While noticing the many points of affinity between Lao-tzŭ and Confucius, we ought not to forget that there are at the same time great and important differences between them. The type of mind of the former does not very much resemble that of the latter. Lao-tzŭ is chiefly synthetic and Confucius analytic in tendency. The former likes to sum up particular virtues and existences, and refer them to one all-embracing idea. The latter shows how one great principle branches off and becomes separated into many secondary odes and finally permeates all things. The one is a philosopher at home, and the other a schoolmaster abroad. The relation between the two may in some respects be compared to that between Plato and Aristotle, if it be lawful to compare small things with great. The character of Plato’s mind also somewhat resembles that of Lao-tzŭ, while Aristotle is very faintly foreshadowed in Confucius. He was a disciple of Plato and yet he came to differ very widely from his master, but not more than Confucius did from Lao-tzŭ. In both cases the disciple became more practical and less theoretical than his master. Yet it must be borne in mind that many of Confucius’ teachings in politics and morals are either nonsensical or at least vague and incomprehensible, and that Lao-tzŭ’s general theories are not seldom applicable to particulars and the actual world. [1] Page 9. [2] Vol. ii., Appendix, ch. 12. [3] Vol. ii., Appendix, ch. 5. [4] Ch. 10, page 65, compare also the Chung-Yung, ch. 27. [5] Vol. ii., Appendix, ch. 2. [6] Ch. 9, p. 6. See also the remarks of Callery in his note to this passage. Li-ki, p. 142. [7] Chinese Classics, vol. i., p. 282 3–4. The Chinese and their Rebellions, p. 351. [8] Compare Yi-ching, Vol. ii., Appendix, ch. 11, with the Tao-tê ching, ch. 6. [9] Legge’s Shu, vol. i., p. 113. [10] Chinese Classics, vol. 1, p. 159. [11] Legge’s Shu King, vol. ii., p. 316. [12] Legge’s Ch. Classics, vol, i., p. 44. [13] See for instance Legge, Ch. Classics, vol. i., p. 136. [14] See Legge, vol. i., ps. 122, 130; also the Li-chi, ch. 4, p. 52. [15] Legge, &c., vol. i., p. 122. [16] Legge, &c., vol. i., p. 131. [17] Legge’s Shu King, vol. ii., p. 525. Vol. i., p. 257. [18] Legge’s Shu King, vol. i., p. 74, also vol. ii., p. 532. [19] Legge’s Shu King, vol. i., p. 349. Vol. ii., p. 574. [20] See Li-chi, ch, 8, p. 70. [21] Legge Shu King, &c., vol. i., p. 158. [22] See Legge, Ch. Classics, vol. i., 166 and p. 3. Compare also the memorable words in the Li-chi, ch. 9, p. 489. [23] Vol. ii., Appendix, Part 2, ch. 12. [24] See Legge Ch. Classics, vol. i, p. 21. [25] See Legge, vol. i., p. 165. [26] See Legge, vol. i., p. 152. [27] Legge’s Shu King, vol. i., p. 60. See also Dr. Legge’s note on the passage. See also do. p. 257. [28] See Li-chi, ch. 4, p. 52. [29] See Legge’s Chinese Classics, vol. i., p. 14.