The Best Translation of Marcus Aurelius's Meditations
How to approach a Stoic classic
The best version of Meditations is undoubtedly the original. There’s no ambiguity in the long-dead Roman emperor and philosopher’s words because they’re right there, unfiltered.
Unfortunately…he wrote in ancient Greek.
We benighted English speakers must have Marcus’s ideas interpreted for us by an intermediary, which is a dicey proposition when it comes to philosophical ideas represented by technical language.
Is our Marcus interpreter suggesting happiness can stand in for "eudaimōn"? That might cause some problems. How will they render “logos,” “telos,” and “arete,” and will they provide footnotes making sense of what Marcus implies but never says?
But there’s another layer — do their words translate Marcus with all the force and style he wrote with, or are his ideas limp on the page? There are many lifeless translations out there, and they’re a slog.
This balancing act ultimately comes down to reader preference as much as translator ability, and your preferences may be different than mine.
But I’d like to highlight four of the best translations I’ve found, and what they’re “good for.” I’ll include a translation of Meditations 2.1 from each version.
Best Overall: The Gregory Hays Translation
The Hays translation was my first exposure to Meditations circa 2002. I found Marcus’s ideas infuriating and deluded, but also intriguing. I kept coming back to Meditations over the years until I’d been won over by Marcus’s patient, persuasive style.
This is the best translation for browsing, for anyone new to Stoicism, and for those who care more about style than technical precision.
The language is forceful and poetic, but not overwrought.
The main weakness is a willingness to use general and imprecise wording over technical terms, which may confuse someone about the underlying philosophy. The notes are also subpar compared to other translations.
“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions.”
2nd Place Tie: Waterfield and Hard Translations
The Robin Hard and Robin Waterfield translations are both excellent. Though lacking the force and poetry of Hays, they make up for it with “good enough” writing that’s more technically correct. Hays embraces the spirit of Marcus Aurelius, but Waterfield and Hard write what he actually said.
Each has fantastic notes, though Waterfield probably pulls ahead here, and utilizes footnotes instead of end notes to make them more useful.
Hard includes surviving letters exchanged between Marcus Aurelius and his tutor, Fronto, which I enjoy since they let you see the “real” side of Marcus.
Waterfield:
“At the start of the day tell yourself: I shall meet people who are officious, ungrateful, abusive, treacherous, malicious, and selfish. In every case, they’ve got like this because of their ignorance of good and bad. But I have seen goodness and badness for what they are, and I know that what is good is what is morally right, and what is bad is what is morally wrong; and I’ve seen the true nature of the wrongdoer himself and know that he’s related to me—not in the sense that we share blood and seed, but because we both partake of the same intelligence, and so of a portion of the divine. None of them can harm me, anyway, because none of them can infect me with immorality, nor can I become angry with someone who’s related to me, or hate him, because we were born to work together, like feet or hands or eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. To work against each other is therefore unnatural—and anger and rejection count as “working against.”
Hard:
Say to yourself at the start of the day, I shall meet with meddling, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, and unsociable people. They are subject to all these defects because they have no knowledge of good and bad. But I, who have observed the nature of the good, and seen that it is the right; and of the bad, and seen that it is the wrong; and of the wrongdoer himself, and seen that his nature is akin to my own—not because he is of the same blood and seed, but because he shares as I do in mind and thus in a portion of the divine—I, then, can neither be harmed by these people, nor become angry with one who is akin to me, nor can I hate him, for we have come into being to work together, like feet, hands, eyelids, or the two rows of teeth in our upper and lower jaws. To work against one another is therefore contrary to nature; and to be angry with another person and turn away from him is surely to work against him.”
3rd Place Eccentric Choice: Meric Casaubon Translation
“As if Shakespeare were a Stoic,” is how I’d describe Meric Casaubon’s translation from 1634. Your ability to tolerate or enjoy his style may vary, but I find it pretty endearing.
Betimes in the morning say to thyself, This day I shalt have to do with an idle curious man, with an unthankful man, a railer, a crafty, false, or an envious man; an unsociable uncharitable man. All these ill qualities have happened unto them, through ignorance of that which is truly good and truly bad. But I that understand the nature of that which is good, that it only is to be desired, and of that which is bad, that it only is truly odious and shameful: who know moreover, that this transgressor, whosoever he be, is my kinsman, not by the same blood and seed, but by participation of the same reason, and of the same divine particle; How can I either be hurt by any of those, since it is not in their power to make me incur anything that is truly reproachful? or angry, and ill affected towards him, who by nature is so near unto me? for we are all born to be fellow-workers, as the feet, the hands, and the eyelids; as the rows of the upper and under teeth: for such therefore to be in opposition, is against nature; and what is it to chafe at, and to be averse from, but to be in opposition?[25]
Cracking Open The Right Book
One of these translations may be the best for you, but there are at least a dozen out there from different time periods.
Wondering why Meditations is literary and philosophical masterpiece that’s worth your attention? I explained what Marcus was doing with the book here.
Want an easier entry point for Stoicism? Check out my article on where to start:
Thanks for reading Socratic State of Mind.
If you liked this article, please like and share it, which helps more readers find my work.
Great info! I've only recently become aware of how important translation is. I was looking at getting the Waterfield translation of Epictetus and I may now get that version of Meditations as well!
You're right, Andrew, I don't read ancient Greek, which makes it all the more important for me to gain as much context to Marcus' Meditations, as possible. I was not originally familiar with the historical background, or specific Stoic-centric references when I first read The Meditations. I am hardly an expert now! But if we are to base these translations on 1 passage:
- The Hays version of 2.1 is very readable.
- Hard gives us a note to consider and points us at a page and half of the Introduction to review for further understanding/discussion.
- Waterfield's version of 2.1 provides us with no fewer than 8 direct annotations to consider, many of which point us at multiple other sections of MA's Meditations (12 references?) to review for further insight.
For me personally, the amount of effort that Waterfield has expended to provide us with background information; cross-references to other related passages in the book; potential contradictions; and the details of the characters that MA is referring to, all make Robin Waterfield my go-to translation.
He has provided me with similar insights in his translation of the "Complete Works - Epictetus".