Julien and myself; but his main object in his article was to discredit the genuineness and authenticity of the Tao Te Ching itself. “The work,” he says, “is undoubtedly a forgery. It contains, indeed, much that Laozi 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 Tao Te Ching as genuine relic of Laozi , one of the most original minds of the Chinese race.

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