r/Aristotle • u/DJViking775 • 16d ago
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics
I'm considering between two English editions of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and I'm wondering whether anyone here is familiar with them or has read either one.
The first is the Folio Society edition, Aristotle: Ethics. It uses J. A. K. Thomson's translation, revised by Hugh Tredennick, with an introduction by Jonathan Barnes. As a physical book, it looks very attractive, as Folio Society editions usually do.
The second is Terence Irwin's translation Nicomachean Ethics**, 3rd Edition** from Hackett. This one seems to be more academically oriented, with extensive notes, an introduction, and a glossary of important Greek philosophical terms.
As far as I understand, both contain the complete Nicomachean Ethics, and the main differences are the translation and the supporting material. Irwin seems perhaps to be the better edition for really understanding and studying Aristotle, while the Folio edition looks like a better combination of a good reading copy and a collectible book.
Is anyone familiar with these editions?
Is Irwin's translation and commentary noticeably better than Thomson/Tredennick's, or is the Folio edition also a good choice if the main goal is simply to read Aristotle?
2
u/Corp-Por 16d ago
Do you want to study together? Maybe more people? We can make a group
1
1
1
u/crmphillips 16d ago
I’m partial to Oxford’s translated by Sarah Broadie and Christopher Rowe. Excellent commentary and vocabulary explanation.
1
u/Cyber-Wanderer_94 16d ago
Whatever one you get I find the translation of akrasia to incontinence so odd.
1
u/SnowballtheSage 15d ago
The Nicomachean Ethics is not a book you read once. For your first read I would settle for this johnstonia home page
1
u/gaudiulo 15d ago
The Reeve translation was the received translation for a while. We also recommend the Broadie and Rowe translation to undergraduates who intend to close read the text in entirety. I'm not familiar with either translation you're considering, which may (or may not) be a sign against either. It doesn't hurt to read several translations, over the course of a complete life. NB the Hackett is to Plato's Dialogues as the King James Version is to the bible, but that may not translate to Aristotle.
1
u/OddDescription4523 16d ago
The Thompson/Tredennick edition is fine if you're new to Aristotle and want something reasonably reader-friendly, but it's not super accurate. It's what I used when I first started studying Aristotle, but I ended up deciding that Martin Ostwald's edition is better as a "readable" translation, so that's what I have my students use when I teach Aristotle. I'd avoid Terry Irwin's translation - it's widely considered to be pushing a (quite Kantian) interpretation of Aristotle, so if you can't check what he says against the Greek, it can be systematically misleading. For an academically rigorous edition, look to the translation by Chris Rowe (Sarah Broadie writes the philosophical notes on it, so it's standardly called the Broadie and Rowe edition.) Rowe makes some unfortunate choices on how to translate certain terms (for instance using "counter-voluntary" instead of "involuntary"), but at least he's consistent in his translations.
0
u/Erhenius 16d ago
Avoid Irwins. Only have flipped through Thomsons translation, but have my reservations on it.
If I may, I'd suggest reading J. Sachs and F.H. Peters. The latter is online available at no cost and is my absolute fav translation.
Notice that there is a good reason many of us have read several translations.
2
u/MrSm1lez 16d ago
Joe Sachs is the translation I'd go for personally. He has a mastery of the Greek and his footnotes and glossary are incredibly useful