Scholarlink

<p>This study examines Frederic Henry Balfour’s 1884 English translation of the <i>Daodejing</i> through the lens of Daoist religious interpretation, contextualizing it within the broader framework of “Global Laozegetics.” While the <i>Daodejing</i> is often studied as a philosophical text, Balfour’s translation uniquely emphasizes its religious dimensions, drawing on Lü Chunyang’s Daoist commentary. The study first engages with the <i>Daodejing</i>’s original polemical context, particularly its critique of Confucian values, and explores the dual nature of Dao as both immanent and transcendent. By analyzing Balfour’s paratextual strategies, including peritexts such as prefaces, annotations, and epitexts such as historical context and base text selection, this paper then argues that his work represents a significant yet understudied contribution to Western sinology. The study further situates this achievement within its historical and philological limits, arguing that “religious” and “philosophical” must be treated as historically situated concepts rather than timeless analytical categories. This reframing enriches our understanding of cross-cultural communication and contributes to ongoing debates about how the <i>Daodejing</i> has been read, translated, and transformed across cultures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A Daoist Interpretation of Balfour’s Translation of the Daodejing

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月11日

查看全文
  • Ziqiang Zhao,
  • Yajing Wang

摘要

This study examines Frederic Henry Balfour’s 1884 English translation of the Daodejing through the lens of Daoist religious interpretation, contextualizing it within the broader framework of “Global Laozegetics.” While the Daodejing is often studied as a philosophical text, Balfour’s translation uniquely emphasizes its religious dimensions, drawing on Lü Chunyang’s Daoist commentary. The study first engages with the Daodejing’s original polemical context, particularly its critique of Confucian values, and explores the dual nature of Dao as both immanent and transcendent. By analyzing Balfour’s paratextual strategies, including peritexts such as prefaces, annotations, and epitexts such as historical context and base text selection, this paper then argues that his work represents a significant yet understudied contribution to Western sinology. The study further situates this achievement within its historical and philological limits, arguing that “religious” and “philosophical” must be treated as historically situated concepts rather than timeless analytical categories. This reframing enriches our understanding of cross-cultural communication and contributes to ongoing debates about how the Daodejing has been read, translated, and transformed across cultures.