Translations

9 December 2023

Translations

My interaction with Platonism is primarily through translations; and by ‘primarily’ I mean almost exclusively.  As I have noted before at this blog, I don’t know Greek, though, interestingly I have taken tentative steps to become more familiar with it.  The truth, though I am fascinated by languages, and have spent time studying a number of them, I’m not very good at acquiring languages to the state of being fluent in them.  I quickly reach a plateau that seems almost impossible to get beyond.  I’ve known people who are very quick at absorbing languages, but I am not one of these people.  On the other hand, I have found that even knowing a little bit about another language can assist in understanding the central teachings of a tradition whose primary documents are in a foreign language. 

I think my situation is common; I mean that most English speakers who become attracted to Platonism are going to have to rely on translations either because they don’t have the time to study Classical Greek, or because, like me, they are simply not that skillful at acquiring new languages.  Here are a few comments about this:

1.  A translation is always an interpretation.  This is true, but the meaning implied by this is, I think, often overstated.  I say this because I could easily say that every reading of a written work, whether in the original language or in a translation, is an interpretation.  I mean that when I read something in English I am interpreting what I am reading.  Most of this interpretation happens automatically; on the other hand, it happens regularly that we openly ask ourselves what something we are reading means, we may even ask someone for assistance as to the meaning. 

2.  What happens with a translation is that we are reading someone else’s interpretation of what has been translated and then entering into the process of interpretation ourselves.  This sounds complicated, but we seem to be able to do this with ease.

3.  One way of overcoming the problem of the translator as interpreter is to read multiple translations; this is what I have done for many years and I have found it very helpful.  Take, for example, the Enneads of Plotinus.  There are four complete translations of the Enneads into English at this time:

A.  Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, Plotinus: Complete Works in Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods published in 1918.  Currently available through reprint houses that use print-on-demand technology.

B.  Stephen MacKenna, Plotinus: The Enneads, published in several volumes and revisions which was concluded in 1930.  Currently published by Larson Publications.

C.  Arthur Hillary Armstrong (A. H. Armstrong), Plotinus Ennead I – VI, published in seven volumes by the Loeb Classical library from 1966 to 1988.

D.  Lloyd P. Gerson et al, Plotinus: The Enneads, published by Cambridge University Press in 2018.

I have previously written about taking a year to read the Enneads and cycling through all four of the full translations.  This creates a four-year cycle, which might seem like a big commitment when first considering it.  But I see reading the Enneads as a primary practice.  I think of it as a type of prayer and just as some people pray on a daily basis, so I also understand the reading of the Enneads to be an essential Platonist practice.  Looked at in this way it’s a reasonable demand.  And taking a year to read the entire Enneads amounts to about three pages a day which allows for a relaxed pace that also allows for time to contemplate the reading for the day.

4.  As an aside, one can do the same with the Dialogues of Plato.  But there are a very large number of complete translations of Plato.  In this situation you might want to ask others what their favorite translation of Plato is, collect three or four of these, and then cycle through them in the same way I refer to cycling through the translations of the Enneads.

5.  The virtue of reading multiple translations is that you get to see how different people vary in their understanding of the same work.  These differences can be helpful in searching out an overall understanding that might favor one of the translations, or might encompass more than one. 

These differences can be both at the macro and micro level.  For example, in the case of the Enneads the first translation, by Guthrie, arranges the Enneads in chronological order which is not the standard order that Porphyry put them in.  Most scholars do not think that the chronological order reveals anything of significance and so they have refrained from following Guthrie’s lead.  This is because Plotinus did not start writing until he was in late middle age, when his views had already fully matured.  On the other hand, there are a minority who see the chronological order as having significance because some of the Enneads that were broken up by Porphyry into several separate Enneads are brought back together as a whole.  I think it is good to have both options (the chronological order and the topical order of Porphyry) available.

Another macro difference can be found in things like Chapter Titles and section divisions which might have sub-headings.  Paragraphing can also be of significance in determining meaning.

A somewhat hidden macro difference has to do with what scholars refer to as a ‘critical text.’  A critical text is a complex scholarly apparatus that takes many older Greek versions of, for example, the Enneads, and compares the various readings, highlighting discrepancies (which are always to be found) and alternative readings of the same passage.  Sometimes a critical text will also incorporate ancient quotations from the text being examined, like the Enneads, and incorporate those variants as well.  Some of the differences in translations of the complete Enneads will be due to the different translators using different critical texts.  Critical texts are revised because scholars discover new quotes and, occasionally, new discoveries of whole or partial Enneads.  The domain of critical texts is a scholar’s domain; but if you have the inclination and the linguistic skill a critical text can be helpful in unpacking meanings that may be eluding you; and, who knows, if you are so inclined you might be able to participate in the making of a new critical text that incorporates newer findings.

6.  At the micro level there will be differences between translators in how a word is translated.  Many important philosophical terms have multiple meanings, but in translation the translator will have to choose one each time the word appears.  This requires skill and a refined intuition; and there are likely to be honest disagreements.

7.  There is a view about languages that sees languages as encoding foundational views of that language’s users and, furthermore, shapes perception.  This is a widely held view, sometimes known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  I am skeptical regarding this view; I think it is inconsistent with Platonist metaphysics.  I tend to see words functionally; I mean that words have many ordinary uses expressed in things like ‘pass the salt’, ‘look at that oak tree’, ‘the sun will set soon’, and so forth.  I don’t think it makes much difference what language these kinds of things appear in.  And I also think this is likely true of philosophical and spiritual realities as well.  In a sense, because the One is ineffable, you could say that language is inherently a hindrance to ultimate realization; but that would be equally true of every language.  It would also be true of chairs and mountains; any material manifestation. 

Thinking in this way has led me to think that there is more overlap of meaning between languages than might initially be assumed.  It’s kind of like listening to different versions of a symphony.  Different conductors will bring forth different nuances for sure, but behind all of the conductors’ interpretations is the music of the composer; you could say that each performance is an emanation of the composer’s original notated score.  In a similar way you could say that each translation of the Enneads is an emanation of the original of Plotinus.

8.  None of this is meant to discourage people from learning the original Classical Greek of Plato and Plotinus.  If you are linguistically talented then it would be very good to engage in such learning, not just for yourself but for the Platonist community as a whole. 

What I do mean to suggest is that not knowing Classical Greek is no reason to refrain from contemplating the works of Plato and Plotinus in translation. 

9.  I have a deep respect and admiration for translators of the central works of Platonism, as well as those who have translated the large number of secondary, though still significant, works of that tradition.  It is not easy; reports I have read from these translators refer to their struggles with finding the right word or expression, particularly with difficult passages.  These translators, for the most part, received almost no payment for their efforts and it is clear that, for example, the translators of the Enneads did so as a labor of love.  I am very grateful to them; they have opened the door to the Temple of the Text.