The article discusses how Tao Xijin's views on the nature of socialist civil law were misrepresented in his collected works. The author identifies seven instances of false revision in Tao Xijin's writings, focusing on the distinction between civil law and public law. They argue that Tao Xijin did not intend to suggest that civil law should only belong to one category, but rather should be seen as a combination of both public and private law. Through textual research, the author aims to clarify Tao Xijin's original perspective on the public nature of civil law.