cited by Julien also seems to require another word than _way_ to translate _Tao_, and the same remark applies to the occurrence of the word in several other places throughout the _Tao-tê Ching_.[27] We may say of the _Tao_, as “Voie” or Way, that it revolves everywhere; but we can scarcely speak of it as being parent of the Universe—the first and highest existence. _Way_ or _road_ is, no doubt, one of the earliest meanings of the character _Tao_, and that which underlies many of its other uses. Nor is it very difficult to trace its progress from the perfectly concrete _course_ or _channel_, and the abstract _line_ or _guide_, to the ideal _path_ or _course_ which universal nature eternally and unchangingly pursues. What Lao-tzŭ does, as it seems to me, is to identify Nature and her ideal course; and as he could find no more general word whereby to express this ultimate ideal unity, he uses the word _Tao_ to designate it, just as a mathematician uses _x_ to express an unknown quantity. In order to appreciate Lao-tzŭ’s system properly, we must substitute for _Tao_ a word corresponding as closely as possible to it in width of meaning and vagueness of association. It bears a somewhat close analogy to the _Apeiron_ of the old Ionic philosopher Anaximander; but the Indeterminate or the Indefinite is rather an awkward word to be frequently using, and we do not know enough of Anaximander’s system to warrant us in substituting the _Apeiron_ for _Tao_. In modern times, again, the _Substance_ in Spinoza’s philosophy, and the _Absolute_ in Schelling’s, resemble it in many points; but neither could serve as a proper translation. I have accordingly determined to express _Tao_ by our word _Nature_, using it in its widest and most abstract sense—“great creating Nature.” But I do not wish to be understood as implying that this word corresponds exactly to _Tao_—far from it. I use it simply as in my opinion the nearest approach we can get.[28] So, then, we may say of Lao-tzŭ’s system that it refers all matter and spirit in the universe to one original Nature, from which they both originated, by which they are maintained, and into which they are to be finally absorbed. This is the first general observation I have to make on his philosophy.