Skip to main content

On translations of Marcus Aurelius, dealing with difficult circumstances and acquiring wisdom (or not)

Here's an example of why I vastly prefer Robin Hard's translation of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations" (over Gregory Hays' translation): 

First Gregory Hays' translation of Meditations 9.6: 

"Objective judgment, now, at this very moment. Unselfish action, now, at this very moment. Willing acceptance—now, at this very moment—of all external events. That’s all you need."

Next, Robin Hard's translation of the same passage:

"It is sufficient that your present judgement should grasp its object, that your present action should be directed to the common good, that your present disposition should be well satisfied with all that happens to it from a cause outside itself."

In my opinion, Hard's translation is more in line with Stoicism. Stoicism is not about passively accepting external circumstances but about always actively wanting them to be exactly as they are.

"Let us arrange our minds in such a way that whatever circumstances require is what we want." 

 - Seneca, Letters 61.3

"Don't seek that all that comes about should come about as you wish, but wish that everything that comes about should come about just as it does, and then you'll have a calm and happy life."

- Epictetus, Enchiridion 8

Another problematic thing about Hays' translation ("That's all you need") is that it could be read as implying that acquiring wisdom is not all that difficult to achieve. In the style of: just do the right thing and you'll be fine. Marcus himself - in a famous passage (Meditations 10.16) - says something seemingly to that effect: 

In Hard's translation: 

"No more of all this talk about what a good man should be, but simply be one!" 

This is one of the most shared quotes in Stoicism groups on Facebook - and the popularity seems very much to rest on the conception that Marcus in that quote extemps us from working hard at achieving wisdom - almost to the point of allowing us to assume that we have already reached that goal.

Just a few paragraphs before that passage (in Meditations 10.11), however, Marcus, writes:

"Acquire a method to examine systematically how all things are transformed from one to another, and direct your attention constantly to this area of study, and exercise yourself in it, for nothing is so conducive to elevation of mind. Someone who does this has stripped away his body, and, reflecting that in no time at all he will have to leave all this behind and depart from the company of human beings, he offers himself up without reservation to justice as regards that which is accomplished by him and to universal nature as regards what happens otherwise."

What Marcus says here is not just that it can be really lovely to study the nature of the universe for someone who has the time and the inclination to do so - but that is an indispensable study for every person who wants to act justly.

In other words, the point Marcus is making a little later - in 10.16 - is that we should be careful not to forget that the purpose of our studies is to become good, wise persons and to offer ourselves up without reservation to justice. Not that we don't need those studies at all. 

The Glytoptek here in Copenhagen has one of the largest collections of Egyptian, Greek and Roman art in the world - among which is a nice selection of Marcus-heads.


Comments

  1. Lovely photo Jannik! =) Thank you for the post - a good translation is crucial for providing context around philosophical studies.

    I felt a lot of The Meditation, as well as a lot of Seneca's writings, seemed to urge us to study (almost) feverishly while life was at peace, thereby accumulating as much knowledge as possible, because you never know what fortune has in waiting - tomorrow one could be at war and needs to apply all one knows to the circumstances. After all, what circumstances require is in fact what we want, and it's better that we come prepared. =)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stoicism and Evil Governments

This article claims that a Stoic has no reason to get depressed by bad political conditions since an evil government is not really a bad thing for a Stoic - since nothing can be bad for a Stoic except his own bad choices. Even so, the article claims, a Stoic acknowledges that an evil government is capable of doing "terrible things" to people. To make this line of thinking work we have to think of ourselves as Stoics who can't be harmed by an evil government - since nothing can be bad for us as Stoics except our own bad choices - and other people as non-Stoics who will suffer terribly if they are oppressed by the evil government. In my opinion, this interpretation of Stoicism is flat out wrong. First of all, an evil government is indeed a bad thing. The Stoics distinguish between internal good/bad things such as our own good or bad choices and external good/bad things such as other people's happiness or unhappiness: "some bad things are in the sou

Aristotle on happiness and external goods

According to popular opinion both in ancient Greece and today, happiness requires things such as wealth, good health, good looks, friends, family and good reputation. In Plato's dialogue Euthydemus Socrates challenges those beliefs by claiming that none of those things are good, if they are not used wisely. In fact, Socrates claims that a person who has wisdom doesn't need any of those things at all since he or she can turn any situation into something beneficial for him- or herself. "If wisdom is present, the one for whom it is present has no need of good fortune". - Socrates in Euthydemus, 279E In other words, Socrates claims that wisdom is a sufficient requirement for happiness (and a necessary requirement too, of course). Aristotle famously challenges that claim. But what exactly does he say? Let's have a look. "we suppose happiness is enduring and definitely not prone to fluctuate, but the same person’s fortunes often turn to and fro. For clearly

A few quick notes on committing injustice vs suffering it

Let's suppose that person A is entitled to, say, one piece of cake. If person B knowingly causes person A to not have that piece of cake without the consent of person A, then person B has done person A wrong - which is what the Stoics mean by committing an injury. But it doesn't follow from this that person A has suffered an injury. If person A doesn't mind that his or her piece of cake was given to someone else or was eaten by person B, then person A hasn't suffered an injury - even though person B have commited an injury. Now, let's imagine that person A is completely wise. This would mean that he or she is completely indifferent to things like bodily harm, poverty, sickness, reputation, insults, abuse and whatever else life or other human beings can throw at us. Obviously, it would still be possible to commit an injury in relation to a person like that - since this would simply require having the intention to harm that person. However, it would be impossible to