Scan barcode
A review by davidareyzaga
The Complete Works of Lao Tzu: Tao Teh Ching & Hua Hu Ching by Hua-Ching Ni, Laozi
3.0
The Tao Te Ching presents a guidance on how to act with the values of Taoism, and its tenets are quite appealing. A life of moderation, modesty and self-restraint does seem to be satisfactory, or at least entertaining the thought of leading such a life could be beneficial when developing a moral code from multiple sources. Limiting ourselves to a single text, such as the Bible, seems rather inept.
But what was Lao Tzu proposing in the context of China in the fourth century BC? Answering that is a tall order, apparently. Plus, the formulation is wrong since there’s no certainty that Lao Tzu was an actual historical figure, and we’ve been inherited an amalgamation of texts, not a single perfect manuscript.
D.C. Lau’s translation of Tao Te Ching brings to the foreground the altogether imprecise knowledge and speculation about the origins of this work, as well as about its meaning. Thus, the resulting text in English, while apparently simple, is not quite clear and transparent, and as a reader I couldn’t help but feel uneasy as to what was I actually reading, what was being told to me. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. When translating works of ethics, it could be far more dangerous to aspire to produce a translation that asserts it has finally hit the target of its meaning, and present a stable figure of an author that doesn’t actually exist. As Lau points out, there’s a great probability that there wasn’t an actual Lao Tzu who sat down and wrote this text, and that instead it was the work of several editors across generations who presented the values of Taoism.
This edition also includes a preface and an appendix by Lau that continues to transmit this idea of imprecision. Additionally, the notes seem to be addressed to readers with knowledge of Chinese who have the source text at hand or know it already, but since this is not a bilingual edition, I question their presence.
Other than that, this translation seems to be good enough, and I wonder if a more fluent translation could be dangerous or actually useful. Perhaps a more informative edition for audiences with no knowledge whatsoever of Chinese culture at the very least would be better. I suppose such a translation already exists somewhere.
But what was Lao Tzu proposing in the context of China in the fourth century BC? Answering that is a tall order, apparently. Plus, the formulation is wrong since there’s no certainty that Lao Tzu was an actual historical figure, and we’ve been inherited an amalgamation of texts, not a single perfect manuscript.
D.C. Lau’s translation of Tao Te Ching brings to the foreground the altogether imprecise knowledge and speculation about the origins of this work, as well as about its meaning. Thus, the resulting text in English, while apparently simple, is not quite clear and transparent, and as a reader I couldn’t help but feel uneasy as to what was I actually reading, what was being told to me. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so. When translating works of ethics, it could be far more dangerous to aspire to produce a translation that asserts it has finally hit the target of its meaning, and present a stable figure of an author that doesn’t actually exist. As Lau points out, there’s a great probability that there wasn’t an actual Lao Tzu who sat down and wrote this text, and that instead it was the work of several editors across generations who presented the values of Taoism.
This edition also includes a preface and an appendix by Lau that continues to transmit this idea of imprecision. Additionally, the notes seem to be addressed to readers with knowledge of Chinese who have the source text at hand or know it already, but since this is not a bilingual edition, I question their presence.
Other than that, this translation seems to be good enough, and I wonder if a more fluent translation could be dangerous or actually useful. Perhaps a more informative edition for audiences with no knowledge whatsoever of Chinese culture at the very least would be better. I suppose such a translation already exists somewhere.