Lo the Editor of the Norra-Cuina Datry News.
Sin,—Some friend has been good enough to send me a copy of the Jeader in your issue of the Ist April, which contains a notice of the two volumes of Taoist Texts, as translated by me, and lately published at the Clarendon Pross, forming the 39th and 40th volumes of '*The Sacred Books of the East." Let me thank you for that leader, you allow to me " credit of faithful translation," and say that if the Tiu eh King be read simply as a Chinese composition, my version of it will prove highly useful to the student." You yourself, however, consider that the teaching of the Book is" Chinese reflection of Hindu philosophy, in other words, that it is for the most part borrowed, and not original. Ido not wish to enter at present into any discussion of that point. My object in thus writing to you is, with your permission, to take the earliest opportunity to correct as publicly as I can do at present, an error into which I fell ling Dr. Edkins's slow. of chapter 14th. Weiting with imperfect recollection of his article on the Treatise in the China Review, vol. XIII, No. 1,1 confounded his interpretation of it with that given by Remusat in 1823. The French Sinologue saw in the three terms in it descriptive of the Teo, and which we name J, Hi, and Wei, an attempt to express the Hebrew Tetragrammaton with which we are familiar under the appellation Jehovah. Dr. Edkins reads the Chinese characters, according to his theory of their ancient sounds, di, Kai, and Mai, and holds them to represent one or three names of God." ie seems to consider them to denote, though not in the original words, the first Trinity of the Babylonian religion. In my haste, without sufficient discrimination, I thought that he was returning to Rémusat's idea that they were a Chinese representation of the sound of the Hebrew name.
Edkins occasions me deep and sincere T can only say that my injustice to Dr.
regret. He writes to me naturally complaining of it. My view," he says, 'i that itis probably the Babylonian trinity to which there is an allusion, I do not and never did believe that £, Ht, Wei is Jehovah. I wish there were a way to correct this."
Thope that, by giving this letter a place in your excellent newspaper you will enable me to take the first step to correct my error. I am unable, indeed, to accept Dr. Edk jew of what Leo-tsze meant and tai ight, but I trust that he will accept this acknowledgment of my error in misstating his interpretation Lao's thought.
Tam, ete., Oxford, 13th May.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.