Chapter 80 – Knotted Cords

With a small State, sparsely populated,
supposing that I had weapons for a thousand men, I would not use them.
I would rather teach my subjects to think seriously of death, and not to emigrate to a distance.
Then, though they might have ships and chariots, nobody would mount them;
though they might have armour and weapons, nobody would set them in array.
I would make them return to the use of the quipu,
render their food toothsome,
beautify their clothes [by cultivating the silkworm],
live tranquilly at home,
be happy in their domestic usages,
keep watch with neighbouring states for their mutual safety,
and let the crowing of cocks and barking of dogs be heard by one another [from their numbers and proximity].
Thus the people would die of old age without ever coming into [hostile] collision with each other.

Translation by Frederic Henry Balfour (1884)

Knotted Cords from Meyers Konversationslexikon of 1888

Chapter 80 is one of those parts of the Tao Te Ching that is sufficiently ambiguous as originally written that several differing interpretations arise based upon the way it is translated.  A reasonable “word-for-word” translation (taken from http://www.centertao.org/tao-te-ching/carl/chapter-80/) seems to be something like:

Small country, few people.
Enable the existence of various tools, yet never need them.
Enable the people attach importance to death, yet not travel around.
Although there exist boats and carriages, there is no place to ride them.
Although there exist weapons, there is no place to deploy them.
Enable the people to again use the knotted rope.
Find their food sweet, their clothes beautiful.
Peaceful in their lives, happy in their customs.
Neighboring countries mutually seen in the distance,
Of chicken and dog sounds mutually heard.
People until death not mutually come and go.

Let us begin by looking at some of the ways in which the first few lines are translated by others than Balfour.  In Arthur Waley’s 1934 translation, he begins “Given a small country with few inhabitants, He could bring it about that though there should be among the people contrivances requiring ten times, a hundred times less labour, they would not use them.  He could bring it about, [etc.]”  Waley continues writing in the third person rather than the first, changing the focus of the entire chapter.

D. C. Lau’s 1963 translation takes a different tact. He begins, “Reduce the size of the population and the state. Ensure that even though the people have tools of war for a troop or a battalion they will not use them. . . .” This seems like the writer is giving advice or direction to someone else, which is a different approach than Balfour’s or Waley’s.  Another consideration here is that Lau and Balfour both consider the “tools” mentioned in the word-for-word translation to be weapons or other instruments of war, while Waley sees them as labor-saving devices.

Lin Yutang’s 1948 translation begins this chapter as follows:  “[Let there be] a small country with a small population, where the supply of goods are ten or a hundredfold, more than they can use.”  This is yet another approach.  By saying “let there be,” he may be invoking the God of Genesis who created the world by issuing commands such as, “Let there be light.”  Or, perhaps, the language represents a plea or a prayer; or even a vision of some Taoist Utopia.  This is very similar to Wing-Tsit Chan’s 1963 translation:  “Let there be a small country with few people.  Let there be ten times and a hundred times as many utensils but let them not be used.” In a footnote Chan states that what he translates as “utensils” could mean “military weapons.”

Now let us look at the end of this chapter in these same translations.* Continue reading →