十九世紀下半葉，在英國漢學家社群裡，以《中國評論》（The ChinaReview）為平台，展開了一場為期三年左右有關《道德經》真偽的學術論戰，箇中關鍵人物是年長尊古的理雅各（James Legge, 1815-1897）與年輕疑古的翟理斯（Herbert A. Giles, 1845-1935）。這場辯論之所以重要，在於真偽論辯是自十七世紀以來西方有關道家和《道德經》翻譯歷史過程中被忽略的面向。部分論點曾在民國以後受到幾位中國古史辯學者的關注與引用。本文論述的中心軸線在理雅各與其《道德經》的翻譯，依其三階段歷程，系統地分析箇中關鍵與論據。首先，從他翻譯工作的前置作業，包括他對早期耶穌會士的譯本和法國漢學界的《道德經》翻譯的評論作為起點。其次，釐清他與翟理斯的對於《道德經》真偽的論戰其中涉及對於中國傳統古典文獻的態度與方法問題，最後觀察分析他在辯論之後出版《道德經》譯本(1891)中所提出的對此經典的總結性意見。從當中我們可以觀察到尊古的老漢學家理雅各，如何面對來自翟理斯這位年輕漢學家的挑戰；後者意圖採取所謂的科學方法，批判前者對中國古典一致性的尊重。最後也觀察到西方漢學界與中國學術傳統的因為疑古風潮而產生的關聯性。

During the second half of the 19th century, a three-year academic debate on the authenticity of the Dao De Jing transpired within the British sinologist community, using The China Review as a platform for discussion. Among the participants, the key actors were James Legge (1815-1897) and Herbert A. Giles (1845-1935), representatives of two differing generations of British sinologists. Understanding this debate is significant as the authenticity of Laozi 老子 had never been questioned within the course of history on the translating of Daoism in the West, which began during the 17th century. On the basis of the research and translations carried out by both sinologists, the author discusses their arguments and debates concerning Laozi in three parts: firstly, this paper revisits Legge’s review of the translations of the Dao De Jing published by his predecessors, including the early Jesuits as well as other prominent French and German sinologists. Secondly, their debate on the authenticity of Laozi, which involves their attitudes toward and methods utilized regarding classical Chinese literature, is clarified. Finally, the author analyzes the main concluding remarks presented in his complete translation of the Dao De Jing in 1891 following the debate. From this discussion we can note how the older sinologist Legge, who respected the consistency of Chinese tradition, handled the challenges presented by the younger Giles, who had intended to adopt a textual methodology to criticize the former’s attitudes toward the Chinese classics. Finally, the correlation between Western sinology and Chinese academic traditions is also highlighted as several portions of their arguments would be given attention to and cited by several Chinese scholars of ancient history who participated in the Doubting Antiquity Movement in the 1920s and 30s.