
Translations of the Dao De Jing - tosh
http://www.daoisopen.com/ddjtranslations.html
======
fnordsensei
It's worthwhile to read many translations of this book. I find this really
helps to "triangulate" the nuance and depth of the original. Inevitably, you
come across translations that you like more, and others that you like less.

I was attracted to the Dao De Jing at a fairly young age. It took over a
decade, though (as I was reading a related text—I can't remember which one,
maybe the Zhuangzi), for it to suddenly dawn on me how _alien_ this was from
the way of reasoning that's been ingrained in me through the culture I was
brought up in.

I had been able to extract tons of enjoyment (and, hopefully, insight) from
them already at that point. But from then on, the daoist classics suddenly
looked very different to me. They took on a depth that I hadn't seen in them
before.

A related book I would recommend is Edward Slingerland's Trying Not to Try[1].
A very interesting dive into the concept of Wu Wei. His interpretations of the
old texts get a little one/two dimensional at times, but he also brings along
a lot of insight.

1:
[https://eslingerland.arts.ubc.ca/tryingnottotry/](https://eslingerland.arts.ubc.ca/tryingnottotry/)

~~~
mercer
I'll second that recommendation! One of the better books I've read last year.

------
contingencies
A page about hair-splitting on translations of a philosophy whose chapter one
paragraph one states the notion isn't possible to convey in words!

 _The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named
is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see
the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring
from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness
within darkness. The gate to all mystery._

~~~
abrezas
It does try to convey something in words in the next chapters, no?

~~~
allemagne
Yes, but the intention of the text isn't to explain what Dao is and how to
live according to Dao. It clearly says that's impossible, and even calling the
concept 'Dao' is counterproductive to a full understanding.

So the text is meant to do something else, like help others start thinking and
learning for themselves.

------
scrame
There was another site that hosted 80+ versions that I scraped a long time ago
and made this: [http://tao.scrame.com](http://tao.scrame.com)

It shows a random passage from a random translation, with an attribution link
to the long dead parent site. I should probably dump the db back to the
constituent pieces, enduring issues and all.

Initially it was a test for rails, but I rewrote it in php ages echo.

~~~
codyb
That’s not a bad idea for an app. Maybe get an alert with a random passage
every day or something.

------
acabal
Shameless plug, the free Standard Ebooks edition of the Legge translation:
[https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/laozi/tao-te-
ching/james-l...](https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/laozi/tao-te-ching/james-
legge)

~~~
cocacola1
Your site has been one of my favorite finds of this decade. Thank you for the
fantastic work.

~~~
mrob
Although the ebooks are generally good quality, the spelling and grammar are
in many cases (deliberately) changed from the original. When I read a book I
want to read the words of the original author, not a modernized version. It
would be nice if you could download versions without the "[Editorial]"
changes.

~~~
acabal
That's probably the most common complaint we get. However I think most readers
are unaware of how heavily the older works they read today have been edited
over the years, not just in spelling but in grammar too, often by many
different people.

For example, the original spelling of Shakespeare in 1609 looks something like
this:

    
    
        From off a hill whoſe concaue wombe reworded,
        A plaintfull ſtory from a ſiſtring vale
        My ſpirrits t'attend this doble voyce accorded...
        
        Vpon her head a plattid hiue of ſtraw...[1]
    

How dare anyone change the spelling of the patron saint of English literature!
;) But of course most modern readers would find that pretty impenetrable, and
would prefer a more modern spelling to be able to appreciate the text.

As early as 1700 people have been modernizing (for example) Shakespeare, going
so far as to add apostrophes that weren't there (I remember one guy in a
discussion with me on this topic lamented that modern editions _removed_
apostrophes, when in fact they were _added_ by editors in times past...).

Our small, entirely one-for-one spelling edits are in the same spirit. For
your example, I don't think removing the apostrophe from "phone" changes the
_meaning_ of the text at all. It _does_ remove the explicit announcement to
the reader of "phone" as a contraction (though a clever reader will notice
that the word "phone" occurs in the word "telephone" in this same story); but
does it change the story's _meaning_? Or, is it more like replacing the long
"ſ" in the quote above with a modern "s"? After all, removing "ſ" removes the
history of our written language as a descendant of Roman cursive script,
which, like the history of "phone" being a contraction, is something that
someone somewhere probably would prefer to preserve!

The only difference between SE and the editors of old is that we're being
upfront about it, and we give readers a chance to undo those changes using
Git, if they prefer. And, ultimately, our editions don't _prevent_ anyone from
reading older editions with their preferred spelling variant preserved. Old
books with old spelling and 100% faithful digital transcriptions are out there
for everyone to still enjoy. We're just another option for readers who want to
enjoy a timeless book without having to fight through dated spelling. :)

[1]
[http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/UC...](http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/facsimile/book/UC_Q1_Son/66/?work=lc)

~~~
mrob
Changing "ſ" to "s" is just changing the font, so I don't have any problem
with that. Changing "v" to "u" is arguably also changing the font, if you
assume that the original text had two visually identical but semantically
different "v"s.

I do think removing the apostrophe from "'phone" changes the meaning, because
it implies a different relationship to the technology. It's like writing
"internet" without the capital I. This is still considered incorrect, but it's
becoming more common, and I think eventually it will replace "Internet". The
loss of the capital letter, just like the loss of the apostrophe, shows the
technology fading into the background and losing its novelty.

And the works of Shakespeare are an extreme example, being older than most
works on the site. I'd prefer the original spelling, but for works of that age
I can understand changing it. I'd set the publication of Johnson's "A
Dictionary of the English Language" (1755) (or a few years later) as the cut-
off point for spelling changes.

~~~
acabal
I think your "the text's relationship with the spelling" argument can
certainly be applied to the Shakespeare example above, just as I stated. When
viewed in that light, replacing long-S and u for v change Shakespeare's
relationship with the Roman script and Roman history of his day, too. (Though
those are not the only spelling changes in the example I provided.) The
question becomes, does that really _matter_ , in light of the text? Most
editors throughout history seem to think "no," as evidenced by the huge amount
of quiet spelling and even grammar changes editors have been slipping under
our noses for centuries, without so much as a whiff of outrage.

I think, rather, in text a character's relationship with technology is part of
the _text_ , not of the spelling. A character does not know how he spelled
"phone" when they're speaking dialog. The sounds out of his mouth do not
include an apostrophe whether it's there in the spelling or not.

And, I think there are plenty of people who would be just as upset at using
Johnson's dictionary as a cutoff for spelling. If we demand original spelling
in everything we read, why is _any_ cutoff acceptable? (Or so they would
argue.) Of course, I disagree that a we need a cutoff at all, or that spelling
matters in the general sense :)

(Of course, spelling can matter when the text makes a point to be old-timey;
so if you note in the H.P. Lovecraft short fiction example, the "A
Reminiscence of Samuel Johnson" short story retains its archaic spelling and
style, because Lovecraft wrote it archaically on purpose. In fact we retain
several archaic spelling styles in Lovecraft that we might otherwise
modernize, because he was famous for thinking of himself as an "aged
antiquarian" and wanted his prose to reflect that. This is where a careful and
well-read editor matters, and those are the kinds of people we have
volunteering at SE.)

Ultimately it comes down to taste, and the trust you have in the editor of the
volume you're reading. This project is unintentionally making it a mission of
mine to reveal to readers how much of what they've read in the past and think
is "genuine," has in fact been heavily edited by many people on its journey
from first printing a hundred years ago to your hands today, no different than
what we're doing. SE just says so up front and gives you the option to undo.

~~~
mrob
>If we demand original spelling in everything we read, why is any cutoff
acceptable?

I proposed Johnson's Dictionary because it's the first English dictionary that
was widely accepted as authoritative. Before then you could argue that there
was no real standard spelling, and all that mattered was whether writers could
be understood. After it was published, idiosyncratic spelling gained meaning.

>In fact we retain several archaic spelling styles in Lovecraft that we might
otherwise modernize, because he was famous for thinking of himself as an "aged
antiquarian" and wanted his prose to reflect that.

I checked Lovecraft first for that reason, and I was relieved to find the
changes were much less than I feared.

------
youzicha
Oh, let me plug Peter Boodberg's startlingly bizzare version, which begins
"Lodehead lodehead-brooking : no forwonted lodehead"... It's such an alien
approach to translation, you can see his logic, but the end product looks like
something from a Markov chain.

[https://youzicha.tumblr.com/post/142657117089/philological-n...](https://youzicha.tumblr.com/post/142657117089/philological-
notes-on-chapter-one-of-the-lao-tzu)
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718364?s](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718364?s)

~~~
crooked-v
While the analysis is interesting, the resulting "translation" is useless
nonsense.

~~~
madhadron
Odd. I looked at it and thought it was a brilliant use of English, on par with
anything James Joyce did.

~~~
lisper
That is not necessarily disagreement.

------
flatline
If the text is just too mystifying to “get into”, I highly recommend Red
Pine’s (non-free) translation. It is not the most authoritative but he
includes translations of commentary from centuries of Chinese scholars that
shed a lot more light on each passage than you are likely to get without a
more serious course of study.

~~~
jollyrogerbass
I second this. The commentaries are what made me really enjoy and appreciate
the book in a way I hadn't before even with my illustrated coffee-table
version of the barebones verses.

------
mbrock
There's a special place in my heart for Ron Hogan's translation.

[http://www.beatrice.com/TAO.txt](http://www.beatrice.com/TAO.txt)

A representative sample translation from the beginning of stanza 20:

    
    
        Don't spend too much time 
        thinking about stupid shit.

------
alexashka
It wasn't on the list, but this is my favorite translation:

[https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html](https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html)

~~~
techload
Thanks for this link! Great translation indeed.

------
Analemma_
Red Pine's translation
([https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556592906/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_R0...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556592906/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_R0L5Ab8DADXNM))
isn't great— he's a bit too into "the mystic Orient!" sort of thing— but one
major plus is that it includes English translations of later Chinese
commentators on the text, which is very important.

As for the best translation, the Penguin edition translated by D. C. Lau might
be it.

If you're really interested in it, I would recommend getting both of these –
the synthesis helps.

------
jarnagin
Ursula LeGuin has also published a nonliteral interpretation of the Tao Te
Ching (derived from the work of several Chinese-to-English translations) that
is absolutely wonderful.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2WJQNM/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C2WJQNM/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

~~~
jbossmann
Seconding LeGuin's translation. It has a poetic quality to it.

------
aandrieiev
The problem with translating any Chinese classics lays in their multi-layered
meaning. Old Chinese literature is complicated because every author expected
that the reader was accustomed to volumes of other classics and could
comprehend all the references to them hidden in the text. No matter how many
good translations we have, they will not help us resolve this issue.
Furthermore, understanding Dao De Jing is problematic even for native speakers
of Chinese, because they do not have proper educational background to
comprehend what ideas the author wanted to convey even being able (as they
think) to read the original text!

~~~
henriquemaia
> The problem with translating any Chinese classics lays in their multi-
> layered meaning. Old Chinese literature is complicated

I concede that can be troublesome. But, from a different perspective, it’s
also kind of liberating.

> understanding Dao De Jing is problematic even for native speakers of Chinese

That being true, it allows you enough room of not being ashamed of your own
interpretations, if you find them useful. In that sense, the text is much more
alive, talking to you directly, instead of being an unsolvable puzzle that
takes you away from it.

------
inimino
The first chapter by Google translate:

    
    
        Road to Road, very Avenue;
        Name, name.
        The beginning of the unknown world;
        There is the mother of all things.
        Therefore, often do not want to observe its wonderful.
        Often, they want to see what they are.
        Both of these have different names.
        With the same meaning,
        Mysterious,
        The door of the public.
    

Baidu translate:

    
    
        The Taoism, the very way;
        The name is famous and very famous.
        The beginning of the nameless world;
        Yes, the mother of all things.
        It is often not, to view it.
        Often there is a desire to view it.
        The two are the same names.
        The same predicate of metaphysics,
        Mystery of mysteries,
        Many wonderful doors.
    

Hapless algorithms can only struggle with this!

------
peter303
A lot of words in ancient Chinese are loaded with subtleties of meaning. Its
hard to choose a single English word to translate it. In modern Chinese Dao
mean path.

Modern Chinese has a lot more multisyllable words than classical Chinese. That
tends to narrow meanings.

------
ianai
I keep a copy handy at all times. I don’t think it contains the indisputable
truth of all life/everything/stuff like that - but invaluable wisdom and
perspective. Reading it can help me achieve mindfulness similar to meditation.

------
blacksmith_tb
Surprised not to see David Hinton's[1] fine translation[2] mentioned, it has a
playful quality that I think suits Taoism better than many of the more
traditional translations.

1: [https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poet/david-
hinton](https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poet/david-hinton)

2: [https://www.davidhinton.net/tao-te-ching-sample-
poems](https://www.davidhinton.net/tao-te-ching-sample-poems)

------
newzisgud
[https://taotedev.com](https://taotedev.com) An "interpretation" of some
writings applied to software development. Not very serious, but sometimes
rather interesting.

If I have to pick a favorite it's probably
[https://taotedev.com/2016/01/29/3-state-v-
action/](https://taotedev.com/2016/01/29/3-state-v-action/)

------
bytematic
My favorite is the Stephen Addiss translation, all the other ones try to
shoehorn certain ideas/westernizations into it.

------
doomlaser
I really like the 1980s translation by Gia Fu Feng with black and white photos
by Jane English: [https://www.amazon.com/Ching-25th-Anniversary-English-
Mandar...](https://www.amazon.com/Ching-25th-Anniversary-English-Mandarin-
Chinese/dp/0679776192)

------
sanxiyn
My preferred translation is by Charles Muller. It also includes the original
text.

[http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/daodejing.html](http://www.acmuller.net/con-
dao/daodejing.html)

------
bshepard
If anyone is learning German & Chinese at the same time, this is a very
helpful site: [http://www.tao-te-king.org/](http://www.tao-te-king.org/)

------
jeanlucas
The website is broken both on layout and some links. How can one reach the
author to offer some help?

------
ateesdalejr
Too bad this website is a little broken on a large screen.
[https://screenshots.firefox.com/mBWI8eKC7tz6BSmL/www.daoisop...](https://screenshots.firefox.com/mBWI8eKC7tz6BSmL/www.daoisopen.com)

~~~
cryptoz
Most of the links 404 as well.

