Thus Spoke Zarathusta - Martin vs. Kaufmann?

I own a copy of Kaufmann's translation which I have read numerous times, with pleasure. I would recommend Kaufmann's translation for this, as well as for most of other works of Nietzsche. You might confidently go for Hollingdale's translation, another credible name in Nietzsche scholarship. Below is why.

About KAUFMANN: Kaufmann is *the* scholar who has given Nietzsche's philosophy the proper introduction and the excellent translation it deserved to have in the English-speaking world. Today Kaufmann's translations are highly acknowledged as canonical (systematic, consistent and faithful to both Nietzsche's thought as well as to the German language that these translations have set the standard). Now some of the footnotes Kaufmann has added to his translations to highlight connections among different fragments or works of Nietzsche, or to explain them, might seem a little too naive or narrow at times, but they certainly are helpful for any reader to find way in the works of a philosopher not so systematic and multi-faceted like as Nietzsche.

About MARTIN: I haven't read his Zarathustra translation in entirety. The pages I was able to check on Amazon were very few, but did not strike me as if Martin's is a far more superior translation than Kaufmann's. (I made a one-on-one comparison with Kaufmann's translation in my hand). Now, critique of Kaufmann's translations is nothing new: that his translations indicate an editor's reflex too often, that his explanatory footnotes are too long, descriptive and reflective of only Kaufmann's personal interpretations. Yet I find Martin's critique of Kaufmann about punctuation changes and meaning alterations very very debatable. If changes and alterations with massive impact were made by Kaufmann, why haven't we heard more prominent Nietzsche scholars' objections on this? Kaufmann is widely acknowledged as the ultimate translator of Nietzsche to this day. Seems to me that Martin only attempts at legitimizing his own translation effort here.

About COMMON: Thomas Common's is another Zarathustra translation known for its poetic approach. Common used an English reflective of the King James Bible, to match with the Luther-Biblical German Nietzsche used in TSZ. The problem is that Common made quite a few and unacceptable mistakes which result in the confusion among some of the related yet utterly different philosophical concepts of Nietzsche.

In short, I'd say the translation to go for is Kaufmann's, available in the Penguin collection titled 'The Portable Nietzsche'. Or Hollingdale's, also available in Penguin publications. The 'problems' Martin mentions with reference to Kaufmann's translation sound like nit-picking and not quite justified.

Hope this helps.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra Kaufmann

I know the German original very well, and Martin's translation isn't very good. I recommend Thomas Common's translation for its formal accuracy (the original was written in mock Luther Biblical German and Common's translation in mock King James Biblical English), though I know of at least one definite mistake in it (see below). I don't know the Kaufmann translation well, and Martin's criticisms certainly seem warranted, but Kaufmann's still very good. There are other translations as well, but I like Common's best. Just check with the original before basing an argument on _any_ translation (this goes for all books, not just TSZ).

Aston Martin

that's the thing with translations.

you will never be able to arrive at a one-to-one copy unless you learn the language.

i would recommend you to get both versions in case you don't want to learn german.

Get half a dozen dictionaries from different publishers and make your own translation.

Richard Strauss's version is the only one worthy of attention.