That the work of translating the ese Classics had to be done, was also a y of the time, and Dr. Legge has aplished it, and the result is a dozen huge, ponderous tomes. The quantity of work done is certainly stupendous, whatever may be thought of the quality. In presence of these huge volumes we feel almost afraid to speak. heless, it must be fessed that the work does not altogether satisfy us. Mr. Balfour justly remarks that in translating these classics a great deal depends upoerminology employed by the translator. Now we feel that the terminology employed by Dr. Legge is harsh, crude, ie, and in some places, almost unidiomatic. So far for the form. As to the matter, we will not hazard our own opinion, but will let the Rev. Mr. Faber of ton speak for us. "Dr. Legges own notes on Mencius, "he says, "show that Dr. Legge has not a philosophiderstanding of his author." We are certain that Dr. Legge could not have read and translated these works without having in some way tried to ceive and shape to his own mind the teag of fucius and his school as a ected whole; yet it is extraordinary that her in his notes nor in his dissertations has Dr. Legge let slip a single phrase or senteo show what he ceived the teag of fucius really to be, as a philosophic whole. Altogether, therefore, Dr. Legge s judgment on the value of these works ot by any means be accepted as final, and the translator of the ese Classics is yet to e. Sihe appearance of the two works above mentioned, many books have been written on a: a few, it is true, of really great scholastic importance; but none, we believe showing that ese scholarship has reached an important turning point.
First, there is Mr. Wylie s "Notes on ese Literature. " It is, however, a mere catalogue, and not a book with any literary pretension at all. Another is the late Mr. Mayerss "ese Readers Manual . " It is certainly not a work that lay claim to any degree of perfe. heless, it is a very great work, the most ho stious and uending of all the books that have been written on a. Its usefulness, moreover, is inferior only to the Tzu-Erh-Chi of Sir Thomas Wade.
Another ese scholar of note is Mr. Herbert A. Giles of the British sular Service. Like the early French sinologues, Mr. Giles possesses the enviable advantage of a clear, vigorous, aiful
style. Every object he touches upon bees at once clear and luminous. But with one or two exceptions, he has not been quite fortunate in the choice of subjects worthy of his pen. One exception is the "Straories from a ese Studio," which may be taken as a model of what translation from the ese should be. But the Liao-chai-chih-i, a remarkably beautiful literary work of art though it be, belongs yet not to the highest spes of ese literature.
ges labours, Mr.Balfours ret translation of the Nan-hua King of g-tzu is a work of certainly the highest ambition. We fess to have experienced, when we first heard the work announced, a degree of expectation and delight which the annou of an Englishmaering the Hanlin College would scarcely have raised in us. The Nan-hua King is aowledged by the ese to be one of the most perfect of the highest spes of their national literature. Sis appearawo turies before the Christian era, the influence of the book upoerature of a is scarcely inferior to the works of fucius and his schools; while its effect upon the language and spirit of the poetical and imaginative literature of succeeding dynasties is almost as exclusive