When we read Lao-tzŭ’s sentiments about taxation, over-legislation, penal retributions and excessive governmental interference, and remember that these same subjects are still eagerly debated among Western philosophers and statesmen, we must ascribe to the Chinese sage a remarkable amount of what Humboldt calls the presentiment of knowledge. What he, however, could sketch only in faint outline on these subjects, has been broadly discussed in later and more auspicious times by men like Adam Smith, Bentham, Emerson and J. S. Mill. If we _now_ cannot but condemn his ignoring the individuality of each member of the state, his discouraging progress in the mechanical arts, and his magnifying the kingly office, we must remember that there are still among us, notwithstanding the experience and struggles of centuries, almost as great barriers to the enjoyment of personal liberty as were those which Lao-tzŭ recommends. Large standing armies at the call of one man—“incognoscibility” of the laws—bribery—gerrymandering—and, above all, the power of the many—are still great retarders of human freedom and prosperity. That such things exist, even though the voice of the philosopher is always against them, should make us indulgent towards the mistaken notions of a man who lived 2,500 years ago. [1] Treatise on the Methods of Observation. Reasoning in Politics, vol. 1, p. 44. [2] See Ch. 62. In Pi-yuan’s edition, 天下 is the reading, instead of 天子 of the ordinary texts. [3] See Wu-ch‘êng’s note to ch. 62 (52 in his edition). [4] Ch. 39. [5] See Chs. 3, 5. Compare Emerson (Essays, Vol. 2, pp. 208–9). [6] Ch. 29. [7] Ch. 78. [8] Ch. 25. We must remember that this passage is susceptible of a metaphorical meaning. See Tao-tê-hsing-ming-chièn-hsü. [9] Ch. 16. [10] Chs. 60, 29, 64. [11] Chs. 57, 13. [12] Ch. 54. [13] Ch. 26. For 臣, another reading is 平—that is, the gravity which brings esteem. [14] Ch. 25. For 王 here some editions have 人 man. [15] Ch. 17. This chapter, however, is susceptible of a totally different interpretation, 太上 being regarded as meaning the highest authority. For 下 also some read 不, not. [16] Ch. 48. [17] Chs. 37, 32. [18] Chs. 66, 68, 39. [19] Ch. 2. [20] Chs. 30, 31. [21] Pensées, Art, VII. [22] Ch. 46. [23] Ch. 74. [24] Ch. 57. [25] Chs. 57, 8. [26] Do. Compare Hobbes (Vol. 2, pp. 178–9, Molesworth Ed.). [27] Ch. 75. [28] Chs. 59, 53. [29] Ch. 17. [30] Chs. 36, 58. [31] Ch. 57. [32] Chs. 10, 19. [33] Chs. 65, 3. [34] Ch. 80. [35] Ch, 3. Wu-ch‘êng’s note. Julien, however, translates “il vide son cœur, &c.” Both translations are in harmony with the other teachings of Lao-tsŭ. [36] Chs. 39, 42. [37] Ch. 49. [38] Ch. xvii., vs. 14 to 20.