Lao-tzu is said to have died at the age of eighty-one years in B.C. 523,1 though, as has been seen, nothing is known positively about the time or manner of his decease. He had, according to historical tradition, on leaving the Hanku Pass, consigned his writings on Tao and TÊ to Yin-hsi, the guardian of the Pass. This latter seems to have transmitted his doctrines to others, more especially to WÊn-tzu (??), who probably published the first edition of this work known to the public. Some indeed suppose that Lao-tzu did not himself commit anything to writing, and that Yin-hsi merely related orally to WÊn-tzu and others what he had been taught orally by the sage. This opinion will not seem unlikely, if we consider that the use of paper was at this time unknown and that there were very few facilities of any kind for publishing a book. Others suppose that Wen-tzu was an immediate disciple of Lao-tzu and that he published an account of his master’s doctrines after the decease of the latter.2

In any case, however, it appears certain that for a considerable time after the death of its author the work which is now known as the Tao-tÊ ching remained in at least partial obscurity. Mencius does not allude by name to Lao-tzu or his teachings, though he refers on several occasions, and rather unfavourably, to Yang-chu (??), who is supposed to have been a disciple of the sage. The philosophers Chwang (?) and Lie (?), however, contemporaries of Mencius, seem to have been aware of the existence and contents of the Tao-tÊ ching. The latter expressly quotes its words, and both make mention of Lao-tan.

It has not been ascertained when or by whom its present title was imposed on this book. We find early writers quoting its teachings as those of Hwang-Lao (??), that is, of the Emperor Hwang and Lao-tzu. The former lived, or is supposed to have lived, about B.C. 2600, and some parts of the Tao-tÊ ching are expressly ascribed to him, for example, Chapter VI is quoted as his.3 Another title under which this book is referred to by old authors is Lao-tzu-shu (???), that is, the writings of Lao-tzu,4 and it is not until the time of Emperor WÊn (??) of the Han dynasty, or about B.C. 160, that we find the term Tao-tÊ used. We must remember also that the use of these two words does not indicate that the book treats only of what is meant by them,5 nor are we to imagine that the former part of the work refers exclusively to TÊ. The first word of the former part of the book is Tao, and the first important word of the latter portion is TÊ, and these two were simply combined in order to form a designation for the whole, according to the usual Chinese custom.6 HiÜan-tsung (??), an Emperor of the T?ang dynasty, who reigned in the early part of the 8th century of our era, besides several other innovations, gave a separate name to each part of this book, calling the former part the Tao-ching and the latter the TÊ-ching.7 These appellations, however, are seldom, if ever, used, and the work is now universally known as the Tao-tÊ ching. From the words of Confucius it might even with some degree of probability be inferred that already in his time the name Tao-tÊ was used, the term Ching or classic, being, of course, a much later addition and given by way of respect.

From the naming of the book I now proceed to the considerations of the way in which it has been divided. Szu Ma-chien simply says that Lao-tzu made a book in two parts, containing more than five thousand characters, and setting forth the signification of Tao and TÊ. Ch?ao, however, says that the work contained 5,748 words in eighty-one chapters. The original division was probably only one into two parts; afterwards, however, these were subdivided into chapters. The number of these latter composing the entire book varies considerably.8 Some editors make fifty-five chapters; some make sixty-four; some, and notably Wu-ch?Êng, make sixty-eight; and some seventy-two. The most usual number, however, is eighty-one, and this is said to be sanctioned by the old and venerable authority of Ho-shang-kung (???) of the Han dynasty. The Taoists are very fond of the number three and its multiples, and this particular multiple, eighty-one, is associated in tradition with Lao-tzu’s birth and the years of his life, and there is perhaps no greater reason for preferring this to any other division.

To Ho-shang-kung is ascribed also the addition of a title to each of the eighty-one chapters. These titles consist of two characters each, giving an epitome of the contents of the chapter, and they resemble the headings of chapters and sections in our own books. Many editors, however, reject these inventions of Ho-shang-kung, and use the ordinary Chinese method of distinguishing each chapter by its first two characters. This is considered the more decorous method, as the other seems to be supplementing the author.

I come now to the text of the Tao-tÊ ching, and here the most bewildering uncertainty and confusion are found. Some editors, wishing to have the number of characters as little as possible beyond five thousand, have cut them off apparently at pleasure, and without much regard for the sense of the author. Others have pursued a contrary course, and retained or added characters in order apparently to make out what they deemed to be the true meaning of any particular passage. This conduct has occasioned great variations in the text, and consequently great uncertainty as to what Lao-tzu actually wrote or taught. Sometimes one editor, by the suppression of, a negative particle or a word of interrogation, gives to a passage a meaning unlike or even opposed to that which another editor by the insertion of this character gives to the same passage. But not only do different editions of this book vary as to insertion and rejection of words: they also differ as to the mode of writing many of those actually employed. Words written in similar manners, or of similar sound, but with widely different significations, frequently replace one another; and not unfrequently characters totally different in sound, appearance, and meaning are found substituted one for another in the same passage. Hence the number of various readings is exceedingly great, and the meaning of many passages at least very doubtful. One edition gives in the introduction an account of some of the variations in the text, which occupies a considerable number of pages; while another edition gives only a text accompanied by various readings.

The next point to be considered, is the style of our author. This is perhaps the most terse and concise ever employed. There is little, if any, grace or elegance about it: and most of the chapters seem to be merely notes or texts for philosophical discourses. They are composed of short and often enigmatical or paradoxical sentences—not in verse, as has been asserted9—and with a connexion either very slight or not at all perceptible. Much of the present obscurity may be due to the antiquity of the language and the uncertainty about the proper reading; but much is also due to the brief enigmatical manner in which the author has expressed himself. Many Chinese regard the style as profound and suggestive, and so, no doubt, it is; but we can never get at the bottom of the meaning, nor imagine all that is suggested.

Connected with the obscurity of the style, and indeed contributing largely towards it, is the nature of the topics discussed. The origin of the universe, and man’s place and destiny in it as an individual, a member of society, and a conscious part of nature, are subjects which in all ages and in all countries have puzzled the minds of thoughtful men, and it is of these and similar matters that Lao-tzu principally treats. Such subjects, even when discussed in a clear and plain style and with a rich language, are found to be difficult of elucidation; and how much more so must they be when discussed in short enigmatical sentences? Lao-tzu, like all other philosophers who live and write in the infancy of a literary language, had only a very imperfect medium through which to communicate his doctrines. The language of his time was rude and imperfect, utterly unfit to express the deep thoughts of a meditative mind, and hence it could at best but “half reveal and half conceal the soul within.”

The genuineness and sources of this book are also difficult of investigation, and it is perhaps impossible to ascertain the truth about them with any accuracy. As has been seen, a portion is ascribed to the semi-fabulous Emperor Hwang, and Lao-tzu is sometimes represented as merely transmitting this emperor’s doctrines. Chapter XXXI has been declared spurious, and a portion of Chapter XXVII is found first in Ho-shang-kung’s edition.10 The beginning of the now famous Chapter XIV is very similar to the words ascribed to the predecessor of the Emperor Hwang, namely the Emperor Yen (?), by the philosopher Chwang. RÉmusat and Pauthier consider the main doctrines of the Tao-tÊ ching to be derived from Western sources. The former asks—Did Lao-tzu learn them from the Jews or from some oriental sect unknown to us?11 But the illustrious savant was unable to give a satisfactory answer. The learned Pauthier thinks that Lao-tzu borrowed his doctrines either from the writings of some of the ancient Chinese sages or from some Indian philosophers.12 In Ma-tuan-lin’s great work a short account is given of an ancient worthy named Yu-hsuing (??), who served the celebrated WÊn-wang, and who must accordingly have flourished about B.C. 1150.13 This man seems to have anticipated Lao-tzu in certain doctrines, but we have very little information about him, and what we have can scarcely be called reliable. Lao-tzu never alludes to a previous author; but there cannot be much doubt, I think, that he was well acquainted with the history and traditions of his country.

We may probably now understand the nature of the difficulties attending the reading and interpreting of the Tao-tÊ Ching, of which western writers have complained. Julien speaks of it as “cet ouvrage mÉmorable qu’on regarde avec raison comme le plus profond, le plus abstrait et le plus difficile de toute la littÉrature Chinoise.”14 RÉmusat and Pauthier have written in a similar manner, and the study of a few pages of the work will show how real are the difficulties of which they complain. But it is not to foreign students alone that these difficulties are perplexing; they are so to the native student also. Some of its editors are accused not only of not appreciating its spirit, but even of not understanding its language.

The number of those who have edited and commented on this work is very great, embracing Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucianists. The curious reader will find a list of many of these in the Observations DÉtachÉes prefixed to Julien’s translation. To this list many more names might be added, but it includes nearly all the useful and well known editions. It is only necessary here to enumerate a few of the more important and celebrated editions, and those which are apparently not mentioned by Julien and which have come under my notice.

1. The Tao-tÊ-ching-chu (????) by Ho-shang-kung, or as Ma-tuan-lin names the book, Ho-Shang-Kung-Chu-Lao-tzu, may be regarded as the earliest edition of which we have now any exact information. This Ho-shang-kung lived in the second century B.C., during the reign of King Wen (??) of the Han dynasty. He derived his name from his living as a studious hermit on the bank of a river in a grass-made hut, and neither his original name nor anything else scarcely is known of him, though Julien calls him “Lo-chin-kong.” To him, as has been seen, is ascribed division of Lao-tzu’s book into eighty-one chapters, as also the addition of the two-word heading of each chapter. The original work is said to have been long since lost, and professed reprints are now generally regarded as spurious. Many modern editions, however, present what they designate Ho-shang-kung’s text, and Julien seems to regard himself as possessing the genuine commentary. The edition of the Tao-tÊ Ching, which forms the first volume in the She-tzu-ch?uan-shu (????) published during the reign of Chia-Ch?ing of the present dynasty, professes to give Ho-shang-kung’s text, revised by two scholars of the Ming dynasty. Later editors are divided in their opinions of the merits of the recluse’s commentary and arrangement of the text. Some regard the commentary as a fair exponent of Lao-tzu’s teachings, while others—and these I think the majority—regard it as very bad and evincing an ignorance of the author’s meaning. The text which is ascribed to him seems to be freer from obscurities than that of some later editions, but he is accused of having taken great liberties with the words of the original.

2. The edition of Wang-Pi (??). This man was the author of the Lao-tzu-liao-lun (????), according to Ch?ao. He was a native of Shan-yang (??) in the time of the Chin dynasty, which reigned over China in the third and fourth centuries of our era.15 His style was Szu-fu (??), and he was an early and devoted student of Lao-tzu. Besides this, and that he wrote a commentary on the Tao-tÊ chin, and one on the Yi-ching, and died at the early age of twenty-four, much regretted by his sovereign, we know little about Wang-Pi. The text which he gives in his edition is very good, and his notes are very brief. They are, however, in some cases almost as difficult to comprehend as the passages they are intended to explain; though their author is regarded by many as a better student of Lao-tzu than Ho-shang-kung, and Mr. Wylie says that his commentary is “generally esteemed for its depth of thought and chasteness of diction.”16 He also divided the work into eighty-one chapters. In the 40th year of Ch?ien-lung, or in 1775, a revised edition of this work was printed in the palace, under the care of three mandarins, who have written a neat little preface to the book. This edition is valuable as giving the variations of Wang-Pi’s notes which appeared in the great Encyclopedia known as Yung-lo-ta-tien (????).

3. The Tao-tÊ-ching-shi-yi (?????). This was the work of LÜ-yen (??), better known as LÜ-T?ung-p?in or LÜ-tsu, a famous Taoist of the T?ang dynasty. His commentary is very diffuse, and does not tend very much to give a clear conception of Lao-tzu’s views. Many Chinese scholars, however, believe that the genuine work is not extant, and that all the editions purporting to be from his pen are spurious. LÜ-yen was also the editor of a Taoist book written by a celebrated individual of the Han dynasty, and he was the author of a number of original pieces. He was promoted to the rank of a Genius, and he is enrolled as one of the Pa-hsien (??) or Eight Genii, under the style Shun-yang-chÊn-jen (????); and in the 29th year of K?ang-hsi, Mou-Mu-yuen (???) published an edition of the Tao-tÊ Ching purporting to be a revised edition of this man’s work. It is a very useful book, giving in addition to the commentary a list of various readings, the sounds of the rare or doubtful characters, and other valuable information. This is the edition, apparently, to which Julien refers as a work “publiÉe en 1690 par Chun-yang-tchin-jin qui renferme toutes les rÊveries des Tao-sse modernes.”17 I cannot understand, however, how a sinologue of M. Julien’s erudition could mistake the date of the famous LÜ-T?ung-pin or forget that he was identical with Shun-yang-chÊn-jen, A new edition of Mou-Mu-yuen’s book was published in the 14th year of Chia-ch?ing (1809) by Tsou-HsÜ-k?un (???).

4. The edition with notes by Su-Che (??), a relation of the famous poet and author of the Sung dynasty, named Su also. Che, or as he is also called Tsu-yu, seems to have been an eclectic philosopher, and he has incurred severe censure from rigid Confucianists for daring to presume that the doctrines of ShÂkyamuni and Lao-tzu could resemble those of their Master. His commentary is written in a liberal and generous spirit, and shews, besides, a considerable amount of reading, much in advance of ordinary Chinese authors.

5. Another edition of the Tao-tÊ Ching, published during the Sung dynasty, was that of LÜ-Tung-lai (???) or Tsu-ch?ien (??), also known as Pei-kung (??). He was a very learned Confucianist, and wrote, along with other works, an excellent commentary on the Ch?un-ch?iu (??) of Confucius.

6. The Tao-tÊ-chÊn-ching-chu (?????) by Wu-Ch?Êng (??). This man was a native of Lin-chiean-hsien (???) in Kiangsi, and lived under the Yuan or Mongol dynasty. He divided the Tao-tÊ Ching into sixty-eight chapters by putting, in several instances, two or more of the ordinary chapters into one. His commentary is one of the best and of the most popular among the Chinese literati. This is partly owing to the fact that Wu-Ch?Êng was also a well-known Confucianist and a commentator on the classics. His style was Yu-ch?ing (??), and it is under the name Oi-yeou-thsing that Julien makes mention of him. In Chinese books he is also frequently quoted as Ts?ao-lu (??). A new edition of Wu-Ch?Êng’s excellent work appeared in the eighth year of Chia-ch?ing (1803,) with a preface by Chang-WÊn-ping, and another edition with a short supplement appeared in the reign of the late emperor.

7. Under the Ming dynasty there were several good, editions of this work published, but I have been able to obtain only two of them. The Tao-tÊ-hsing-ming-ch?ien-chi (??????) was published during the reign of Yung-lo in the first quarter of the 15th century. The editor does not reveal his name but uses a nom de guerre, and I have not succeeded in ascertaining anything about his history. The commentary which he has written is very useful, and evinces a careful study of his author and a familiar acquaintance with Chinese literature. The text and the headings of the Chapters are said to be after Ho-shang-kung, and the number of the chapters is eighty-one.

8. The Tao-tÊ-hsing-ming-hou-chi (??????) appeared in the reign of Chia-ching (??) of the same dynasty, and nearly a century after the above edition. The author of this commentary was Chu-Ch?en-hung (???), a relative of the royal family, and a military viceroy with full powers for some time. His notes are short and not of great utility, but he occasionally introduces quotations from early writers illustrative of passages in Lao-tzu’s teachings, and he seems to have been a man of no mean literary attainments.

9. The Tao-tÊ Ching, with Prolegomena and Commentary by Hsu-Ta-ch?un (???), was published in 1760. Ta-ch?un’s style was Ling-t?ai (??), and he was born in Wu-chiang-hsien (???) in the department of Soochow, in the reign of Yung-chÊng. He was well-known during his life as an accomplished scholar, and a writer on medicine and other subjects. His commentary on the Tao-tÊ Ching is to be reckoned among the most useful of all the commentaries that have hitherto appeared. He speaks very slightingly of previous editors, more especially of Ho-shang-kung, and he advertises his readers that he has not stolen anything from his predecessors, but has studied his author. Mr. Wylie says that Ta-ch?un in this commentary, “in a concise and lucid style, develops his ideas on the work of LaÒu-tze, extolling it above the Confucian Classics.”18

10. The Tao-tÊ-ching-k?ao-yi (?????) by Pi-Yuan (??), a high officer under Chien-lung. He published this work in the forty-sixth year of this reign (1781) in two volumes, and with the chapters divided in the usual manner. The text which he gives is that settled by Fu-yi (??), an imperial annalist during the T?ang dynasty, and his notes consist almost exclusively of an enumeration of the variations presented by previous editions. Mr. Wylie speaks of it as “a very excellent examination of the purity of the text,”19 but it is scarcely so much as a statement of the various readings, with an occasional attempt at explanation or reconciliation.

11. The Lao-tzu-ts?an-chu (????). Of this Mr. Wylie writes:—“A critical exposition of the work (that is, of the Tao-tÊ Ching) was written by ??? E YuÊn-t?Àn in 1816, entitled the ???? LaÒu-tszÈ-ts?an-choÓ.”20

Appended to several editions of the Tao-tÊ Ching is a small tract bearing the name Yin-fu Ching (???), that is, as explained by one author, the Classic of the Secret Tally. It contains only a few sentences, generally obscure and enigmatical, bearing on subjects similar to those treated of by Lao-tzu. The author of the work is unknown, and some refer it to the ancient Hwang-Ti (about B.C. 2630), while others bring it down so late as Li-Ch?uan (??) of the T?ang dynasty.21 It seems more probable, however, that it was written by T?ai-kung (??), who is also known as as LÜ-wang (??) and ChiÀng-shang (??). He was feudal chief of the principality of Ch?i (?), and lived under kings WÊn and Wu of the Chou dynasty (about B.C. 1150 to 1120). Szu-ma-ch?ien22 mentions the book under the title Chou-shu-yin-fu (????), as having been studied by Su-Ch?in (??), a famous general about the time of Mencius, who attained to the high position of chief minister for six of the seven states then contending; hence he is frequently spoken of as Liu-kuo-hsiang (???). The Yin-fu-Ching forms part of the curious book called the Magnetic Needle (???), where the text is accompanied with very interesting notes.