Metaphysics (Ann Arbor Paperbacks)

Rating:
Summary: Ian Myles Slater on A Useful Version
Review: "After 'The Physics'" is the suitably opaque title for Aristotle's exploration of the fundamental nature of existence. (Not religion as such, and not mysticism or magic; you can put those meanings of the word aside.) No valid presentation is going to make it easy to understand, and Hope's translation is not for the faint of heart.

Part of the problem, however, is not the (admitted) depth of Aristotle's thought, but the fact that he was thinking in an ancient language, an issue which Hope confronts, and, through his presentation, largely overcomes. The book looks cluttered, but a little use shows how functional it is.

Richard Hope's translation has an elaborate apparatus making clear how Aristotle's own choice of words underlies his English version. It shows, without argumentative commentary, how what in our language are discrete concepts fall together quite naturally in the Greek text. The same cross-references show that some ideas we would class together are kept apart in Greek.

For those of us with an interest in philosophy or classical antiquity whose Greek ranges between non-existent and minimal, the results can be enlightening.

Aristotle, it must be remembered, did not have at his disposal the kind of technical language devised over a couple of thousand years by thinkers working through Plato and, well, Aristotle's "Metaphysics". He used the Greek language of his time, expressing himself through the relationships between words in ordinary use. Also, he did not have to worry about whether foreigners - the barbarians, after all - would be able to make sense of his statements. (Aristotle probably would have been horrified, as well as astonished, to learn that some his important advocates and interpreters would know him only through Arabic or Latin versions.)

I have used the Hope translation for about a quarter of a century, often checking translations of excerpts in other works against it. I have not always come away with a greater understanding, but I have often found something I was missing by reading it either in "plain English" or technical jargon, and sometimes decided on his evidence that Aristotle's meaning was being misconstrued.

I feel that this version will be of use to anyone with a serious interest in this branch of philosophy, or the history of thought. (And, except as assigned reading, who else is likely to look at it?)

Rating:
Summary: Ian Myles Slater on: A Useful Version, A Hard Book
Review: "After 'The Physics'" is the suitably opaque title for Aristotle's exploration of the fundamental nature of existence. It is not about religion as such, nor mysticism or magic; you can put those meanings of the word aside. It has been called by this title ever since a first-century B.C. editor decided to place it *after* Aristotle's "Physica" (On Nature). Aristotle seems to have called it "First Philosophy," which now suggests something introductory, as well as of first importance. Aristotle also sometimes describes it as "Theology," which is also rather misleading, although he does talk about a concept of what he considers divinity. The concept has little connection to most people's way of regarding religion, although Muslim, Jewish, and Christian Aristotelians all did their best to reconcile it with their ideas of what "theology" should be, sometimes with help from Neo-Platonist interpretations.

No valid presentation is going to make it easy to understand, and Richard Hope's half-century old translation is not for the faint of heart. Part of the problem, however, is not the (admitted) depth of Aristotle's thought, but the fact that he was thinking in an ancient language, an issue that Hope confronts, and, through his presentation, largely overcomes. The book looks cluttered, but a little use shows how functional it is.

Hope's translation has an elaborate apparatus making clear how Aristotle's own choice of words underlies his English version. It shows, without argumentative commentary, how what in our language are discrete concepts fall together quite naturally in the Greek text. The same cross-references show that some ideas we would class together are kept apart in Greek, so Aristotle is not being obtuse in failing to notice how they fit.

For those of us with an interest in philosophy or classical antiquity whose Greek ranges between non-existent and minimal, the results can be enlightening.

Aristotle, it must be remembered, did not have at his disposal the kind of technical language devised over a couple of thousand years by thinkers working through Plato and, well, Aristotle's "Metaphysics". He used the Greek language of his time, expressing himself through the relationships between words in ordinary use. Also, he did not have to worry about whether foreigners -- the barbarians, after all -- would be able to make sense of his statements. Aristotle probably would have been horrified, as well as astonished, to learn that some his important advocates and interpreters would know him only through Arabic or Latin versions.

I have used the Hope translation for about a quarter of a century, often checking translations of excerpts in other works against it. I have not always come away with a greater understanding, but I have often found something I was missing by reading it either in "plain English" or technical jargon, and sometimes decided on his evidence that Aristotle's meaning was being misconstrued.

I feel that this version will be of use to anyone with a serious interest in this branch of philosophy, or the history of thought. And, except as assigned reading, how many others are likely to look at it? Unless, of course, one has already mastered classical Greek, and has the time and patience to work out Aristotle's use of language directly

For those looking for a somewhat less intimidating-looking introduction, Hugh Lawson-Tancred's translation in Penguin Classics is highly regarded, and probably as readable as an accurate translation of the work is likely to get; and it has an extra half-century of Aristotelian studies behind it. The old Ross translation (the "Oxford Aristotle"), used through most of the twentieth century in various revisions, has admirers, although I personally found it the most difficult of the three to read at any great length.

Finally, for those interested in history-of-philosophy problems beyond Aristotle himself, there is A.E. Taylor's old (1906) "Aristotle on His Predecessors," which was in print as recently as the early 1990s. It deals with the how Aristotle treats earlier philosophers in the first two books of "Metaphysics." This is a major problem, since his account is a main source of information on them, but seems to have been meant by Aristotle to set up the terms of his own argument, and not as an investigation of what they had really meant.

Of course, that is how philosophers and theologians have used Aristotle himself for centuries...

(Reposted from my review of June 15, 2003.)