The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (review)

600 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 25:4 OCT 198 7 The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. 9 vols. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 1985. Vol. 1, Pp. xii + 418. Cloth, $44.5o. Paper, $12.5o. Vol. 2, Pp. xi + 498. Cloth, $44.5 o. Paper, $12.5o. In 1911 , Cambridge University Press published in two volumes The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English by Elisabeth S. Haldane, C.H., LL.D. and G. R. T. Ross, M.A., D.Phil. In 1984 (Vol. 2) and 1985 (Vol. 1), Cambridge University Press published the volumes under review, and have a third in preparation. CSM will be Descartes in English for the next 75 years. I could end my review there. For although I have done a considerable amount of comparing CSM with the Latin, the French, and many other English translations, and I can raise many quibbles, what is the point of it? CSM is a good translation by scholars alert to contemporary problems and vocabulary. I would not go so far as to say that we needed a replacement for HR, but CSM is an improvement on HR. And in any case, scholars and philosophers who care to get Descartes as correctly as possible will go to the Oeuvres de Descartes of Charles Adam and Paul Tannery for the original Latin and French. What does one get, then, from this new translation? At least the following: a teaching text, an impression of Descartes and a related reflection of a contemporary attitude toward his philosophy, and a definition of Descartes's corpus for those who read only English. As a teaching text, CSM is better than HR because volume 2 puts the Meditations together with the Objections and Replies. Volume 1 of CSM also contains the following material not in HR: Early Writings, The World, Treatise on Man, Optics, and Description of the Human Body. Also important is that the CSM text is from the original language of each work, with material from later translations approved by Descartes enclosed in brackets, thus avoiding the sometimes questionable compromises between French and Latin texts in HR. The CSM impression of Descartes is, it seems to me, rather formal and dignified . I was struck by this in reading the autobiographical portions of the Discourse. It may seem a trivial point, yet it speaks worlds about both Descartes and CSM. Here is the passage, in the Latin and French of AT, then the English of CSM and HR. And for comparison, I give also the English translations of B, C, L, O, S, and W (see references): I'estimois fort l'Eloquence, & i'estois amoureux de la Po~sie.... (AT, 6: 7) Eloquentiam valde aestmabam, & non parvo Poeseos amore incendebar.... (AT, 6: 543) I valued oratory and was fond of poetry.... (CSM, 1: 1 14) I esteemed Eloquence most highly and I was enamoured of Poesy.... (HR, 1: 85) I esteemed eloquence highly, and I was in love with poetry.... (AG, 11) I esteemed eloquence very much, and I was enamoured of poetry.... (B, 118) I held eloquence in high regard and I loved poetry.... (C, 4) I esteemed eloquence highly, and loved poetry.... (L, 5). BOOK REVIEWS 601 I esteemed eloquence highly, and was enamoured of poetry.... (O, 7) I esteemed eloquence highly, and was enamored of poetry. (S, 97) I had great esteem for eloquence, and I was in love with poetry.... (W, 4o) I think that most people looking into Descartes's life would come away with the impression that he had great esteem for eloquence and loved poetry. And that's what he says in the French and Latin versions of the Discourse. Actually, after considerable checking, I think CSM is the first English version to render the seventeenth century 'Eloquence' correctly as 'oratory'. But why does CSM suppress the superlative and weaken the affect? The impression CSM has and gives of the great man may be a bit stiff. How does it go, then, in passages of philosophical import? I have taken as tests two epistemologically crucial passages from the Third Meditation, the argument to establish clearness and distinctness as the...