The Translator's Dispute with Earlier Readers

This flow follows Legge's engagement with European translators and Chinese commentators as he defines the limits of his own interpretation.

increasingBearing stren­gth in each eventdecreasing

The Earlier European Translation

A Precedent in Translation Regis and his collaborators Legge describes the work associated with Philippe Grégoire Regis as the principal earlier European translation. He recognizes the scholars' attainments and the value of their historical notes. Their work attempts to connect the core text with events surrounding the Zhou transition. What remains unresolved Legge thinks the translation too literal and insufficiently separates the text from its appendixes. Yet he regards its historical approach as closer to his own than later alternatives. His disagreement is therefore selective, not dismissive.

McClatchie Proposes Mythology

A Competing Key Comparative mythology Canon McClatchie presents a translation with an approach based on comparative mythology. Legge follows it closely enough to assess its arguments and examples. He finds that this key adds interpretations he considers unsupported by Chinese scholarly tradition. The method's danger Legge objects that imported mythic parallels may obscure the actual structure and historical setting of the text. His critique is about method as much as about particular readings. The episode clarifies his preference for close textual and historical analysis.

Chinese Commentaries Offer a Guide

Working Through Native Scholarship The Daily Lectures Legge relies on a Chinese commentary known as the Daily Lectures, including a marked copy that records a previous reader's study. Marginal notes and punctuation let him follow another scholar's patient reasoning. The book offers practical help where he lacks direct assistance from native scholars. Imperial editorial labor He also uses the great imperial edition prepared in the Kangxi period. Its debates and decisions make interpretation a cumulative scholarly undertaking. Legge's translation depends on dialogue with this tradition even as he questions its assumptions.

Zottoli's Partial Translation Arrives

A Late Comparison A Latin version Legge receives a work by an Italian scholar that translates selected portions of the text and appendixes. He praises the care of the work while noting how much of the sixty-four hexagrams it leaves in summary. The arrival comes too late to reshape the already printed core translation. A view of the book The quoted interpretation treats the Changes as a moral and political work also used for divination. Legge finds parts of this account broadly compatible with his own. The encounter shows that translation remains a conversation even after a book is finished.

Legge Defends His Choices

Translation as Judgment Clarity over mechanical literalism Legge argues that a translator must render ideas, not simply line up source characters with target-language words. He still demands close fidelity to the author's meaning. Parenthetical additions mark relations that he believes the original leaves implicit. A disputed divine title He also defends translating the term Di as God, rejecting alternatives he considers less direct. He presents the choice as an honest linguistic judgment rather than a polemical maneuver. The resolution is characteristic of the book: a translator must decide, explain the decision, and accept scrutiny.

Early nineteenth century

1876

Legge's preparation of the translation

After the main translation had been completed

1882