Hildreth’s “Japan as it Was and Is” was published in three editions,—in 1855, 1856, and 1861. In the last edition a new chapter was added to bring the book down to that date. The value of the book, as a compilation from all the important European writings on Old Japan, has always been acknowledged, but has been somewhat diminished by the various old-fashioned styles of transliteration, which rendered many Japanese words difficult of recognition. Therefore the present writer, more than ten years ago, conceived the idea of a revision of Hildreth’s work, especially by harmonizing the spelling of Japanese words with the modern system of Romanization, and by adding such other notes and explanations as might be necessary. This he has been doing gradually, as leisure afforded opportunity. In the meantime Mr. K. Murakawa, an alumnus of the Imperial University, Tōkyō, has issued, in two small limited editions, in 1902 and 1905, a reprint somewhat along that line. But as his work was done with the needs of Japanese in view, it does not entirely satisfy the needs of foreigners. The present writer acknowledges his indebtedness to Mr. Murakawa in some points, but he had done almost all his work before he saw the Japanese edition. He now offers an edition which is not merely a reprint, but also a revision, and is well illustrated. Of course the text of the original has been followed as closely as possible, and yet not only additions, but also excisions, have been made whenever necessary. For instance, some of the footnotes and several of the long notes in the Appendix have been omitted because they have become either wholly or comparatively valueless. The writer’s additional notes are signed “Edr.,” and where Mr. Murakawa’s notes have been used the initials “K. M.” are signed. Mr. Murakawa says that Hildreth’s book “contains many errors,” because it was “written by an _author_ who was not in a position to avail himself of the Japanese sources, at a _time_ when Japan was yet closed against foreign intercourse, and at a _place_ far away from Japan.” This statement is partly true but somewhat unjust, because it fails to take into consideration the fact that Hildreth’s work is chiefly a compilation, including lengthy quotations, from _authors_ who did avail themselves as much as possible of Japanese sources, at the very _time_ when they themselves were living in the very _place_, Japan itself. But these writers were, of course, far from infallible and made errors of fact or inference which Hildreth followed. And yet it is really remarkable that, with so many limitations and hindrances, they gained so good an insight into Japanese life.