What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ruins, or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires and the Law of Nature
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
248 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1791
96 people are currently reading
1371 people want to read
About the author
Constantin-François de Chassebœuf de Volney
327 books27 followersConstantin-François Chassebœuf de La Giraudais, comte Volney, dit Volney est un philosophe et orientaliste français.
Constantin-François de Chassebœuf de Volney is one of those historical personalities once famous in their own day but now largely forgotten. You’ve heard of people he knew, as well as the events he participated in, but you’ve never heard of the man himself.
Ever hear of Benjamin Franklin? Franklin, then Ambassador to Paris, mentored a young Volney in the years prior to the French Revolution and later introduced him to his successor, Thomas Jefferson.
Ever hear of the Estates General and the Tennis Court Oath? Volney took part in both events and later sat on the committee that wrote the first French constitution.
Ever hear of Napoleon Bonaparte? Volney discovered a young Bonaparte on the island of Corsica and helped his career on numerous occasions, including the 18 Brumaire coup that brought Bonaparte to power. Ever hear of the proclamation of the Empire when Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor? Volney was one of only three senators to vote against that counter-revolutionary bill.
Ever hear of the Alien Act in the United States? Volney, the most famous alien in the U.S. at that time, was forced to leave the country just before the new law went into effect.
Ever hear of an ideologue? Volney was one of the original Ideologues. The Ideologues supported constitutional government, separation of church and state, Adam Smith’s economic principles, abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. They were also correspondents with—again that famous name—Thomas Jefferson.
But those are all good things. So why is there a pejorative attached to the word ideologue today?
It’s because the Ideologues opposed Bonaparte’s dynastic designs. As a result Bonaparte started using the word almost as a curse and, a generation later, Karl Marx—recognizing the theories the Ideologues espoused refuted his own theories—picked up Bonaparte’s pejorative and spread it around the world.
Ever hear of Volney’s Ruins of Empires? Uh, well, no, you probably haven’t. But the book (“Les Ruines” in French) was once world famous—or infamous depending on your point of view.
You’ve heard of Thomas Jefferson of course. But I’ll bet you didn’t know Jefferson liked the book so much he secretly translated it into English. Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln read Volney’s Ruins as a young man and was deeply affected by it. Ever hear of Walt Whitman? Whitman’s most famous poem, Leaves of Grass, was directly inspired by Volney’s Ruins. Ever hear of Thomas Cole, founder of the Hudson River Valley School? His famous paintings—The Voyage of Life and Course of Empire series—were also directly inspired by Volney’s Ruins.
So why are both Volney and his book largely forgotten today? There are many reasons. But first and foremost it’s because he challenges the fundamental principles of both the Left and the Right.
The Left doesn’t like Volney because Ruins of Empires was written as a direct refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. If you refute the Social Contract, then you refute Socialism and all the various “social models” in Europe (and elsewhere) built upon it. Volney, therefore, has few if any friends among the left-leaning professorial class—the ones who are supposed to teach “enlightenment” to students.
The Right doesn’t like Volney because Ruins of Empires presents a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts. While that’s certainly a good thing—and particularly so in a post-September 11 world—the Right still considers Volney to be a heretic and an atheist. Why? Because Ruins of Empires argues for a universal code of morality based on the physical laws of nature. While that sounds innocuous, it implicitly calls into question all other codes of morality based on the existence of some invisible being no one has ever seen—i.e. “God.”
In sum, Volney has been forgotten
Constantin-François de Chassebœuf de Volney is one of those historical personalities once famous in their own day but now largely forgotten. You’ve heard of people he knew, as well as the events he participated in, but you’ve never heard of the man himself.
Ever hear of Benjamin Franklin? Franklin, then Ambassador to Paris, mentored a young Volney in the years prior to the French Revolution and later introduced him to his successor, Thomas Jefferson.
Ever hear of the Estates General and the Tennis Court Oath? Volney took part in both events and later sat on the committee that wrote the first French constitution.
Ever hear of Napoleon Bonaparte? Volney discovered a young Bonaparte on the island of Corsica and helped his career on numerous occasions, including the 18 Brumaire coup that brought Bonaparte to power. Ever hear of the proclamation of the Empire when Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor? Volney was one of only three senators to vote against that counter-revolutionary bill.
Ever hear of the Alien Act in the United States? Volney, the most famous alien in the U.S. at that time, was forced to leave the country just before the new law went into effect.
Ever hear of an ideologue? Volney was one of the original Ideologues. The Ideologues supported constitutional government, separation of church and state, Adam Smith’s economic principles, abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. They were also correspondents with—again that famous name—Thomas Jefferson.
But those are all good things. So why is there a pejorative attached to the word ideologue today?
It’s because the Ideologues opposed Bonaparte’s dynastic designs. As a result Bonaparte started using the word almost as a curse and, a generation later, Karl Marx—recognizing the theories the Ideologues espoused refuted his own theories—picked up Bonaparte’s pejorative and spread it around the world.
Ever hear of Volney’s Ruins of Empires? Uh, well, no, you probably haven’t. But the book (“Les Ruines” in French) was once world famous—or infamous depending on your point of view.
You’ve heard of Thomas Jefferson of course. But I’ll bet you didn’t know Jefferson liked the book so much he secretly translated it into English. Ever hear of Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln read Volney’s Ruins as a young man and was deeply affected by it. Ever hear of Walt Whitman? Whitman’s most famous poem, Leaves of Grass, was directly inspired by Volney’s Ruins. Ever hear of Thomas Cole, founder of the Hudson River Valley School? His famous paintings—The Voyage of Life and Course of Empire series—were also directly inspired by Volney’s Ruins.
So why are both Volney and his book largely forgotten today? There are many reasons. But first and foremost it’s because he challenges the fundamental principles of both the Left and the Right.
The Left doesn’t like Volney because Ruins of Empires was written as a direct refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. If you refute the Social Contract, then you refute Socialism and all the various “social models” in Europe (and elsewhere) built upon it. Volney, therefore, has few if any friends among the left-leaning professorial class—the ones who are supposed to teach “enlightenment” to students.
The Right doesn’t like Volney because Ruins of Empires presents a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts. While that’s certainly a good thing—and particularly so in a post-September 11 world—the Right still considers Volney to be a heretic and an atheist. Why? Because Ruins of Empires argues for a universal code of morality based on the physical laws of nature. While that sounds innocuous, it implicitly calls into question all other codes of morality based on the existence of some invisible being no one has ever seen—i.e. “God.”
In sum, Volney has been forgotten
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
April 12, 2018
I've read the book some years ago: an amazing reflection on ancient civilizations (and questioning of several religions*) in the area of today's Middle East. At times, beyond that geographical area**.
Travelling in a vast area (Ottoman Empire and Egypt and Syria) in the year 1784 and visiting the ruins of the ancient city of Palmyra, Volney, unknowingly, summons the Ghost of the ruins with his many questions and melancholic state:
-what about those times of abundance and life? ...where are the palaces?...what caused the destruction?... why the population not perpetuated?...
The answers obtained from this "supernatural voice" agitate the heart of Volney, the Count. (Chapter XIII goes this way: Will the human species ever improve?...; Chapter XV The New Century...)
...
...
So was I, in a certain way agitated, when I saw this:
Ancient Palmyra ‘under threat’, ISIS militants approach UNESCO site***
* “A Jew would rather die than working on Sabbath; a Persian would die had he to blow the fire with his own breath; for one Hindu man, it’s of the utmost perfection the act of covering with cow excrement and mysteriously saying Aum; a Muslim, thinks he gets all blames absolved, by washing his head and arms, and argues, holding the sword, whether it is better to start by the “tip of fingers or the elbow”. A Christian would think of being condemned to eternal damnations if eating meat on Friday, instead of milk and butter. Oh sublime and truly celestial doctrines!”
** “The whole Asia finds itself submerged in the deepest darkness. The Chinese, governed by rod-despotism and disoriented by superstition, embarrassed by a deficient language, and moreover, by an ill-constructed system of writing, they present themselves as a people of automatons of an aborted civilization”.
“The Jesuits tried to paint, with the most beautiful colors, the Chinese government. We know today that that’s no other cause but pure oriental despotism (limited by the use of ‘another’ language, and above all, by an ill-constructed writing). The Chinese people are the proof that in ancient times, until the invention of the alphabetic writing, the human spirit had difficulties developing itself, just like before the Arabic numbers, for the purpose of counting. It all depends on the methods: China won’t change itself unless it changes its language”.
***http://rt.com/news/258609-palmyra-thr...
---
Update
Syria and the Middle East are back as major concern: more Ruins?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6032341...
June 23, 2015
Je vous salue, ruines solitaires, tombeaux saints, murs silencieux! C’est vous que j’invoque; c’est à vous que j’adresse ma prière. Oui! tandis que votre aspect repousse d’un secret effroi les regards du vulgaire, mon cœur trouve à vous contempler le charme de mille sentimens et de milles pensées. Combien d’utiles leçons, de réflexions touchantes ou fortes n’offrez-vous pas à l’esprit qui sait vous consulter! C'est vous qui, lorsque la terre entière asservie se taisoit devant les tyrans, proclamiez déjà les vérités qu'ils détestent, et qui, confondant la dépouille des rois à celle du dernier esclave, attester le saint dogme de l'ÉGALITÉ. C'est dans votre enceinte, qu'amant solitaire de la LIBERTÉ, j'ai vu sortir des tombeaux son ombre, et, par une faveur inespérée, prendre son vol, et rappeler mes pas vers ma Patrie ranimée.
Oh tombeaux! que vous possédez de vertus! Vous épouvantez les tyrans; vous empoisonnez d'une terreur secrète leurs jouissances impies; ils fuient votre incorruptible aspect et les lâches portent loin de vous l'orgueil de leurs palais...
Les ruines, ou Méditation sur les révolutions des empires ; par M. Volney,...
Source: gallica.bnf.fr
Lu dans un recueil:
Observations générales sur les Indiens ou sauvages d'Amérique du Nord & autres textes : Les Ruines, La Loi naturelle
Version originale Gallica:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6...
Oh tombeaux! que vous possédez de vertus! Vous épouvantez les tyrans; vous empoisonnez d'une terreur secrète leurs jouissances impies; ils fuient votre incorruptible aspect et les lâches portent loin de vous l'orgueil de leurs palais...
Les ruines, ou Méditation sur les révolutions des empires ; par M. Volney,...
Source: gallica.bnf.fr
Lu dans un recueil:
Observations générales sur les Indiens ou sauvages d'Amérique du Nord & autres textes : Les Ruines, La Loi naturelle
Version originale Gallica:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6...
January 21, 2014
هذا هو كتاب "الأطلال، أو تأملات في ثورات الإمبراطوريات" الذي أصدره الكونت كونستانتان دي فولني في 1791 بعد أن قضى أربع سنوات من الرحلة في مصر والشام.
الكتاب الذي أعجب به المفكر توماس جيفرسون،أحد الآباء المؤسسين للولايات المتحدة، حتى أنه شارك سرًا في ترجمته مع جويل بارلو، جاء فيه عن مصر أن "كل ما يقع في مصر تحت البصر أو السمع يدل على أن هذا البلد بلد الاستعباد والاستبداد".
وفي سبيل ذلك يصف الفتن الأهلية ومظاهر الفاقة العامة، وفرض المماليك للإتاوات الباهظة، وابتزاز الأموال والاغتصاب والتعذيب، وإباحة هدر دم الإنسان كما يهدر دم الحيوان.
أشار إليه باستفاضة المفكر لويس عوض في كتابه تاريخ الفكر المصري الحديث، في معرض حديثه عن مشروع نابليون وحملته على مصر.
حتى الآن، لا توجد له ترجمة باللغة العربية، وهذا مؤسف.
الكتاب الذي أعجب به المفكر توماس جيفرسون،أحد الآباء المؤسسين للولايات المتحدة، حتى أنه شارك سرًا في ترجمته مع جويل بارلو، جاء فيه عن مصر أن "كل ما يقع في مصر تحت البصر أو السمع يدل على أن هذا البلد بلد الاستعباد والاستبداد".
وفي سبيل ذلك يصف الفتن الأهلية ومظاهر الفاقة العامة، وفرض المماليك للإتاوات الباهظة، وابتزاز الأموال والاغتصاب والتعذيب، وإباحة هدر دم الإنسان كما يهدر دم الحيوان.
أشار إليه باستفاضة المفكر لويس عوض في كتابه تاريخ الفكر المصري الحديث، في معرض حديثه عن مشروع نابليون وحملته على مصر.
حتى الآن، لا توجد له ترجمة باللغة العربية، وهذا مؤسف.
May 25, 2015
Just tastes good, reading the meditations of the Count Volney; his meditations, while viewing this old Syrian city Palmyra*;Constantin-François hears the Ghost of the Ruins;... a marvelous product of his travels in the region.
It's a book published in 1791. Some say it's an "eloquent defense of the rights of the peoples,and an admirable picture of the origin and filiation of the religious ideas..". How actual**, that part,you know:"the rights".
*Palmyra: city most likely founded by King Solomon. Palmyra in Hebrew and Arabic is “Tadmor”. In its ruins were found inscriptions in Greek and cuneiform characters, not deciphered till today. Some say that its ruins are superior (in construction) compared to Rome and Greek ones.
**‘Battle of humanity’: Muslim scholars make desperate call to save Syria’s Palmyra, in:http://rt.com/news/261721-muslim-scho...
It's a book published in 1791. Some say it's an "eloquent defense of the rights of the peoples,and an admirable picture of the origin and filiation of the religious ideas..". How actual**, that part,you know:"the rights".
*Palmyra: city most likely founded by King Solomon. Palmyra in Hebrew and Arabic is “Tadmor”. In its ruins were found inscriptions in Greek and cuneiform characters, not deciphered till today. Some say that its ruins are superior (in construction) compared to Rome and Greek ones.
**‘Battle of humanity’: Muslim scholars make desperate call to save Syria’s Palmyra, in:http://rt.com/news/261721-muslim-scho...
Read
May 26, 2009This is another look at history that was written by a Frenchman who was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson. Instead of looking to Greece and Rome as the cradle of civilization, he considers Egypt to be more ancient, thus confronting the prejudice against African races of his era. We can still learn from this book as he was trying to distinguish the characteristics of civilization that make it last for millennia.
May 15, 2015
I've read the book some years ago. An amazing reflection on ancient civilizations in the area of today Middle East.
Travelling in a vast area (Ottoman Empire and Egypt and Syria) in the year 1784 and visiting the ruins of the ancient city of Palmyra, Volney, unknowingly, summons the Ghost of the ruins with his many questions and melancholic state:what about those times of abundance and life? ...where are the palaces?...what caused the destruction?... why the population not perpetuated?...
The answers obtained from this "supernatural voice" agitate the heart of Volney, the Count. (Chapter XIII goes this way: will the human species ever improve?)
...
...
So was I,in a certain way agitated, when I saw this:
Ancient Palmyra ‘under threat’, ISIS militants approach UNESCO site*
*http://rt.com/news/258609-palmyra-thr...
January 11, 2021
En el epicentro del pensamiento revolucionario francés está la religión. La república, el constitucionalismo, la libertad, la igualdad, la fraternidad, son reacciones contra la tiranía. Sobre todo, contra la tiranía religiosa que parece ser el dispositivo histórico preferido por el poder. La exploración de las ruinas sirias de Palmira operó como un umbral benjaminiano en Volney (seudónimo de un conde voltaireano, contrae Voltaire + Ferney). Las ruinas como explosión de intuiciones. Volney intuyó que la causa de la infelicidad del hombre en comunidad es el desorden de las pasiones, sobre todo de la codicia, la avaricia y la ignorancia. Volney vagabundea por la política, la historia, la teología. En la torre de control, la ley natural como métrica del caos. La solución, la soberanía popular. La república. La democracia liberal. Pero todo bajo la ley natural, que nace de un empirismo ingenuo. Funda todo en el consenso sensorial, ¿qué habría pensado Volney si hubiera conocido la psicofísica?, y siguiendo el anacronismo, ¿qué tal si hubiera conocido la filosofía del derecho del siglo XXI? Volney parece un Aristóteles sin metafísica que pasea por los restos de ese enclave del Imperio Romano que era Palmira, opulenta ciudad de la ruta de la seda. En síntesis, es un libro magnífico para pensar de todo. La historia, la modernidad, la política, le religión, la condición humana, las pasiones, la ley. Un extra es la puesta en escena. Hay un genio que habla como oráculo en un escenario onírico por el que desfilan los artífices de la historia. Es un pintoresco viaje psicodélico por la época de la guillotina. Horrible la traducción de Mariano Moreno seguida por el Abate Marchena.
January 20, 2019
LIBERTAD, IGUALDAD Y JUSTICIA.
(Antes que "Zeitgaist, La Película" estuvo "Las Ruinas de Palmira", El Libro)
En 1791 apareció este volumen que desnuda la naturaleza del poder establecido, poniendo especial énfasis en el nacimiento y desarrollo de las religiones como herramienta de poder y del poder.
TODAS las religiones establecidas son un desarrollo y refrito de los primeros cultos agrarios y astronómicos.
TODOS, opresores y oprimidos, élite y pueblo, somos responsable de las injusticias que asolan al mundo.
Curiosamente, la moraleja aparece al final de la primera mitad del libro: "SUSTENTEMOS LA ESPERANZA [EN EL TRIUNFO DE LA RAZÓN], PORQUE SI SE DESALIENTAN LOS QUE AMAN A SUS SEMEJANTES, ¿QUÉ SERÁ DE LAS NACIONES?" (capítulo XIV).
(Antes que "Zeitgaist, La Película" estuvo "Las Ruinas de Palmira", El Libro)
En 1791 apareció este volumen que desnuda la naturaleza del poder establecido, poniendo especial énfasis en el nacimiento y desarrollo de las religiones como herramienta de poder y del poder.
TODAS las religiones establecidas son un desarrollo y refrito de los primeros cultos agrarios y astronómicos.
TODOS, opresores y oprimidos, élite y pueblo, somos responsable de las injusticias que asolan al mundo.
Curiosamente, la moraleja aparece al final de la primera mitad del libro: "SUSTENTEMOS LA ESPERANZA [EN EL TRIUNFO DE LA RAZÓN], PORQUE SI SE DESALIENTAN LOS QUE AMAN A SUS SEMEJANTES, ¿QUÉ SERÁ DE LAS NACIONES?" (capítulo XIV).
May 6, 2022
This book is such a one that I would highly recommend. It attempts to answer two questions: the origin of the gods hence religious sentiments and the source of morality.
To the first, he argues from our relationship with nature and loses in translation.
To the second, he argues self-love.
And finally his letter as a response to Dr. Priestly is one you would want to print and frame.
Volney's writing is easy to read. This is a real page turner.
To the first, he argues from our relationship with nature and loses in translation.
To the second, he argues self-love.
And finally his letter as a response to Dr. Priestly is one you would want to print and frame.
Volney's writing is easy to read. This is a real page turner.
January 8, 2026
This is probably one of the more interesting books that I would give so low a rating as 2 stars. It has a lot to say, some of which will stick with me, but it is very flawed in its reasoning and difficult to read. Even considering its age, I can only be so forgiving.
This book begins with the narrator visiting Syrian ruins and meeting an ancient apparition. There is some wonderful imagery here, very warm, tranquil, nebulous descriptions of what is otherwise a completely dead and barren location. Thematically, this prepares the reader for the naturalistic ideas ahead, but it's also just enjoyable to read. Sadly, this narrative framing device is quickly forgotten and the book becomes very dry. Following these chapters, you’ll be reading very straight forward philosophy as well as the proposed rules to a virtuous and prosperous life.
Volney has a wide scope, hoping to uncover the true laws of nature, the origins of government and religion, the source of all evils, etc. A single review could not reply to all the ideas presented, but there were some highlights. This is not to say I agree with what I reference, but simply that I found it to be presented in a unique or compelling way.
If he wishes to punish, hath he not earthquakes, volcanoes, and thunder?
The general way this book approaches religion can be interesting. Volney presents himself as agnostic and atheist at different points, so rather than presenting God as an entirely nonexistent being, he presents him as one grossly misunderstood. He makes the argument that by claiming to represent God, or even claiming he would need representing, you are committing a sin under both your own religion and by the laws of nature (yes, he argues morality and natural law are one in the same, but we will return to this later). Presumably, God is so powerful he would not need your help, and he is so just that he could not want it. What I enjoyed about this idea is that it’s not simply meant to debase religion, but serve as a way of thinking that guides the reader towards a positive relationship with their fellow man. It tries to help the audience find meaning by asking them to confront their own Earthly limitations and live within them. Obviously, existential philosophy had been touching on these issues for some 2000+ years prior, but it is still interesting to see it presented in this context.
Volney also focuses heavily on the idea that God is a personification of nature itself (particularly the sun). From this viewpoint, all religions are an allegorical tool to make the natural laws more easily understood, but that this intention was often forgotten and followers led astray. There are aspects of this idea I enjoy and ones I do not.
To begin, I'll say that these theories are compelling to read until he takes them to their absolute extreme. For example, he says that snakes are a symbol of evil in so many religious texts due to the serpent constellation appearing more often during the Winter, where the world becomes cold and infertile (to this astrological fact, I cannot attest, for I know nothing about astrology). Now, the problem here is that it remains equally possible that the snake is a symbol of evil because snakes are sneaky fellas who jump out and bite you. There is a lot of inductive reasoning here. It becomes far too frequent and too much is built upon it.
Chapter XXII is full of this sort of reasoning and it is also absurdly long. It felt to me as if Chapter XXII is over a third of the novel. So much information is repeated here, and so much of it is poorly argued, that any positive emotion garnered from the previous chapters will dissipate before its end. This chapter is when I simply wanted the book to be over. He will start yet another multi-page tangent, typically building off of the serpent symbolism, and you will quickly realize that it is more top-down reasoning. You will be tempted to skim it, but sadly, you can't. There are so many cultural references, you must read this flawed text intently to understand even the general goings on. This makes much of this a very, very trying read.
One segment where this stood out to me was late in chapter XXII when he explains that most religions have figures similar to Adam and Eve because the constellation Bootes, representing Adam, appears quite early in the night, followed closely by that of Virgo, the virgin, representing Eve. Then they are followed by the Serpent constellation (who tempts Eve), and so on. This is absurd to me. Although he does draw many interesting similarities between different religious texts, the fact is there is no basis for what he is saying. It is more likely Adam and Eve-like figures exist in every religious text because people used reason of their own to determine there must have been one lineage all humans originate from.
The very worst argument he makes is near the end of this same chapter. He talks about taking words and equating numerical values to each letter. Specifically, he does this with the name "Yes" (which Christ is sometimes called by). He then says these numbers add to 608, and using that number, we can find that Christ is linked to a specific solar period. This seems like complete nonsense to me and I didn't even want to bother engaging with it.
There are also other miscellaneous points of contention. Whether relevant to his arguments or not, these are facts listed that are plainly false. At one point, in a footnote meant to aid your understanding, Volney makes the claim that Muslims do not believe women to have souls. I have not seen an instance of this in any of their texts and this makes me curious of how many other baseless claims he has made. I read a lot of classic literature and understand that sometimes you may have to be mindful of the author's prejudices while finding the value beyond them, but this is more than a passing remark. He is wrong, plain and simple, and it is a harmful claim. It also seems he overemphasizes the influence Zoroaster (Zarathustra) had on other developing religions, but I am not altogether educated enough to go into detail on this matter. It is for these reasons that I have no choice but to walk away assuming many of his factual claims are simply untrue. He will rattle off hundreds of small linguistic comparisons and claims in a row and, as I do not have the means of checking their validity, I do not feel safe believing them. Thus, while this book raises many interesting questions, it can really make no claims and should be read cautiously.
I think if it was not for lengthy Chapter XXII, the second part of this text regarding the Laws of Nature would be more interesting. However, Volney had just spent about 60-70 pages setting up strawmen and then criticizing their poor reasoning skills, only to then follow it up by arguing that an objective morality can exist without God. It seems hypocritical.
Volney goes the route of simplifying the idea of morality until it is essentially just a predisposition humans have to do what makes them more likely to survive. This makes the idea of morality entirely redundant, and even when being reductive it does so with poor reasoning that I'm sure any reader can pick apart. It is just more inductive reasoning. He takes a moral value he already believes (wine is okay is moderation, but other types of liquor are not; women should abstain from sex), then explains how this value makes people live longer through contrived cause and effect. He is not the first to do this, so it is not even particularly interesting.
As you can see just from me recounting the contents of this text in order, it goes from being a very mindful, poetic journey to a mess of muddled moral and metaphysical arguments. In some ways, it did impress me. For example, the many layers of counter-arguments Volney anticipated seem extremely contemporary. Arguments university students feel are new and innovative have in fact been had over 300 years ago, beat for beat. In this way, it seems very prophetic, and this adds to the general throughline of nature being more or less cyclical.
On that note: it was very interesting when Volney discusses how a governing body can only ever grow so large as, at a certain point, it will cease to be manageable due to the sheer size. While this is still true in many ways, some of the limitations he claims would make a massive government body impossible are now irrelevant due to modern technologies. Frightening, as it shows that perhaps human history is not as cyclical as we thought and that we really do live in strange, unprecedented times. Still, it is compelling, and I enjoyed this part of the text far more than what followed.
I also enjoyed early on when he claims that the fall of every great society was due to greed, and then goes on to explain the various ways people may try to convolute or disguise this cause. I think this is incredibly poignant even today. So often, people will conjure up any number of reasons for the difficult state of the world, usually blaming a number of things that personally ail or offend them on a smaller, more personal scale. Truthfully, however, they are all entirely insignificant both in prevalence and impact compared to wealth disparity. Some would say this outlook is simple and childish, but I say it is the only one you could naturally come to if separated from your ego.
Though not educational, this book can be thought provoking at times. I'm sure Volney was progressive and influential at the time, but it’s a boring read, outdated in many respects, and the amount of effort needed to fact check and decipher these old religious claims will more than likely outweigh the benefits for the majority of modern readers. I also must admit that a lot of my enjoyment came from the fact that Frankenstein's monster was said to have read this book, and it was interesting to see how Mary Shelley may have used it to develop the monster's perspective. Unless you are a far more patient reader than myself and have a fascination with the antiquity of outdated philosophical doctrine, I do not recommend this.
This book begins with the narrator visiting Syrian ruins and meeting an ancient apparition. There is some wonderful imagery here, very warm, tranquil, nebulous descriptions of what is otherwise a completely dead and barren location. Thematically, this prepares the reader for the naturalistic ideas ahead, but it's also just enjoyable to read. Sadly, this narrative framing device is quickly forgotten and the book becomes very dry. Following these chapters, you’ll be reading very straight forward philosophy as well as the proposed rules to a virtuous and prosperous life.
Volney has a wide scope, hoping to uncover the true laws of nature, the origins of government and religion, the source of all evils, etc. A single review could not reply to all the ideas presented, but there were some highlights. This is not to say I agree with what I reference, but simply that I found it to be presented in a unique or compelling way.
If he wishes to punish, hath he not earthquakes, volcanoes, and thunder?
The general way this book approaches religion can be interesting. Volney presents himself as agnostic and atheist at different points, so rather than presenting God as an entirely nonexistent being, he presents him as one grossly misunderstood. He makes the argument that by claiming to represent God, or even claiming he would need representing, you are committing a sin under both your own religion and by the laws of nature (yes, he argues morality and natural law are one in the same, but we will return to this later). Presumably, God is so powerful he would not need your help, and he is so just that he could not want it. What I enjoyed about this idea is that it’s not simply meant to debase religion, but serve as a way of thinking that guides the reader towards a positive relationship with their fellow man. It tries to help the audience find meaning by asking them to confront their own Earthly limitations and live within them. Obviously, existential philosophy had been touching on these issues for some 2000+ years prior, but it is still interesting to see it presented in this context.
Volney also focuses heavily on the idea that God is a personification of nature itself (particularly the sun). From this viewpoint, all religions are an allegorical tool to make the natural laws more easily understood, but that this intention was often forgotten and followers led astray. There are aspects of this idea I enjoy and ones I do not.
To begin, I'll say that these theories are compelling to read until he takes them to their absolute extreme. For example, he says that snakes are a symbol of evil in so many religious texts due to the serpent constellation appearing more often during the Winter, where the world becomes cold and infertile (to this astrological fact, I cannot attest, for I know nothing about astrology). Now, the problem here is that it remains equally possible that the snake is a symbol of evil because snakes are sneaky fellas who jump out and bite you. There is a lot of inductive reasoning here. It becomes far too frequent and too much is built upon it.
Chapter XXII is full of this sort of reasoning and it is also absurdly long. It felt to me as if Chapter XXII is over a third of the novel. So much information is repeated here, and so much of it is poorly argued, that any positive emotion garnered from the previous chapters will dissipate before its end. This chapter is when I simply wanted the book to be over. He will start yet another multi-page tangent, typically building off of the serpent symbolism, and you will quickly realize that it is more top-down reasoning. You will be tempted to skim it, but sadly, you can't. There are so many cultural references, you must read this flawed text intently to understand even the general goings on. This makes much of this a very, very trying read.
One segment where this stood out to me was late in chapter XXII when he explains that most religions have figures similar to Adam and Eve because the constellation Bootes, representing Adam, appears quite early in the night, followed closely by that of Virgo, the virgin, representing Eve. Then they are followed by the Serpent constellation (who tempts Eve), and so on. This is absurd to me. Although he does draw many interesting similarities between different religious texts, the fact is there is no basis for what he is saying. It is more likely Adam and Eve-like figures exist in every religious text because people used reason of their own to determine there must have been one lineage all humans originate from.
The very worst argument he makes is near the end of this same chapter. He talks about taking words and equating numerical values to each letter. Specifically, he does this with the name "Yes" (which Christ is sometimes called by). He then says these numbers add to 608, and using that number, we can find that Christ is linked to a specific solar period. This seems like complete nonsense to me and I didn't even want to bother engaging with it.
There are also other miscellaneous points of contention. Whether relevant to his arguments or not, these are facts listed that are plainly false. At one point, in a footnote meant to aid your understanding, Volney makes the claim that Muslims do not believe women to have souls. I have not seen an instance of this in any of their texts and this makes me curious of how many other baseless claims he has made. I read a lot of classic literature and understand that sometimes you may have to be mindful of the author's prejudices while finding the value beyond them, but this is more than a passing remark. He is wrong, plain and simple, and it is a harmful claim. It also seems he overemphasizes the influence Zoroaster (Zarathustra) had on other developing religions, but I am not altogether educated enough to go into detail on this matter. It is for these reasons that I have no choice but to walk away assuming many of his factual claims are simply untrue. He will rattle off hundreds of small linguistic comparisons and claims in a row and, as I do not have the means of checking their validity, I do not feel safe believing them. Thus, while this book raises many interesting questions, it can really make no claims and should be read cautiously.
I think if it was not for lengthy Chapter XXII, the second part of this text regarding the Laws of Nature would be more interesting. However, Volney had just spent about 60-70 pages setting up strawmen and then criticizing their poor reasoning skills, only to then follow it up by arguing that an objective morality can exist without God. It seems hypocritical.
Volney goes the route of simplifying the idea of morality until it is essentially just a predisposition humans have to do what makes them more likely to survive. This makes the idea of morality entirely redundant, and even when being reductive it does so with poor reasoning that I'm sure any reader can pick apart. It is just more inductive reasoning. He takes a moral value he already believes (wine is okay is moderation, but other types of liquor are not; women should abstain from sex), then explains how this value makes people live longer through contrived cause and effect. He is not the first to do this, so it is not even particularly interesting.
As you can see just from me recounting the contents of this text in order, it goes from being a very mindful, poetic journey to a mess of muddled moral and metaphysical arguments. In some ways, it did impress me. For example, the many layers of counter-arguments Volney anticipated seem extremely contemporary. Arguments university students feel are new and innovative have in fact been had over 300 years ago, beat for beat. In this way, it seems very prophetic, and this adds to the general throughline of nature being more or less cyclical.
On that note: it was very interesting when Volney discusses how a governing body can only ever grow so large as, at a certain point, it will cease to be manageable due to the sheer size. While this is still true in many ways, some of the limitations he claims would make a massive government body impossible are now irrelevant due to modern technologies. Frightening, as it shows that perhaps human history is not as cyclical as we thought and that we really do live in strange, unprecedented times. Still, it is compelling, and I enjoyed this part of the text far more than what followed.
I also enjoyed early on when he claims that the fall of every great society was due to greed, and then goes on to explain the various ways people may try to convolute or disguise this cause. I think this is incredibly poignant even today. So often, people will conjure up any number of reasons for the difficult state of the world, usually blaming a number of things that personally ail or offend them on a smaller, more personal scale. Truthfully, however, they are all entirely insignificant both in prevalence and impact compared to wealth disparity. Some would say this outlook is simple and childish, but I say it is the only one you could naturally come to if separated from your ego.
Though not educational, this book can be thought provoking at times. I'm sure Volney was progressive and influential at the time, but it’s a boring read, outdated in many respects, and the amount of effort needed to fact check and decipher these old religious claims will more than likely outweigh the benefits for the majority of modern readers. I also must admit that a lot of my enjoyment came from the fact that Frankenstein's monster was said to have read this book, and it was interesting to see how Mary Shelley may have used it to develop the monster's perspective. Unless you are a far more patient reader than myself and have a fascination with the antiquity of outdated philosophical doctrine, I do not recommend this.
August 5, 2012
This is NOT the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. Here is my review of the book nonetheless:
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
This edition IS a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 7, 2012
This is a copy of the original edition published in August 1791. The very first French constitution went into effect one month later. Since Volney sat on the committee that wrote the first French constitution, he was writing the final drafts of both documents at the same time. This means with one hand Volney was writing theory ("Les Ruines") and with the other he was co-writing reality (the 1791 constitution).
October 16, 2017
Very interesting book. Written in the late 1700s in French, it was felt to be so important that Thomas Jefferson anonymously translated the first 20 chapters. Topics include the Laws of Nature and how we should live our lives accordingly, the foundations of religion, enlightened society, etc. Lots of philosophy and ancient history. It took a bit to get into the 1700s language, but well worth the read.
January 5, 2025
The book in Project Gutenberg.
Volney and the French Revolution
Volney's "Les Ruines" and the Age of Rhetoric
Volney’s Meditations on Ruins and Empires—Robert Irwin
The Birth of Orientalism. Chapter 8. Volney’s Revolutions
The universal history to bring all universal histories to an end: the curious case of Volney
Volney article at Philosophy Now
Observations on the increase of infidelity—Joseph Priestley (1796).
Joseph Lequinio.
Lorenzo Hervás.
Origine et progrès du langage, par Hugh Blair.
Traité de la formation méchanique des langues.
Volney and the French Revolution
Volney's "Les Ruines" and the Age of Rhetoric
Volney’s Meditations on Ruins and Empires—Robert Irwin
The Birth of Orientalism. Chapter 8. Volney’s Revolutions
The universal history to bring all universal histories to an end: the curious case of Volney
Volney article at Philosophy Now
Observations on the increase of infidelity—Joseph Priestley (1796).
Joseph Lequinio.
Lorenzo Hervás.
Origine et progrès du langage, par Hugh Blair.
Traité de la formation méchanique des langues.
October 15, 2019
I could write a book as long about how awesome this book is. Only pissed that no one shoved it in my paws at 15 instead of finding it by chance up in King Library at 35. A book that I sincerely wish all residents of purportedly democratic western societies were MADE to read, as young as intellectually possible. It gives me the same thrill now that Morning of the Magicians gave me at 20 and Cosmic Trigger at 30: the thrill of having found a voice that both has the scholarship (and in Volney's case the damned language chops, having learned Arabic as his contemporaries firmly refused to) and the ETHICS to pull off that kind of work of history, intending for the audience to better itself in reading. I'm happy that I otherwise learned so much of the stuff he found in the 780s by myself, and that made the book a fun treasure hunt, but if only I'd known sooner. May we all be as sharp as Volney in everything we consider. NOTICE I read the Black Classics reprint, which is clean and elegant, not the 2018 facsimile.
May 20, 2025
"On his right you see the Greek pontiff, who, proud of the rivalship of his metropolis, sets up equal pretensions, and supports them against the Western church by the priority of that of the East. On the left are the standards of two recent chiefs, who, shaking off a yoke that had become tyrannical, have raised altar against altar in their reform, and wrested half of Europe from the pope. Behind these are the subaltern sects, subdivided from the principal divisions, the Nestorians, the Eutycheans, the Jacobites, the Iconoclasts, the Anabaptists, the Presbyterians, the Wicliffites, the Osiandrians, the Manicheans, the Pietists, the Adamites, the Contemplatives, the Quakers, the Weepers, and a hundred others, all of distinct parties, persecuting when strong, tolerant when weak, hating each other in the name of a God of peace, forming each an exclusive heaven in a religion of universal charity, dooming each other to pains without end in a future state, and realizing in this world the imaginary hell of the other."—Volney, The Ruins
March 24, 2021
Notwithstanding some waywardness, especially in the tragedy of racism exhibited by the author, I think this Work should be a must-read for everyone who seeks an understanding of society and religions, particularly their i history & etymology. This Work clarifies and fills huge holes in my understanding of religions, in particular.
May 28, 2017
Someone recommended this to me and I can't remember who. Thank you.
March 28, 2019
Read this for my english course... It was kinda boring but got immensely interesting after section C.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. Who ever has a copy send me a note and we can make a determination real fast...
Note too this is probably the single worst book cover for Volney's Ruins I have ever seen. Who ever chose it obviously has no idea about the book's true content and meaning...
In any event, here's my review of this book:
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Note too this is probably the single worst book cover for Volney's Ruins I have ever seen. Who ever chose it obviously has no idea about the book's true content and meaning...
In any event, here's my review of this book:
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this is the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have a copy, send me a note and we can make that determination real quick...
Here is my review of the book nonetheless:
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Here is my review of the book nonetheless:
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition, send me a note and we can make that determination real fast...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition, send me a note and we can make that determination real fast...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition, send me a note and we can make that determination real fast...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have a copy send me a note and we can make that determination real quick...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition, send me a note and we can make a determination real quick...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Want to read
August 5, 2012Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition send me a note and we can make a determination real fast...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Want to read
August 5, 2012Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. If you have this edition please send me a note and we can make the determination real quick...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
August 5, 2012
Not enough information to determine if this edition is a reprint of the translation by Thomas Jefferson and Joel Barlow. Whoever has a copy send me a note and we can make a determination real quick...
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Empires Rise if Government Allows Enlightened Self-Interest to Flourish
In the early days of the French Revolution, Constantin-Francois Volney, a member of the first National Assembly and friend of Thomas Jefferson, published Ruins of Empires, a post-Enlightenment review of human history.
The book’s central premise, noted above, represents not only a refutation of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract—and hence Socialism—but also provides the basis for a solution to the world’s enduring religious conflicts.
Thomas Jefferson liked the book so much he translated it into English. But he also insisted on complete anonymity due to the book’s controversial religious content.
This important facet of Jefferson's life and beliefs was discovered by a French researcher, Gilbert Chinard. Chinard published his findings in the Johns Hopkins Press in 1923 in a book called "Volney et l'Amerique." As the title implies the book is written in French so many Jefferson fans, including scholars, are still unaware of this evidence. There are also manuscripts of Jefferson's translation in the libraries of UVA and the Massachusetts Historical Society.
The Jefferson-Barlow translation went through many reprints throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. It was read by famous Americans such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman, Ernest Hemingway and untold numbers of people favoring the abolition and women's rights movements.
In sum, the political Left dislikes Volney because Ruins of Empires--which places enlightened self-interest at the center of society--refutes their patron saint Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The political Right dislikes Volney because in the last four chapters of the Ruins he investigates the origin of world religions and proposes a solution to the world's enduring religious conflicts. This solution--establishing a code of morality based on the physical laws of nature and not upon some invisible being up in the sky--is still considered heresy.
My feeling is, if extremists on both the Left and Right don't like it, then there must be something of value in this book that neither side wants you to know.
Jefferson certainly saw that value--and he liked it so much he translated it into English. He saw Volney's Ruins as a book of general principles that the people needed to read to understand the history of the human race, hence to better understand their responsibilities under this new form of government called democracy.
Beyond this, the book's central premise--mentioned at the top--is still alive and relevant today. It explains the past two hundred plus years of human history since the book was published: the rise of the United States, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the victory of capitalism over communism and the recent emergence of the Arab Spring.
From Volney through Jefferson to Lincoln--that's quite a pedigree. It's too bad the educators of this world, on both sides of the Atlantic, have wasted so much time spreading the gospel of Rousseau and Marx, rather than Volney's Ruins of Empires.
But maybe, just maybe, that fault is about to be corrected...
Be sure to read, too, Volney's Law of Nature, which is included at the back of most volumes. It's here that Volney best lays-out his code of morality based on the physical laws of nature.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews