REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 195 



and to complete the idea two other words should have been added 

 P$ $} $b ?}) • These are the two functions of the hung fu. 



Under Joly it is stated, 'he translated the Hung Lou Meng.' 

 This is not quite correct. He only translated a part, publishing 

 Vol. I only. 



A few typographical alterations will also have to be made, B.C. 

 should come after the year, and a.d. before. Ma Kuang Lin (p. Ill), 

 should be Ma Tuan Lin : Cha Chiao fc f% (p. 338) : merits of the 

 presses (p. 377) must be mistakes. Amiot is given as ££ ^ |^: 

 should it not be £f ^ JpJ ? 



Under Fevdal States it is stated that 'the son of the Duke of 

 Chow, Po Ch'ing, was invested with the State of Lu' (p. 177). This 

 is hardly correct. It was the Duke, the father, who had the fiefdom. 

 This is clearly stated by Mencius, Pt. II, Chap. VIII, p. 6, Legge. 

 Preferring to remain in Chow, the King being very aged, and the 

 heir an infant, Pei Ch'in (not Ch'ing) fg[ j£ the son of the duke, 

 was deputed in the place of the father. 



These after all are only minor defects. Mr. Couling has made 

 it evident that this work is only a cadre for future expansion. We 

 heartily commend this valuable work. M. 



"Gems of Chinese Verse. Translated into English Verse. By 



W. J. B. Fletcher. Shanghai, Commercial Press. 

 Those who know China, her language and her people, might think 

 that English versions of Chinese poems would not appeal to those 

 who have not such knowledge; but to judge from the- appreciative 

 reviews which have appeared recently on both sides of the Atlantic, 

 and from the speeding up of production, the contrary is the case. To 

 go back only a very few years, — our own modest library contains a 

 volume which appeared in 1912 ; two of 1916 ; one of 1917 ; and now 

 comes Mr. Fletcher again with his Gems of Chinese Verse. Such a 

 book may be regarded from several points of view, and we may ask 

 i. What is its value per set Is it poetry, or verse, or doggerel? 

 ii. How far is it an equivalent for the original? Would one use it to 

 introduce Chinese poetry, say, to a friend in the West? iii. How far 

 is it likely to be useful to the student of Chinese? 



i. Using these three tests, we note with regard to the first that the 

 enthusiastic friend who writes the preface (and who seems to think 

 this is the first book of the kind) tells us this is "true poetry." 

 But is it? What constitutes poetry is as open to dispute as what 

 constitutes beauty in other spheres ; we can only speak for ourselves. 



