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 (道德經註) by Ho-shang-kung, or as Ma-tuan-lin names the book, Ho-Shang-Kung-Chu-Lao-tzŭ, 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 (文帝) 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-tzŭ’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 Shĕ-tzŭ-chʽuan-shu (十字全書) published during the reign of Chia-Chʽing 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-tzŭ’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.