it seems a matter of course that their works should be measured in proportion to the undisputed merits of their own ancestors. Moreover, the Chinese of the present day are utterly indifferent as to whether their art makes an impression on us, or not; for, although we have had ample opportunity to admire the oratorial powers of Chinese speakers before Western audiences, none has as yet come forward as an interpreter of that subject so familiar to all educated Chinese, his native art. Even on Chinese soil the natives are generally reticent on the subject; dealers and owners of art treasures will withhold their best scrolls from the eyes of the lusty foreigner, who will at the best wrench from them a dilapidated Ming, not to speak of Yüan and Sung pictures. All this has tended to cause modern Chinese art to be neglected in a manner quite out of proportion with its real merit. The better masters of the Ming and present dynasties may not come up to those of the preceding periods, yet they have created excellent works, and considering the lack of authentic monuments of the older schools, Ming and Ts'ing pictures help to acquaint us with their styles, if we know from their endorsements which of them they represent either as copies or as imitations. What Chinese art historians have placed on record in connection with the artistic development of modern masters, the genealogy of styles to be reconstructed from literature, one of the principal studies yet before us, thus promises to be a great help to the student. Pictorial art during the Ming period (A.D. 1368 — 1644) has been ably dealt with by Prof. Giles in the last chapter of his book (pp. 149-170). All I would add from my own practical point of view is an observation which applies still more to the preceding periods: the literary information on record does not always correspond to the experiences bound to be made by every enquirer seriously bent on studying the subject on the spot. The mere literary student will undergo that difficult work of undigging from old records

biographical facts, anecdotes and characteristics about artists of whose works every trace was lost soon after their lifetime and whose names are hardly ever mentioned as having stimulated later workers with efforts similar to their own; on the other hand, since it is impossible to reproduce all the Chinese information on record, a selection made without a practical knowledge of the native dealers' tradition, such as only a collector will acquire, may lead to the omission of painters whose works command a decided position on the picture market. Among these I should have liked to see Giles' notes extended to three of the best known Ming painters, viz.

Lü Ki (EL, also called Ting-chön, ), known in Japan as Riôki, a contemporary of Tang Yin (about A.D. 1500), a distinguished painter of birds, landscapes and figures;

Lu Chi (, also called Su-p'ing, T, and Pau-shan, €), a great landscapist and painter of flowers, birds, bamboos and rocks, known in Japan a Riku-ji (A.D. 1496-1576); and

Sü Wei (, also called Wön-ts'ing, X, Wön-ch'ang, X, and Tién-chi, ), in spite of K'iu Ying, his con*, temporary (16. century), probably the greatest colorist of his time, whose very blots were looked upon as witnesses of his skill.

Apart from these I would emphasize as the greatest Ming artists, whose works are not beyond reach, though they have at all times been copied and counterfeited by impotent daubers: Tang Yin (Giles, p. 158), a contemporary of Raphael, since he died in A.D. 1523, and his teacher Chóa Chön (p. 159), Kiu Ying, Wön Chôngming the Academician, usually quoted as Wön Tai-chau (#7. A.D. 1470-1559, cf. Giles p. 159), Shön Chóu (p. 160), Ch'ön Shun (ibid.), Chou Chi-mién and Ting Yün-p'öng (p. 163).

Prof. Giles does not, unfortunately, give us an account of the painters of the present dynasty, "chiefly for lack of materials", and he adds (p. 170): "There is no authoritative work on art