It is true that this translation contrasts with translators more "classical" type Jesuits and gives some interesting perspectives, although less than those of his American colleague Jonathan Star (not yet translated into French)
Accessible, this translation is probably but it would be better with some explanations of the translator, "The unspeakable is the real forever" (Chap 1) being such not really lighter than the classic "Void name is the origin of heaven and earth "(Kou Ma) or" Unnamed, it represents the origin of the universe "(Liou Kia-HWAY)
Poetic, this version is much less than that of François and Pierre Leyris Huang (Hardcover) less concise and without any reproduction of Chinese text. On the positive side, the translation is decorated with Chinese paintings. Unfortunately, the choice by Stephen Little seems to me questionable with a predilection for plants and animals'
Finally, and this is the question that premium, can this translation be considered a reference? My answer is no, and for one simple reason: it lacks phrases! Thus, Chap 2, the voice and the sound disappeared, in Chap 3, it is the desire or lust that are eliminated in Chap 4, 5 are phrases that are deleted! Etc. Script Error or author he has just eliminated what he could not translate or that bothered him?
Stephen Mitchell multiplies further interpretations or even against the grain:
- Chapter 2 "things disappear and let them go" is an invention of the translator who invented Chinese characters'
- Chapter 4 "It's like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities. "While there is absolutely no question of emptiness'
- Chapter 5, "The Tao is like a bellows" when it is not the Tao but the space between earth and sky '
- Chapter 6, "The Tao is called the Great Mother:" when it comes to the mind of the valley '
- Chapter 7: "The Tao is infinite, eternal. "Then it is a question of heaven and earth '
Etc.
In short, if such translation may amuse, surprise and even occasionally to reflect on a new meaning of the text, it does not constitute a reference as it moves away from the original text. It is not here the Tao of Lao Zi's Tao of but Stephen Mitchell! See the website [...] for a comparison of different translations from the Chinese text analyzed character by character.
Sincerely,
