24 Confucianism may be read in the Legge translations, a popular abridged edition of which was issued in 1930 in Shanghai under the title of _The Four Books_. Commentaries on Confucius which present him in a well-rounded setting are Richard Wilhelm, _Confucius and Confucianism_, New York, 1931; the same, _Ostasien, Werden und Wandel des Chinesischen Kulturkreises_, Potsdam, 1928, for a very concise account and the celebrated _Geschichte der chinesischen Kultur_, Munich, 1928, for a longer account in a complete historical setting; Frederick Starr, _Confucianism_, New York, 1930; H. G. Creel, _Sinism_, Chicago, 1929; and Marcel Granet, _La Civilization Chinoise_, Paris, 1929. Bibliographies are found in several of these works. They deal with Confucius either in his historical setting or as the main object of study, and are under no necessity of distorting Confucius’ historical rôle for the purpose of showing his connection with some other topic. The reader may gauge the amount of distortion necessary when he imagines a work on Lenin, written for the information and edification of Soviet Eskimos, which—for the sake of clarity—was forced to summarize all Western thought, from Plato and Jesus Christ down to Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, in a few pages providing a background to Lenin. 25 There is a work on Confucianism upon which the author has leaned quite heavily: Leonard Shih-lien Hsü, _The Political Philosophy of Confucianism_, New York, 1932. Dr. Hsü is interested in sociological political theory. The novelty of his work has aroused a great amount of criticism among Chinese scholars of the older disciplines, whether the relatively conservative and established Western disciplines or the ultra-conservative schools of the truly classical literati. His work cannot be recommended for any purposes other than those which Dr. Hsü himself had in mind; there are several other works, the product of philosophers, historians, and literary historians, which will present a portrait of Confucius and Confucianism more conventionally exact. In its own narrow but definite field Dr. Hsü’s work is an impressive accomplishment; he transposes the Confucian terms into those of the most advanced schools of social thought. A reader not forewarned might suffer by this, and read into Confucius an unwarranted modernity of outlook; if, however, the up-to-dateness is recognized as Dr. Hsü’s and not Confucius’, the work is valuable. It puts Confucius on common ground with modern social theory, ground on which he does not belong, but where his ideas are still relevant and interesting. The present author follows Dr. Hsü in this transposition of Confucius, but begs the reader to remember that this is one made for purposes of