Translated by James Legge

Preface

In the Preface to the third volume of these ‘Sacred Books of the East’ (1879), I stated that I proposed giving in due course, in order to exhibit the System of Tâoism, translations of the Tâo Teh King by Lâo-Dze (sixth century bc), the Writings of Kwang-dze (between the middle of the fourth and third centuries B.C.), and the Treatise of ‘Actions and their Retributions’ (of our eleventh century); and perhaps also of one or more of the other characteristic Productions of the System.

The two volumes now submitted to the reader are a fulfilment of the promise made so long ago. They contain versions of the Three Works which were specified, and, in addition, as Appendixes, four other shorter Treatises of Tâoism; Analyses of several of the Books of Kwang-dze by Lin Hsî-kung; a list of the stories which form so important a part of those Books; two Essays by two of the greatest Scholars of China, written the one in A.D. 586 and illustrating the Tâoistic beliefs of that age, and the other in ad 1078 and dealing with the four Books of Kwang-dze, whose genuineness is frequently called in question. The concluding Index is confined very much to Proper Names. For Subjects the reader is referred to the Tables of Contents, the Introduction to the Books of Kwang-dze (vol. xxxix, pp. 127-163), and the Introductory Notes to the various Appendixes.

The Treatise of Actions and their Retributions exhibits to us the Tâoism of the eleventh century in its moral or ethical aspects; in the two earlier Works we see it rather as a philosophical speculation than as a religion in the ordinary sense of that term. It was not till after the introduction of Buddhism into China in our first century that Tâoism began to organise itself as a Religion, having its monasteries and nunneries, its images and rituals. While it did so, it maintained the superstitions peculiar to itself: — some, like the cultivation of the Tâo as a rule of life favourable to longevity, come down from the earliest times, and others which grew up during the decay of the Kâu dynasty, and subsequently blossomed; — now in Mystical Speculation; now in the pursuits of Alchemy; now in the search for the pills of Immortality and the Elixir vitae; now in Astrological fancies; now in visions of Spirits and in Magical arts to control them; and finally in the terrors of its Purgatory and everlasting Hell. Its phases have been continually changing, and at present it attracts our notice more as a degraded adjunct of Buddhism than as a development of the speculations of Lâo-dze and Kwang-dze. Up to its contact with Buddhism, it subsisted as an opposition to the Confucian system, which, while admitting the existence and rule of the Supreme Being, bases its teachings on the study of man’s nature and the enforcement of the duties binding on all men from the moral and social principles of their constitution.

It is only during the present century that the Texts of Tâoism have begun to receive the attention which they deserve. Christianity was introduced into China by Nestorian missionaries in the seventh century; and from the Hsî-an monument, which was erected by their successors in 781, nearly 150 years after their first entrance, we perceive that they were as familiar with the books of Lâo-dze and Kwang-dze as with the Confucian literature of the empire, but that monument is the only memorial of them that remains. In the thirteenth century the Roman Catholic Church sent its earliest missionaries to China, but we hardly know anything of their literary labours.

The great Romish missions which continue to the present day began towards the end of the sixteenth century; and there exists now in the India Office a translation of the Tâo Teh King in Latin, which was brought to England by a Mr. Matthew Raper, and presented by him to the Royal Society, of which he was a Fellow, on January 10th, 1788. The manuscript is in excellent preservation, but we do not know by whom the version was made. It was presented, as stated in the Introduction, p. 12, to Mr. Raper by P. de Grammont, ‘Missionarius Apostolicus, ex-Jesuita.’ The chief object of the translator or translators was to show that ‘the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnate God were anciently known to the Chinese nation.’ The version as a whole is of little value. The reader will find, on pp. 115, 116, its explanation of Lâo’s seventy-second chapter; — the first morsel of it that has appeared in print.

Protestant missions to China commenced in 1807; but it was not till 1868 that the Rev. Dr. Chalmers, a member of one of them, published his ‘Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity, and Morality of “The Old Philosopher,” Lao-Tsze.’ Meanwhile, Abel Rémusat had aroused the curiosity of scholars throughout Europe, in 1823, by his ‘Memoir on the Life and Opinions of Lâo-Tseu, a Chinese Philosopher of the sixth century before our era, who professed the opinions commonly attributed to Pythagoras, to Plato, and to their disciples.’ Rémusat was followed by one who had received from him his first lessons in Chinese, and had become a truly great Chinese scholar, — the late Stanislas Julien. He published in 1842 ‘a complete translation for the first time of this memorable Work, which is regarded with reason as the most profound, the most abstract, and the most difficult of all Chinese Literature.’ Dr. Chalmers’s translation was also complete, but his comments, whether original or from Chinese sources, were much fewer than those supplied by Julien. Two years later, two German versions of the Treatise were published at Leipzig; — by Reinhold von Plänckner and Victor von Strauss, differing much from each other, but both marked by originality and ability.

I undertook myself, as stated above, in 1879 to translate for ‘The Sacred Books of the East’ the Texts of Tâoism which appear in these volumes; and, as I could find time from my labours on ‘The Texts of Confucianism,’ I had written out more than one version of Lâo’s work by the end of 1880. Though not satisfied with the result, I felt justified in exhibiting my general views of it in an article in the British Quarterly Review of July, 1883.

In 1884 Mr. F. H. Balfour published at Shanghai a version of ‘Taoist Texts, Ethical, Political, and Speculative.’ His Texts were ten in all, the Tâo Teh King being the first and longest of them. His version of this differed in many points from all previous versions; and Mr. H. A. Giles, of H. M.’s Consular Service in China, vehemently assailed it and also Dr. Chalmers’s translation, in the China Review for March and April, 1886. Mr. Giles, indeed, occasionally launched a shaft also at Julien and myself; but his main object in his article was to discredit the genuineness and authenticity of the Tâo Teh King itself. ‘The work,’ he says, ‘is undoubtedly a forgery. It contains, indeed, much that Lâo Tzû did say, but more that he did not.’ I replied, so far as was necessary, to Mr. Giles in the same Review for January and February, 1888; and a brief summary of my reply is given in the second chapter of the Introduction in this volume. My confidence has never been shaken for a moment in the Tâo Teh King as a genuine relic of Lâo-dze, one of the most original minds of the Chinese race.

In preparing the version now published, I have used: —

First, ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers;’ — a Sû-kâu reprint in 1804 of the best editions of the Philosophers, nearly all belonging more or less to the Tâoist school, included in it. It is a fine specimen of Chinese printing, clear and accurate. The Treatise of Lâo-dze of course occupies the first place, as edited by Kwei Yû-kwang (better known as Kwei Kăn-shan) of the Ming dynasty. The Text and Commentary are those of Ho-shang Kung (Introd., p. 7), along with the division of the whole into Parts and eighty-one chapters, and the titles of the several chapters, all attributed to him. Along the top of the page, there is a large collection of notes from celebrated commentators and writers down to the editor himself.

Second, the Text and Commentary of Wang Pî (called also Fû-sze), who died A.D. 249, at the early age of twenty-four. See Introduction, p. 8.

Third, ‘Helps (lit. Wings) to Lâo-dze;’ by Ziâo Hung (called also Zâo-hâu), and prefaced by him in 1587. This is what Julien calls ‘the most extensive and most important contribution to the understanding of Lâo-dze, which we yet possess.’ Its contents are selected from the ablest writings on the Treatise from Han Fei (Introd., p. 5) downwards, closing in many chapters with the notes made by the compiler himself in the course of his studies. Altogether the book sets before us the substance of the views of sixty-four writers on our short King. Julien took the trouble to analyse the list of them, and found it composed of three emperors, twenty professed Tâoists, seven Buddhists, and thirty-four Confucianists or members of the Literati. He says, ‘These last constantly explain Lâo-dze according to the ideas peculiar to the School of Confucius, at the risk of misrepresenting him, and with the express intention of throttling his system;’ then adding, ‘The commentaries written in such a spirit have no interest for persons who wish to enter fully into the thought of Lâo-dze, and obtain a just idea of his doctrine. I have thought it useless, therefore, to specify the names of such commentaries and their authors.’

I have quoted these sentences of Julien, because of a charge brought by Mr. Balfour, in a prefatory note to his own version of the Tâo Teh King, against him and other translators. ‘One prime defect,’ he says, though with some hesitation, ‘lies at the root of every translation that has been published hitherto; and this is, that not one seems to have been based solely and entirely on commentaries furnished by members of the Tâoist school. The Confucian element enters largely into all; and here, I think, an injustice has been done to Lâo-dze. To a Confucianist the Tâoist system is in every sense of the word a heresy, and a commentator holding this opinion is surely not the best expositor. It is as a Grammarian rather than as a Philosopher that a member of the Jû Chiâ deals with the Tâo Teh King; he gives the sense of a passage according to the syntactical construction rather than according to the genius of the philosophy itself; and in attempting to explain the text by his own canons, instead of by the canons of Tâoism, he mistakes the superficial and apparently obvious meaning for the hidden and esoteric interpretation.’

Mr. Balfour will hardly repeat his charge of imperfect or erroneous interpretation against Julien; and I believe that it is equally undeserved by most, if not all, of the other translators against whom it is directed. He himself adopted as his guide the ‘Explanations of the Tâo Teh King,’ current as the work of Lü Yen (called also Lü Zû, Lü Tung-pin, and Lü Khun-yang), a Tâoist of the eighth century. Through Mr. Balfour's kindness I have had an opportunity of examining this edition of Lâo’s Treatise; and I am compelled to agree with the very unfavourable judgment on it pronounced by Mr. Giles as both ‘spurious’ and ‘ridiculous.’ All that we are told of Lü Yen is very suspicious; much of it evidently false. The editions of our little book ascribed to him are many. I have for more than twenty years possessed one with the title of ‘The Meaning of the Tâo Teh King Explained by the TRUE Man of Khun-yang,’ being a reprint of 1690, and as different as possible from the work patronised by Mr. Balfour.

Fourth, the Thâi Shang Hwun Hsüan Tâo Teh Kăn King, — a work of the present dynasty, published at Shanghai, but when produced I do not know. It is certainly of the Lü Zü type, and is worth purchasing as one of the finest specimens of block-printing. It professes to be the production of ‘The Immortals of the Eight Grottoes,’ each of whom is styled ‘a Divine Ruler (Tî Kün).’ The eighty-one chapters are equally divided for commentary among them, excepting that ‘the Divine Ruler, the Universal Refiner,’ has the last eleven assigned to him. The Text is everywhere broken up into short clauses, which are explained in a very few characters by ‘God, the True Helper,’ the same, I suppose, who is also styled, ‘The Divine Ruler, the True Helper,’ and comments at length on chapters 31 to 40. I mention these particulars as an illustration of how the ancient Tâoism has become polytheistic and absurd. The name ‘God, the True Helper,’ is a title, I imagine, given to Lü Zü. With all this nonsense, the composite commentary is a good one, the work, evidently, of one hand. One of several recommendatory Prefaces is ascribed to Wân Khang, the god of Literature; and he specially praises the work, as ‘explaining the meaning by examination of the Text.’

Fifth, a ‘Collection of the Most Important Treatises of the Tâoist Fathers (Tâo Zû Kän Kwan Kî Yâo).’ This was reprinted in 1877 at Khang-kâu in Kiang-sû; beginning with the Tâo Teh King, and ending with the Kan Ying Phien. Between these there are fourteen other Treatises, mostly short, five of them being among Mr. Balfour’s ‘Tâoist Texts.’ The Collection was edited by a Lû Yü; and the Commentary selected by him, in all but the last Treatise, was by a Lî Hsî-yüeh, who appears to have been a recluse in a monastery on a mountain in the department of Pâo-ning, Sze-khwan, if, indeed, what is said of him be not entirely fabulous.

Sixth, the Commentary on the Tâo Teh King, by Wû Khăng (A.D. 1249-1333) of Lin Khwan. This has been of the highest service to me. Wû Khăng was the greatest of the Yüan scholars. He is one of the Literati quoted from occasionally by Ziâo Hung in his ‘Wings;’ but by no means so extensively as Julien supposes (Observations Détachées, p. xli). My own copy of his work is in the 12th Section of the large Collection of the ‘Yüeh-yâ Hall,’ published in 1853. Writing of Wû Khăng in 1865 (Proleg. to the Shû, p. 36), I said that he was ‘a bold thinker and a daring critic, handling his text with a freedom which I had not seen in any other Chinese scholar.’ The subsequent study of his writings has confirmed me in this opinion of him. Perhaps he might be characterised as an independent, rather than as a bold, thinker, and the daring of his criticism must not be supposed to be without caution. (See Introd., p. 9.)

The Writings of Kwang-dze have been studied by foreigners still less than the Treatise of Lâo-dze. When I undertook in 1879 to translate them, no version of them had been published. In 1881, however, there appeared at Shanghai Mr. Balfour’s ‘The Divine Classic of Nan-hua (Introd., pp. 11, 12), being the Works of Chuang Tsze, Tâoist Philosopher.’ It was a ‘bold’ undertaking in Mr. Balfour thus to commence his translations of Chinese Books with one of the most difficult of them. I fancy that he was himself convinced of this, and that his undertaking had been ‘too bold,’ by the criticism to which his work was subjected in the China Review by Mr. Giles. Nevertheless, it was no small achievement to be the first to endeavour to lift up the veil from Kwang-dze. Even a first translation, though imperfect, is not without benefit to others who come after, and are able to do better. In preparing the draft of my own version, which draft was finished in April, 1887, I made frequent reference to the volume of Mr. Balfour.

Having exposed the errors of Mr. Balfour, Mr. Giles proceeded to make a version of his own, which was published last year in London, with the title of ‘Chuang Tzŭ, Mystic, Moralist, and Social Reformer.’ It was not, however, till I was well through with the revision of my draft version, that I supplied myself with a copy of his volume. I did not doubt that Mr. Giles’s translation would be well and tersely done, and I preferred to do my own work independently and without the help which he would have afforded me. In carrying my sheets through the press, I have often paused over my rendering of a passage to compare it with his; and I have pleasure in acknowledging the merits of his version. The careful and competent reader will see and form his own judgment on passages and points where we differ.

Before describing the editions of Kwang-dze which I have consulted, I must not omit to mention Professor Gabelentz’s ‘Treatise on the Speech or Style of Kwang-dze,’ as ‘a Contribution to Chinese Grammar,’ published at Leipzig in 1888. It has been a satisfaction to me to find myself on almost every point of usage in agreement with the views of so able a Chinese scholar.

The works which I employed in preparing my version have been: —

First, ‘The True King of Nan-hwâ,’ in ‘The Complete Works of the Ten Philosophers,’ which has been described above. The Commentary which it supplies is that of Kwo Hsiang (Introd., pp. 9, 10), with ‘The Sounds and Meanings of the Characters’ from Lû Teh Ming’s ‘Explanations of the Terms and Phrases of the Classics,’ of our seventh century. As in the case of the Tâo Teh King, the Ming editor has introduced at the top of his pages a selection of comments and notes from a great variety of scholars down to his own time.

Second, ‘Helps (Wings) to Kwang-dze by Ziâo Hung,’ — a kindred work to the one with a similar title on Lâo-dze; by the same author, and prefaced by him in 1588. The two works are constructed on the same lines. Ziâo draws his materials from forty-eight authorities, from Kwo Hsiang to himself. He divides the several Books also into paragraphs, more or fewer according to their length, and the variety of subjects in them; and my version follows him in this lead with little or no change. He has two concluding Books; the one containing a collation of various readings, and the other a collection of articles on the history and genius of Kwang-dze, and different passages of his Text.

Third, the Kwang-dze Hsüeh or ‘Kwang-dze made like Snow,’ equivalent to our ‘Kwang-dze Elucidated;’ by a Lû Shû-kih of Canton province, written in 1796. The different Books are preceded by a short summary of their subject-matter. The work goes far to fulfil the promise of its title.

Fourth, Kwang-dze Yin, meaning ‘The Train of Thought in Kwang-dze Traced in its Phraseology.’ My copy is a reprint, in 1880, of the Commentary of Lin Hsî-kung, who lived from the Ming into the present dynasty, under the editorship of a Lû Khû-wang of Kiang-sû province. The style is clear and elegant, but rather more concise than that of the preceding work. It leaves out the four disputed Books (XXVIII to XXXI); but all the others are followed by an elaborate discussion of their scope and plan.

Fifth, ‘The Nan-hwâ Classic of Kwang-dze Explained,’ published in 1621, by a Hsüan Ying or Zung( the name is printed throughout the book, now in one of these ways, now in the other), called also Mâu-kung. The commentary is carefully executed and ingenious; but my copy of the book is so incorrectly printed that it can only be used with caution. Mr. Balfour appears to have made his version mainly from the same edition of the work; and some of his grossest errors pointed out by Mr. Giles arose from his accepting without question the misprints of his authority.

Sixth, ‘Independent Views of Kwang-dze( );’ — by Hû Wăn-ying, published in 1751. Occasionally, the writer pauses over a passage, which, he thinks, has defied all preceding students, and suggests the right explanation of it, or leaves it as inexplicable.

It only remains for me to refer to the Repertories of ‘Elegant Extracts,’ called by the Chinese Kû Wăn, which abound in their literature, and where the masterpieces of composition are elucidated with more or less of critical detail and paraphrase. I have consulted nearly a dozen of these collections, and would mention my indebtedness especially to that called Mêi Khwan, which discusses passages from twelve of Kwang-dze’s books.

When consulting the editions of Lin Hsî-kung and Lû Shû-kih, the reader is surprised by the frequency with which they refer to the ‘old explanations’ as ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory,’ often as ‘absurd,’ or ‘ridiculous,’ and he [xxi] finds on examination that they do not so express themselves without reason. He is soon convinced that the translation of Kwang-dze calls for the exercise of one’s individual judgment, and the employment of every method akin to the critical processes by which the meaning in the books of other languages is determined. It was the perception of this which made me prepare in the first place a draft version to familiarise myself with the peculiar style and eccentric thought of the author.

From Kwang-dze to the Tractate of ‘Actions and their Retributions’ the transition is great. Translation in the latter case is as easy as it is difficult in the former. It was Rémusat who in 1816 called attention to the Kan Ying Phien in Europe, as he did to the Tâo Teh King seven years later, and he translated the Text of it with a few Notes and Illustrative Anecdotes. In 1828 Klaproth published a translation of it from the Man-châu version; and in 1830 a translation in English appeared in the Canton Register, a newspaper published at Macao. In 1828 Julien published what has since been the standard version of it; with an immense amount of additional matter under the title — ‘Le Livre Des Récompenses et Des Peines, en Chinois et en Français; Accompagné de quatre cent Légendes, Anecdotes et Histoires, qui font connaître les Doctrines, les Croyances et les Mœurs de la Secte des Tâo-ssé.’

In writing out my own version I have had before me: —

First, ‘The Thâi Shang Kan Ying Phien, with Plates and the Description of them;’ a popular edition, as profusely furnished with anecdotes and stories as Julien’s original, and all pictorially illustrated. The notes, comments, and corresponding sentences from the Confucian Classics are also abundant.

Second, ‘The Thâi Shang Kan Ying Phien, with explanations collected from the Classics and Histories;’ — a Cantonese reprint of an edition prepared in the Khien-lûng reign by a Hsiâ Kiû-hsiâ.

Third, the edition in the Collection of Tâoist Texts described above on p. xvii; by Hsü Hsiû-teh. It is decidedly Tâoistic; but without stories or pictures.

Fourth, ‘The Thâi Shang Kan Ying Phien Kû;’ by Hui Tung, of the present dynasty. The Work follows the Commentary of Wû Khăng on the Tâo Teh King in the Collection of the Yueh-yâ Hall. The preface of the author is dated in 1749. The Commentary, he tells us, was written in consequence of a vow, when his mother was ill, and he was praying for her recovery. It contains many extracts from Ko Hung (Introduction, p. 5, note), to whom he always refers by his nom de plume of Pao-phoh Dze, or ‘Maintainer of Simplicity.’ He considers indeed this Tractate to have originated from him.

I have thus set forth all that is necessary to be said here by way of preface. For various information about the Treatises comprised in the Appendixes, the reader is referred to the preliminary notes, which precede the translation of most of them. I have often sorely missed the presence of a competent native scholar who would have assisted me in the quest of references, and in talking over difficult passages. Such a helper would have saved me much time; but the result, I think, would scarcely have appeared in any great alteration of my versions.

J. L.

Oxford,

December 20, 1890.

Introduction

Chapter I : Was Tâoism Older than Lâo-dze?

1. In writing the preface to the third volume of these Sacred Books of the East in 1879, I referred to Lâo-dze as ‘the acknowledged founder’ of the system of Tâoism. Prolonged study and research, however, have brought me to the conclusion that there was a Tâoism earlier than his; and that before he wrote his Tâo Teh King, the principles taught in it had been promulgated, and the ordering of human conduct and government flowing from them inculcated.

Three Religions in China.

For more than a thousand years ‘the Three Religions’ has been a stereotyped phrase in China, meaning what we call Confucianism, Tâoism, and Buddhism. The phrase itself simply means ‘the Three Teachings,’ or systems of instruction, leaving the subject-matter of each ‘Teaching’ to be learned by inquiry. Of the three, Buddhism is of course the most recent, having been introduced into China only in the first century of our Christian era. Both the others were indigenous to the country, and are traceable to a much greater antiquity, so that it is a question to which the earlier origin should be assigned. The years of Confucius’s life lay between B.C. 551 and 478; but his own acknowledgment that he was ‘a transmitter and not a maker,’ and the testimony of his grandson, that ‘he handed down the doctrines of Yâo and Shun (B.C. 2300), and elegantly displayed the regulations of Wân and Wû (B.C. 1200), taking them as his model,’ are well known.

Peculiarity of the Tâo Teh King.

2. Lâo-dze's birth is said, in the most likely account of it, to have taken place in the third year of king Ting of the Kâu dynasty, (B.C.) 604. He was thus rather more than fifty years older than Confucius. The two men seem to have met more than once, and I am inclined to think that the name of Lâo-dze, as the designation of the other, arose from Confucius’s styling him to his disciples ‘The Old Philosopher.’ They met as Heads of different schools or schemes of thought; but did not touch, so far as we know, on the comparative antiquity of their views. It is a peculiarity of the Tâo Teh King that any historical element in it is of the vaguest nature possible, and in all its chapters there is not a single proper name. Yet there are some references to earlier sages whose words the author was copying out, and to ‘sentence-makers’ whose maxims he was introducing to illustrate his own sentiments In the most distant antiquity he saw a happy society in which his highest ideas of the Tâo were realised, and in the seventeenth chapter he tells us that in the earliest times the people did not know that there were their rulers, and when those rulers were most successful in dealing with them, simply said, ‘We are what we are of ourselves.’ Evidently, men existed to Lâo-dze at first in a condition of happy innocence, — in what we must call a paradisiacal state, according to his idea of what such a state was likely to be.

When we turn from the treatise of Lâo-dze to the writings of Kwang-dze, the greatest of his followers, we are not left in doubt as to his belief in an early state of paradisiacal Tâoism. Hwang Tî, the first year of whose reign is placed in B.C. 2697, is often introduced as a seeker of the Tâo, and is occasionally condemned as having been one of the first to disturb its rule in men’s minds and break up ‘the State of Perfect Unity.’ He mentions several sovereigns of whom we can hardly find a trace in the records of history as having ruled in the primeval period, and gives us more than one description of the condition of the world during that happy time

I do not think that Kwang-dze had any historical evidence for the statements which he makes about those early days, the men who flourished in them, and their ways. His narratives are for the most part fictions, in which the names and incidents are of his own devising. They are no more true as matters of fact than the accounts of the characters in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress are true, with reference to any particular individuals; but as these last are grandly true of myriads of minds in different ages, so may we read in Kwang-dze’s stories the thoughts of Tâoistic men beyond the restrictions of place and time. He believed that those thoughts were as old as the men to whom he attributed them. I find in his belief a ground for believing myself that to Tâoism, as well as to Confucianism, we ought to attribute a much earlier origin than the famous men whose names they bear. Perhaps they did not differ so much at first as they came afterwards to do in the hands of Confucius and Lâo-dze, both great thinkers, the one more of a moralist, and the other more of a metaphysician. When and how, if they were ever more akin than they came to be, their divergence took place, are difficult questions on which it may be well to make some remarks after we have tried to set forth the most important principles of Tâoism.

Those principles have to be learned from the treatise of Lâo-dze and the writings of Kwang-dze. We can hardly say that the Tâoism taught in them is the Tâoism now current in China, or that has been current in it for many centuries; but in an inquiry into the nature and origin of religions these are the authorities that must be consulted for Tâoism, and whose evidence must be accepted. The treatise, ‘Actions and the Responses to them,’ will show one of the phases of it at a much later period.

Chapter II: The Texts of the Tâo Teh King and Kwang-dze Shû, as Regards Their Authenticity and Genuineness, and the Arrangement of them

I. 1. I will now state briefly, first, the grounds on which I accept the Tâo Teh King as a genuine production of the age to which it has been assigned, and the truth of its authorship by Lâo-dze to whom it has been ascribed. It would not have been necessary a few years ago to write as if these points could be called in question, but in 1886 Mr. Herbert A. Giles, of Her Majesty’s Consular Service in China, and one of the ablest Chinese scholars living, vehemently called them in question in an article in the China Review for the months of March and April. His strictures have been replied to, and I am not going to revive here the controversy which they produced, but only to state a portion of the evidence which satisfies my own mind on the two points just mentioned.

The evidence of Sze-mâ Khien, the historian.