To the Editor of the Dean S1,—In your issue of Aug. 17th, Mr. McClatchie has told us thathe was the querist in the Chinese Hecorder who asked for proofs that the Suny philosophers differ their views from Confucius, The reason why he is not altogether pleased with the answer, probably is, that he perceives that the value of what he has written in Chinese cosmogony depends to sume extent on the identity of the opinions ut Chu-fu-tsi with those of the old Chinese sages, and that his identification of the system of Plate with that of Chi-fu-tsi will be in imminent danger, if it be shown. that this Chinese author' was materialistic and atheistic, He has therefore taken up the defence of Chu-fu-tsi, and answered seriatim what he represents as three charges made by me against that philosopher. Supposing, however, that this famous author were innocent of the three departures from Confucianism. specified in these charges, it would still be impossible to identify his system with that of the ancients. The two things were separated by 150 yea were not ism. In that respect they were decidedly inferior to the authors of the present dynasty. The Sung philosophers were also all dyed of one colour. They looked at the world, all of them, through the spectacles of the numerical and physical philosophy, and when they tried to deliniate that world, they drew 2 repulsive picture, lacking in every character of beauty. They formed a school of their own, distinctly characterized and known among modern scholars simply as the Sung school. It was for them impracticable to restore in their writings the ancient system as it was in the times of Tau, or of T'ang, or of Wen-wang, or even of Confucius. For this task they wanted intellectual ability.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.