it made sense to punctuate based on the logic of the sentence.

The website EarlyModernTexts.com modernizes many works (including works from all of the authors listed at the start of this post) so that the meaning can be understood more quickly and accurately. The texts were written by the late Jonathan Bennett and are often assigned to undergrads. Bennett explained his methods in “On Translating Locke, Berkeley, and Hume into English.” Usually I refer to his texts as “modernized” but “translated” maybe makes it more clear that the texts aren’t abridged; his text will line up with the original work paragraph by paragraph and typically sentence by sentence. He doesn’t always indicate omissions but is transparent about any text added.

He has more details on his website about how the texts are modified. Two examples of modernization:

Hobbes: as all sorts of manufacture, so also malice increaseth by being vendible.
Modernized: malice, like everything else made by men, increases when there is a market for it.

Hume: Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: But, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable. All the colours of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landskip. The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.
Modernized: Everyone will freely admit that the perceptions of the mind when a man feels the pain of excessive heat or the pleasure of moderate warmth are considerably unlike what he feels when he later remembers this sensation or earlier looks forward to it in his imagination. Memory and imagination may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses, but they cannot create a perception that has as much force and vivacity as the one they are copying. Even when they operate with greatest vigor, the most we will say is that they represent their object so vividly that we could almost say we feel or see it. Except when the mind is out of order because of disease or madness, memory and imagination can never be so lively as to create perceptions that are indistinguishable from the ones we have in seeing or feeling. The most lively thought is still dimmer than the dullest sensation.

Notice that he omits the “landskip” sentence as a tangential flourish.

The texts all start with an explanation of his syntax:

[Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . . . . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported on, between [brackets], in normal-sized type.

Below are some examples of the opening pages of a few of the texts (there are EPUB/MOBI files as well). Selected texts have been narrated into audiobooks, including Leviathan, The Prince, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Descartes’s Meditations, Hume’s Enquiry, and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

 

 

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

The EarlyModernTexts versions are what I read when I had to do my comprehensive history exam in grad school. I recommend them.

I didn't realize there was a resource out there to make these works more accessible. That's awesome!

I've been meaning to write a post about how Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" should be required reading for anyone who wants to change the world. I wish I had read it before joining an (ultimately doomed) effort to promote human rights and democracy in a country where the average person can't read. In hindsight, investing in literacy would've been a better use of our time. 

So say we have like, a finite amount of time, and there are probably better and worse compromises between "get the gist" and the main plot of history and "read thousands of pages of moderately difficult prose and probably miss the point anyway." (Like you're not mentioning that all these writers are writing against a context -- forex, we shouldn't assume Adam Smith would defend free markets in the Gilded Age, but he very much thought they were better than mercantile policy.)

Any thoughts on learning that way?

This is cool and I didn't know it existed. Thanks for sharing!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a paper I wrote recently, “Endogenous Growth and Excess Variety”, along with a summary. Two schools in growth theory Roughly speaking: In Romer’s (1990) growth model, output per person is interpreted as an economy’s level of “technology”, and the economic growth rate—the growth rate of “real GDP” per person—is proportional to the amount of R&D being done. As Jones (1995) pointed out, populations have grown greatly over the last century, and the proportion of people doing research (and the proportion of GDP spent on research) has grown even more quickly, yet the economic growth rate has not risen. Growth theorists have mainly taken two approaches to reconciling [research] population growth with constant economic growth. “Semi-endogenous” growth models (introduced by Jones (1995)) posit that, as the technological frontier advances, further advances get more difficult. Growth in the number of researchers, and ultimately (if research is not automated) population growth, is therefore necessary to sustain economic growth. “Second-wave endogenous” (I’ll write “SWE”) growth models posit instead that technology grows exponentially with a constant or with a growing population. The idea is that process efficiency—the quantity of a given good producible with given labor and/or capital inputs—grows exponentially with constant research effort, as in a first-wave endogenous model; but when population grows, we develop more goods, leaving research effort per good fixed. (We do this, in the model, because each innovator needs a monopoly on his or her invention in order to compensate for the costs of developing it.) Improvements in process efficiency are called “vertical innovations” and increases in good variety are called “horizontal innovations”. Variety is desirable, so the one-off increase in variety produced by an increase to the population size increases real GDP, but it does not increase the growth rate. Likewise exponential population growth raise
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Sometimes working on animal issues feels like an uphill battle, with alternative protein losing its trendy status with VCs, corporate campaigns hitting blocks in enforcement and veganism being stuck at the same percentage it's been for decades. However, despite these things I personally am more optimistic about the animal movement than I have ever been (despite following the movement for 10+ years). What gives? At AIM we think a lot about the ingredients of a good charity (talent, funding and idea) and more and more recently I have been thinking about the ingredients of a good movement or ecosystem that I think has a couple of extra ingredients (culture and infrastructure). I think on approximately four-fifths of these prerequisites the animal movement is at all-time highs. And like betting on a charity before it launches, I am far more confident that a movement that has these ingredients will lead to long-term impact than I am relying on, e.g., plant-based proteins trending for climate reasons. Culture The culture of the animal movement in the past has been up and down. It has always been full of highly dedicated people in a way that is rare across other movements, but it also had infighting, ideological purity and a high level of day-to-day drama. Overall this made me a bit cautious about recommending it as a place to spend time even when someone was sold on ending factory farming. But over the last few years professionalization has happened, differences have been put aside to focus on higher goals and the drama overall has gone down a lot. This was perhaps best embodied by my favorite opening talk at a conference ever (AVA 2025) where Wayne and Lewis, leaders with very different historical approaches to helping animals, were able to share lessons, have a friendly debate and drive home the message of how similar our goals really are. This would have been nearly unthinkable decades ago (and in fact resulted in shouting matches when it was attempted). But the cult
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference