12/19/13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-34.html 1/5

BMCR 2013.12.34 on the BMCR blog

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

Carnes Lord, Aristotle's Politics. Translated with an Introduction,

Notes and Glossary. Second edition (first edition published 1984).

Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Pp. xlvii,265. ISBN 9780226921846. $15.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Clifford Angell Bates, Jr., Uniwersytet Warszawski, American

Studies Center (c.a.bates@uw.edu.pl)

Preview

The University of Chicago Press released the second edition of Carnes Lord's translationof Aristotle's Politics one year short of the thirtieth anniversary of the release of the first

edition in 1984. And if one looked at the amount of scholarship focusing on Aristotle's

Politics between the release of the first edition and the second, one would notice a

relative boom in journal articles, book chapters, and whole books on the subject. It

could likewise be said there has been a boom in translations, either of individual sectionsor books, or of the whole of the Politics.

When the first edition was published in 1984, Carnes Lord’s translation differed frompreviously available translations of the Politics in that its aim was "to provide as literal

and faithful a rendering" of the Politics "as compatible with contemporary English usage"

(Lord 1984, 25). Ideally, the goal was to give to the reader of the English translation a

text that was relatively close to being a mirror of the Greek, so that if the argument in the

Greek original was complex and difficult, the translation should echo its complexity and

difficulty. What should be avoided is making what is difficult or problematic in the Greek

appear clearer and non-problematic in the English.

Yet not everyone was happy with the first edition of Lord’s translation. Many who

agreed with the need for literal translation from the Greek were unhappy because theythought that what Lord ultimately produced was Hellenized English jargon rather than

contemporary English. They felt that the tone and style was alien to the typical English

reader and would make approaching this text more, not less, difficult. This led others to

attempt a more readable translation: see Apostle and Gerson 1986; Simpson 1997;

Reeve 1998; and finally Sachs 2012. Perhaps in response to these other translations, and

to address issues that emerged out of the 30 years of scholarship on Aristotle’s Politics,

12/19/13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-34.html 2/5

Lord and his publishers felt the need for an update of his translation.

The second edition differs from the first edition in many ways, both in the presentation of

the text and in its translation. The new edition clearly follows the format set by Bartlett

and Collins (2011) (a translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, also published by

the University of Chicago Press), where the footnotes are placed at the bottom of the

page and the text of the translation spread evenly on the page. The change in placement

of the notes makes it easier for the reader to check out a note and thus reflect on what isbeing done in that part of the text by Lord, rather than having to flip to the back of the

book which the previous edition necessitated. Also the first edition offered more space

between the chapters than the new one. All of these changes leave much less marginal

space for annotations. The older also employed bolder fonts which made for a more

emphatic look.

The most significant addition to the second edition is the bibliography, which offers not

only a list of other translations of the Politics, but also a selective list of major scholarship

on the work. Although nowhere near as exhaustive as the recent bibliography by

Thornton Lockwood in the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's Politics (Deslauriers

and Destreé 2013, 375-406), it is nonetheless a useful addition.

The substance and number of notes in this second edition have increased from the first,reflecting changes in how certain passages can be understood based on recent

scholarship. Yet in many ways one wishes that the notes more fully addressed thereasons why Lord decided to make changes he now does make in his translation for the

second edition. Some scholarly readers would like to know the rationale behind thechanges in terms: whether they were based on current trends in scholarship (and if so

what scholarship) or due other factors (and ‘what those factors’ were).

As to the differences in the translation between the second edition and the first, let thefollowing stand as representative examples.

In the first edition Lord translated koinonia as “partnership”. Here is the start of Politics

1.1 (1252a1-6; Lord 1984, 35):

Since we see that every city is some sort of partnership, and that everypartnership is constituted for the sake of some good (or everyone doeseverything for the sake of what is held to be good), it is clear that all

partnerships aim at some good, and that the partnership that is mostauthoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and

aims at the most authoritative good of all. This is what is called the city orthe political partnership.

In the second edition, the passage reads (Lord 2013, 1):

Since we see that every city is some sort of community, and that every

community is constituted for the sake of some good (for everyone doeseverything for the sake of what is held to be good), it is clear that all

12/19/13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-34.html 3/5

communities aim at some good, and the community that is most authoritative

of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the mostauthoritative good of all. This is what is called the city or the political

community.

Another example of a difference in the translation of the same term comes at Politics1.2, where in the first edition reads (1252b28-31; Lord 1984, 36-37):

The partnership arising from [the union of] several villages that is complete

is the city. It reaches a level of full self-sufficiency, so to speak; and whilecoming into being for the sake of living it, it exists for the sake of living well.

Every city, therefore exits by nature, if such also are the first partnerships.

In the second edition, the passage reads (Lord 2013, 3):

The complete community, arising from several villages, is the city. It reachesa level of full self-sufficiency, so to speak; and while coming into being for

the sake of living, it exists for the sake of living well. Every city, thereforeexists by nature, if such are also the first communities.

Another change from the first to the second is in the handling of the term eunomia. At

3.9, 1280b6 and 4.8, 1994a3, Lord originally translated eunomia as "goodmanagement" (1984, 98 and 130); in the second, he translates it as "good governance"(Lord 2013, 76 and 110). Lord provides a note in the new edition to explain his

translation at 1280b6 (Lord 2013, 76 n. 40), but the note does not really explain thechange to “governance” from “management”. Perhaps it is a move towards more political

language than the more generic language that marked Lord's first edition. The firstedition’s rather generic treatment of these types of rule was something that violated the

spirit of the claim made by Aristotle at Politics 1.1, 1252a7-16 that political rule isdifferent in kind (i.e. that the nature of this type rule differs in substance) from the other

types of rule. The second edition's translation of this specific term points to a more clearlypolitical meaning.

Now let me point to a few cases where the second edition seems to be less helpful than

the first. I start with the Greek term dynasteia, which plays a key role in Politics 4.5,1292b5-10 where it distinguishes forms of oligarchy where sons inherit from fathers. Inthe first edition, Lord uses the term "dynasty" for the Greek term (see Lord 1984, 127).This makes more sense in English than his choice in the second edition of "rule of the

powerful" (Lord 2013, 107). Why he switched from "dynasty" to "rule of powerful" is

explained only in a note at the bottom of the page, which sends the reader to Politics

“2.10.13-14”, where Aristotle speaks of the Cretan regime. There Lord has a notewhich states: "'Rule of the powerful' (dynasteia) is a term Aristotle will use of a narrow,

kin-based oligarchy that rules in a personalistic manner rather than under law" (Lord

2013, 55 n. 104). But this note really does not provide the reader with an explanation of

why "rule of the powerful" is a better translation than "dynasty".

Now, when we look at how Lord treats the Greek term hypothesis, we see that he does

12/19/13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-34.html 4/5

something strange: in the first edition he consistently translated the term as

"presupposition" (Lord 1984, 183) but in the second edition he translates it as "premise"

(Lord 2013, 172). In the glossary for the second edition he has two entries for the Greekword hypothesis, one entry for "Basic Premise" (Lord 2014, 240) and another for

"Presupposition" (Lord 2014, 246). In my scanning of the second edition, however, I

could not find any use of "presupposition".

Other alterations in translation include genus, translated as "type" in the first edition (Lord

1984, 280) and "family" in the second (Lord 2013, 242); chrematismos, which is

"business" in the first edition (Lord 1984, 274) but "getting” in the second (Lord 2013,

242); in the first edition, "right" (Lord 1984, 279) was one of the possible translation forkalos, but not in the second (in the second edition "right" is the translation for orthos,

which was translated in the first edition as "correct").

Nowhere does Lord in the second edition give the reader an explanation why he shifted

from the words he used in the first edition to the new words he uses in the second. I

suspect many readers would be interested to know why these changes were made. And

the absence of such explanations makes this new translation less valuable to thosescholars interested in issues of translation, and in the meaning of Aristotle’s terms and

concepts in contemporary English usage.

Overall many people will welcome this new edition of Lord’s translation. Others,however, will be disappointed by many of the points that I raise above (and perhaps

others things that this review may have overlooked). Regardless of disagreement on such

issues, this new edition of Lord’s will continued to be a widely used translation of

Aristotle’s Politics, as was the first edition.1

Notes:

1. References:

Apostle, H. G. and Gerson, L. P. (1986) (tr.), The Politics of Aristotle. Des Moines,IA: Peripatetic Press.

Bartlett, R. and Collins, S. (2011) (tr.), Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Deslauriers, M. and Destreé, P. (2013) (eds.), The Cambridge Companion toAristotle’s Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lord, C. (1984) (ed. and tr.), Aristotle The Politics. 1st edition. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. Reeve, C. D. C. (1998) (ed. and tr.), Aristotle Politics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Publishing Co.

Sachs, J. (2012) (ed. and tr.), Aristotle The Politics. Newberrypoint, MA: Focus

Publishing. Simpson, P. L. P. (1997) (ed. and tr.), The Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill, NC:

University of North Carolina Press.

12/19/13 Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2013.12.34

bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013-12-34.html 5/5

Read comments on this review or add a comment on the BMCR blog

HomeRead

LatestArchives

BMCR

Blog

About

BMCR

Review for

BMCRCommentaries

Support

BMCR

BMCR, Bryn Mawr College, 101 N. Merion Ave., Bryn Mawr, PA 19010