t'uDg-yun " (iSf -^ JJ bJ), which was published at the Imperial

Press in 1684. The full title (given in a note below) is explained by the author thus : The words '^ Kang-hsi-chia-tzii " indicate the reign and the year of the reign in which the book is publish- ed; " Shi-kuan-hsin-k'an " means newly corrected by Imperial Archivists ; and *' Ku-chin-t'ung-yun " shows that the work is concerned with a comparison of the words sanctioned as rhymes now, with those so used in old literature. In the introduction there is a critical review of the current theories on the origin and history of the modes of representing the sounds of characters. The treatise of Liu Yuan was the basis of the Ku-chin-t'ung- yun," which adopts the 106 finals of the period. Mao teaches that in the old classical poetry there was no separation of the pHng, shang, and ch^ii tones, but that words in the ju tone formed a class by themselves. His criticisms on Wu Yii and others are often severe, and he writes generally in a dogmatic, dictatorial manner. His book is read by students, but it is not sanctioned as an authority on the subject of " interchangeable finals."

In 1705 appeared the first edition of the *' Cheng-tzu-t'ung " (IE ? 3ii) compiled in the last years of the seventeenth century. This dictionary is merely an enlarged and improved edition of the original " Tzu-wei.*' It was compiled from the latter by Liao Wen-ying (0 Tj^ 3^) al. Pai-tzu ("g -J), but the current editions bear the names of Mei Ying-tsu, the compiler of the " Tzu-wei," and Han T'an (@ ^) the editor of that work. The last named is also sometimes referred to as the author of the " Cheng-tzu-t'ung." This work has been blamed for carelessness and ina c curacy, and the compilers of the Kanghsi Lexicon are severe on its demerits. Fault has been found with it specially for its mistakes as to the assignment of characters to their classifiers or radicals. In its latest editions, however, it is a valuable work and gives useful information on the sounds a,nd structure of characters, not only in the body of the treatise but also in the parts which are supplementary. A comparison of

the " Cheng- tzu-t'ung"iwith| the Kanghsi Dictionary will shew