Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
blewbubbles
visitor
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2017
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 27
Promiscuous error:
Reading through the appendixes of Legge's Yî King, I found a long standing print error!
Since the book has been arround for 142 years, I would find it very surprising if I were the first to spot this particular error in James Legge's text, but at any rate, I have never seen it mentioned anywhere. In Appendix VII, Treatise on the Hexagrams taken promiscuously, according to the opposition or diversity of their meaning, the entry for hexagram 39 is wrongly numbered as 41.
41. Hard toil and danger have in Kien their home.
This will demonstrate how many readers of Legge, ever get this far into the book. It is, as it were, right at the back. But since I Ching readers usually page arround ad infinitum without ever getting to read every letter in the book, that is, when the book is simply used for divination, then this section may be overlooked, or read for its own sake. Legge expresses how he struggled to retain the irregular rhymes of the Chinese original. The erroneous numbering of Khien (Jian), may have been a printer's error.
Edit: (Actually, there are more than one error on this page. I even overlooked it at first. Goes to show: "50, 51. Ting takes what’s new; the old is left by Ko." should be 50, 49. because Ko here, is 49. But luckily these are only numbering errors. The hexagram names are all in their right places.)
That's an old one. Here is another print error, in a more recent edition of the I Ching, which I read as my favourite translation:
Shameless error:
I found in the Classic of Changes, by Richard Lynn, a misprint which may cause distress among the meek (including myself):
Hexagram 64, Commentary on the Images, reads:
"Fire positioned above Water: this constitutes the image of Ferrying Complete."
where it should be "Incomplete".
I've got, I think, a first pressing 1994. I can't say if this was corrected in later editions. For you who have a copy of this excellent book, pencil in the correction.
Reading through the appendixes of Legge's Yî King, I found a long standing print error!
Since the book has been arround for 142 years, I would find it very surprising if I were the first to spot this particular error in James Legge's text, but at any rate, I have never seen it mentioned anywhere. In Appendix VII, Treatise on the Hexagrams taken promiscuously, according to the opposition or diversity of their meaning, the entry for hexagram 39 is wrongly numbered as 41.
41. Hard toil and danger have in Kien their home.
This will demonstrate how many readers of Legge, ever get this far into the book. It is, as it were, right at the back. But since I Ching readers usually page arround ad infinitum without ever getting to read every letter in the book, that is, when the book is simply used for divination, then this section may be overlooked, or read for its own sake. Legge expresses how he struggled to retain the irregular rhymes of the Chinese original. The erroneous numbering of Khien (Jian), may have been a printer's error.
Edit: (Actually, there are more than one error on this page. I even overlooked it at first. Goes to show: "50, 51. Ting takes what’s new; the old is left by Ko." should be 50, 49. because Ko here, is 49. But luckily these are only numbering errors. The hexagram names are all in their right places.)
That's an old one. Here is another print error, in a more recent edition of the I Ching, which I read as my favourite translation:
Shameless error:
I found in the Classic of Changes, by Richard Lynn, a misprint which may cause distress among the meek (including myself):
Hexagram 64, Commentary on the Images, reads:
"Fire positioned above Water: this constitutes the image of Ferrying Complete."
where it should be "Incomplete".
I've got, I think, a first pressing 1994. I can't say if this was corrected in later editions. For you who have a copy of this excellent book, pencil in the correction.
Last edited: