I agree with Anonymous, although I will qualify my agreement below. First, all translation is an interpretation. Translating complex philosophical texts is much, much harder than figuring out 'gavagai.' This is so, even if you have written the text yourself and are fluent in both languages. You should try translating some time; even if you are not a meaning holist, you'll discover that a lot of philosophical jargon is not stable and uniform across cultural and temporal contexts. (Surprisingly enough, this is even true of works in the history of physics.) So, leaving aside honest mistakes, all translations involve non-trivial judgments and trade-offs with a complex interplay among style, content, jargon, sentence structure, and even argumentative structure (this list is not exhaustive).

1. Someone in the profession not being able to see the dangers of using earlymoderntexts.org and what this says about (i) academic standards (why think anything less than the best scholarly edition will do*) in Philosophy as a discipline and (ii) how earlymoderntexts.org might be misleading our students about how scholarship is to be done.

A distinguished philosopher [Anonymous] forwarded the excerpt from the referee report s/he wrote on a recent assignment to me. I quote with permission (even encouragement). I have not read the original paper (and luckily I am not the author!) nor have I double-checked all the relevant sources, so I cannot judge how fair Anonymous is, but I would share Anon.'s irritation if I discovered that a text relied on a suppressed translation (which is known to be un-scholarly). I should mention that Anonymous is not a hyper-specialist historian of philosophy (you know who those are!), but also makes contributions to more 'contemporary' areas. In follow up exchange Anonymous suggested that there are two key issues here:

In earlymoderntexts.org Jonathan Bennett, who is one of the greatest historians of philosophy of his generation and who should be praised for his dedication to the field and pedagogy, is refreshingly forthright that in his translations the aim is to make "the original thought more accessible than it is on the original page." He uses many more 'tricks of the trade'* than any other translator known to me to achieve this and he is refreshingly and admirably transparent about how he deploys them. By his own lights, "The texts are not dumbed down...In no case have I knowingly simplified or otherwise altered the intellectual content." (He also claims that , My versions are faithful to the content of the originals, but are plainer and more straightforward in manner.) Obviously, a lot hinges on what one takes to be relevant "intellectual content."

"The sideswipe at the Aristotelians is a mere hindrance when one is trying to introduce undergraduates to Berkeley; or so I believe." Now, Bennett is just wrong that this is a sideswipe at the Aristotelians; if it is a sideswipe at all, it is directed at the materialists (who are ridiculed thereby), who think they are original but still cling at outdated philosophical commitments that they themselves associate with the discarded past (that is, Aristotle and his followers). Now, I also happen to think that to a trained eye this is not just a sideswipe, but also clarifying about Berkeley's own philosophical understanding of the dialectic. So, it is open question if Bennett has really succeeded in always leaving intact the main arguments, doctrines, and lines of thought." As in any translation, this will have to be judged on a case by case basis. So, for example, in an article in which Bennett explains and defends his translation strategies, he comments -- on the following sentence from Berkeley's Principles, "And here I cannot but remark, how nearly the vague and indeterminate description of matter or corporeal substance, which the modern philosophers are run into by their own principles, resembles that antiquated and so much ridiculed notion of materia prima, to be met with in Aristotle and his followers." -- that

To be clear in the quoted passage from his article, which can be accessed through the website, Bennett highlights the fact that his translations are really aimed at undergraduates and to be used for teaching purposes. And, indeed, for some undergraduates (and their teachers) the deleted sentence is a mere hindrance. This is especially so if they think that what matters most is a cleaned up version of the argument because that's what we're supposed to do, teach arguments. But, of course, not all undergraduates (and teachers) are equally prepared and they do not operate in identical curricular sequences. More important, by exclusive focus on making Bennett-approved content transparent, we actually reduce the potential for learning that comes from struggling with difficult philosophical text. One of the key insights students can develop, is how many tacit cultural and philosophical presuppositions they bring to bear on reading any text. While I do not think undergraduates need to learn much about how historians of philosophy do scholarship, I have found that my students are greatly enriched and appreciative when I expose them to it. In fact, some of the best teaching moments have occurred when my students and I had to grapple with the significance of two competing, equally plausible translations.

It is worth mentioning that teaching context is most emphasized on earlymoderntexts.org. But in the section, "How May I Use these Texts?" Bennett also encourages -- in passing their use in publications. Of course, he insists that they are properly cited. (So on point 2, Anonymous and Bennett agree!) Now, unlike some of my peers, I do not think that knowledge of original languages, let alone philological skill, is necessary to do rigorous scholarship. I don't think this just because I want historical areas of inquiry to have low barriers of entry and to be welcoming to motivated outsiders, but I not-so-secretly believe that too much attention to philology can actually ruin comprehension of a text. (Sometimes ancient philosophers treat philology as religious gospel rather than as serious skill to be used among many others at grasping the meaning of a text!)



Moreover, it makes sense to check Bennett's translations when preparing a journal article. His decisions are always worth reflecting one. He is a fantastic philosopher's philosopher who also has spent a near-life-time with these texts. I also think it's fine to use his text in one's argument if one recognizes potential objections to doing so. But yes, when preparing a journal article it's best to look at the best scholarly edition and, if you are not capable of forming your own judgment, to ask around what translation the real specialists are using.

less convoluted syntax and shorter sentences - show/hide examples

numbering of points

indenting of passages that are helped by such a display

replacement of obsolete words with current ones

replacement of still-current words used in meanings that are now obsolete - show/hide examples

I sometimes insert, between small ·dots·, material that makes the author’s meaning clearer or more explicit - show/hide example

I use •bullets to make formal aspects of the text more easily accessible - show/hide example

Sometimes I omit a passage that doesn’t earn its keep, signifying this by . . . . a four-point ellipsis, just to keep things moving along at a good pace - show/hide examples

On a few occasions I relocate part of one paragraph in the following paragraph, where it is more at home. - show/hide example

Sometimes I interpose a remark or explanation of my own in small type within [square brackets] - show/hide examples

Sometimes I replace a passage in the original text by a briefer and/or clearer description of its main content. These replacements are in normal-sized type and within [square brackets] - show/hide example

I believe.