Chapter VII: The Programs of Min Shêng (2)

Chung Kung-jên; _San Min Chu I Li Lun Ti Lien Chiu (A Study of the
Theory of the San Min Chu I)_, Shanghai, 1931.

Huang Huan-wên; _Sun Wên Chu I Chen Ch’üan (The Real
Interpretation of the Principles of Sun Wên)_, Nanking, 1933.

Lin Pai-k’ê (Linebarger, Paul M. W.), Hsü Chih-jên (translator);
_Sun I-hsien Chüan Chi (The Life of Sun Yat-sen)_, 4th ed.,
Shanghai, 1927.

The Chinese translator has appended an excellent chronology of Sun’s life.

Sun Fu-hao; _San Min Chu I Piao Chieh (An Elementary Explanation
of the Sun Min Chu I)_, Shanghai, 1933.

Sun Yat-sen, Hu Han-min, ed.; _Tsung-li Ch’üan Chi (The Complete
Works of the Leader)_, 4 vol. in 1; 2nd ed., Shanghai, 1930.

The best collection, but by no means complete.

Sun Yat-sen; _Sun Chung-shan Yen Chiang Chi (A Collection of the
Lectures of Sun Chung-shan)_, 3rd ed., Shanghai, 1927.

Sun Yat-sen; _Tsung-li Yü Mo (The Posthumous Papers of the
Leader)_, Nanking, n. d.

Têng Hsi; _Chung Shan Jên Shêng Shih Hsia Tan Yüan, (An Inquiry
into the Origin of Chung Shan’s Philosophy of Life)_, Shanghai,
1933.

Tsao Kê-jen; _Sun Chung Shan Hsien-shêng Ching Chi Hsüeh Shê (The
Economic Theory of Mr. Sun Chung-shan)_, Nanking, 1935.

II. Works on China or the Revolution.

Amann, Gustav; _Sun Yatsens Vermächtnis_, Berlin, 1928.

Bland, J. O. and Backhouse, E.; _China Under the Empress Dowager_,
Philadelphia, 1910.

Beresford, Lord Charles; _The Break-up of China_, London, 1899.

Bonnard, Abel; _En Chine (1920-1921)_, Paris, 1924.

Burgess, J. S.; _The Guilds of Peking_, New York, 1928.

Buxton, L. H. Dudley; _China, The Land and the People_, Oxford,
1929.

Chen Tsung-hsi, Wang An-tsiang, and Wang I-ting; _General Chiang
Kai-shek: The Builder of New China_, Shanghai, 1929.

_Chinese Social and Political Science Review, The_, Peking
(Peiping), 1916-. The foremost journal of its kind in the Far
East.

_China Today_, New York, 1934-. Communist Monthly.

_China Weekly Review, The_, Shanghai, 1917-.

The leading English-language weekly in China, Liberal in outlook.

_China Year Book, The_, Shanghai, 1919-?

A necessary reference work for government personnel, trade statistics, and chronology. Perhaps inferior to the corresponding volumes in other countries.

Close, Upton, _pseud._ (Hall, Josef Washington); _Challenge:
Behind the Face of Japan_, New York, 1934.

——; _Eminent Asians_, New York, 1929.

Coker, Francis; _Recent Political Thought_, New York, 1934.

Creel, H. G.; Sinism, _A Study of the Evolution of the Chinese
World-view_, Chicago, 1929.

Cressey, George Babcock; _China’s Geographic Foundations_, New
York, 1934.

de Groot, J. J. M.; _Religion in China_, New York and London,
1912.

Djang, Chu (Chang Tso); _The Chinese Suzerainty_, Johns Hopkins
University doctoral dissertation, 1935.

Douglas, Sir Robert K.; _Europe and the Far East 1506-1912_, New
York, 1913.

Ellis, Henry; _Journal of the Proceedings of the Late Embassy to
China..._, Philadelphia, 1818.

_Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_, New York, 1930-.

Articles on “Kuomintang” and “Sun Yat-sen.”

Erdberg, Oskar; _Tales of Modern China_, Moscow, 1932.

Erkes, Eduard; _Chinesische Literatur_, Breslau, 1922.

Foreign Office of Japan, The (?); _The Present Condition of
China_, Tokyo (?), 1932.

No author nor place of publication is given in this work, which presents a description of those features of Chinese political and economic life that might be construed as excusing Japanese intervention.

_Fundamental Laws of the Chinese Soviet Republic_, The, New York,
1934.

Goodnow, Frank Johnson; _China: An Analysis_, Baltimore, 1926.

Granet, Marcel; _Chinese Civilization_, New York, 1930.

Harvey, E. D.; _The Mind of China_, New Haven, 1933.

Holcombe, Arthur N.; _The Chinese Revolution_, Cambridge
(Massachusetts), 1930.

——; _The Spirit of the Chinese Revolution_, New York, 1930.

Hsia Ching-lin; Chow, James L. E.; and Chang, Yukon (translators);
_The Civil Code of The Republic of China_, Shanghai, 1930.

Hsieh, Pao Chao; _The Government of China (1644-1911)_, Baltimore,
1925.

Hsü, Leonard Shih-lien; _The Political Philosophy of
Confucianism_, New York, 1932.

Hsü, Pao-chien; _Ethical Realism in Neo-Confucian Thought_,
Dissertation, Columbia University, n. d.

Suggests the position of Sun Yat-sen in the history of Chinese philosophy.

Hu Shih; and Lin Yu-tang; _China’s Own Critics_, Peiping, 1931.

Isaacs, Harold (editor); _Five Years of Kuomintang Reaction_,
Shanghai, 1931.

Johnston, Reginald; _Twilight in the Forbidden City_, London,
1934.

Koo, V. K. Wellington; _Memoranda Presented to the Lytton
Commission_, New York, n. d.

Kotenev, Anatol M.; _New Lamps for Old_, Shanghai, 1931.

Kulp, D. H.; _Family Life in South China: The Sociology of
Familism_, New York, 1925.

Latourette, Kenneth; _The Chinese: Their History and Culture_, New
York, 1934.

Lea, Homer; _The Valor of Ignorance_, New York, 1909.

Liang Ch’i-ch’ao; _History of Chinese Political Thought_, New York
and London, 1930.

Li Chi; _The Formation of the Chinese People_, Cambridge
(Massachusetts), 1928.

Lin Yutang; _My Country and My People_, New York, 1936.

Linebarger, Paul Myron Wentworth; _Deutschlands Gegenwärtige
Gelegenheiten in China_, Brussels, 1936.

Lou Kan-jou; _Histoire Sociale de l’Epoque Tcheou_, Paris, 1935.

MacNair, Harley Farnsworth; _China in Revolution_, Chicago, 1931.

——; _Modern Chinese History—Selected Readings_, Shanghai, 1923.

Mänchen-Helfen, Otto; _China_, Dresden, 1931.

Maybon, Albert; _La Politique Chinoise_, Paris, 1908.

Sun Yat-sen presented a copy of this book to Judge Linebarger, and enthusiastically recommended it.

Maybon, Albert; _La Republique Chinoise_, Paris, 1914.

Mayers, William Frederick; _The Chinese Government, A Manual of
Chinese Titles, Categorically Explained and Arranged, with an
Appendix_, Shanghai, 1897.

McGovern, William Montgomery; _Modern Japan, Its Political,
Military, and Industrial Organization_, London, 1920.

Myron, Paul, pseud. (Linebarger, Paul M. W.); _Our Chinese Chances
Through Europe’s War_, Chicago, 1915.

Meadows, Thomas Taylor; _The Chinese and Their Rebellions_,
London, 1856.

One of the permanently outstanding books on China; dealing primarily with the T’ai P’ing rebellion, it presents an extraordinarily keen analysis of the politics of the old Chinese social system.

Ogden, C. K. and Richards, I. A.; _The Meaning of Meaning_, New
York and London, 1927.

It is largely upon this work that the present author has sought to base his technique of ideological analysis.

Peffer, Nathaniel; _The Collapse of a Civilization_, New York,
1930.

Price, Ernest Batson; _The Russo-Japanese Treaties of 1907-1916
Concerning Manchuria and Mongolia_, Baltimore, 1933.

Pages 1-13 present stimulating suggestions as to the nature of “China.”

Reichwein, Adolf; _China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic
Contacts in the Eighteenth Century_, New York, 1925.

Roffe, Jean; _La Chine Nationaliste 1912-1930_, Paris, 1931.

Roy, Manabendra Nath; _Revolution und Konterrevolution in China_,
Berlin, 1930.

Ruffé, R. d’Auxion de; _Is China Mad?_ Shanghai, 1928.

The author, violently hostile to Sun Yat-sen, presents some details of Sun’s life not published elsewhere.

Smith, Arthur; _Village Life in China_, New York, 1899.

Sheean, Vincent; _Personal History_, New York, 1935.

Shryock, John Knight; _The Origin and Development of the State
Cult of Confucius_, New York, 1932.

Starr, Frederick; _Confucianism_, New York, 1930.

Stoddard, Lothrop; _The Rising Tide of Color Against White World
Supremacy_, New York, 1930.

T’ang Leang-li; _The Inner History of the Chinese Revolution_, New
York, 1930.

——; _Wang ching-wei_, Peiping, 1931.

Tawney, Richard Henry; _Land and Labour in China_, London, 1932.

Thomas, Elbert Duncan; _Chinese Political Thought_, New York,
1927.

Treat, Payson J.; _The Far East_, New York and London, 1928.

Trotsky, Leon; _Problems of the Chinese Revolution_, New York,
1932.

Tyau Min-ch’ien T. Z.; _Two Years of Nationalist China_, Shanghai,
1930.

van Dorn, Harold Archer; _Twenty Years of The Chinese Republic_,
New York, 1932.

Vinacke, Harold Monk; _Modern Constitutional Development in
China_, Princeton, 1920.

Wang Ch’ing-wei et al.; _The Chinese National Revolution_,
Peiping, 1930.

Weale, E. L. Putnam, _pseud._ (Simpson, Bertram Lennox); _The
Vanished Empire_, London, 1926.

Weber, Max; _Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie_,
Tübingen, 1922.

Wieger, Leon, S. J.; _Chine Moderne_, 10 volumes, Hsien-hsien,
1921-32.

An enormous scrapbook of translations from the Chinese illustrating political and religious trends. Catholic point of view.

——; _Textes Historiques: Histoire Politique de la Chine_,
Hsien-hsien, 1929.

—— and Davrout, L., S. J.; _Chinese Characters_, Hsien-hsien,
1927.

Wilhelm, Richard (Danton, G. H. and Danton, A. P., translators);
_Confucius and Confucianism_, New York, 1931.

——; _Geschichte der chinesischen Philosophie_, Breslau, 1929.

——; _Ostasien, Werden und Wandel des Chinesischen Kulturkreises_,
Potsdam and Zürich, 1928.

Perhaps the best of all works introductory to Chinese civilization.

Williams, S. Wells; _The Middle Kingdom_, New York, 1895.

——; _A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language_, Tungchou,
1909.

Wu Ch’ao-ch’u, _The Nationalist Program for China_, New Haven,
1930.

Wu Kuo-cheng; _Ancient Chinese Political Theories_, Shanghai,
1928.

Ziah, C. F.; _Philosophie Politique de la Chine Ancienne (700-221
AV. J.-C.)_, Paris, 1934.

CHINESE-ENGLISH GLOSSARY.

The author has not sought to prepare a lexicon of modern Chinese political terms. He presents, however, a list of those Chinese words which have frequently been left untranslated in the text, together with the ideographs by which they are written in China, and brief definitions. Variant meanings, however significant, have been omitted. Peculiar definitions, to be found only in the present work, have been enclosed in brackets. To locate the phrases, and discussions of them, consult the index.

正 _chêng_; right; rectified
主 _chu_; used as a compound with _i_, below, to make _chu-i_:
principle, -ism
權 _ch’üan_; power
會 _hui_; society; guild
縣 _hsien_; district (a political subdivision)
義 _i_; propriety
仁 _jên_; humanity; fellow-feeling; benevolence, etc. [consciousness
of social orientation]
禮 _li_; rites; ceremonies [ideological conformity]
民 _min_; people; _Volk_
名 _ming_; name [terminology, or, a part of ideology]
能 _nêng_; capacity
霸 _pa_; violence; violent; tyrant; tyrannous
三 _san_; three
生 _shêng_; life; regeneration; livelihood
大 _ta_; great
道 _tao_; path; way; principle
德 _têh_; virtue
族 _tsu_; unity; kinship
同 _t’ung_; harmony; concord
王 _wang_; king; kingly
樂 _yüeh_; rhythm

INDEX.

PROPER NAMES AND SPECIAL TERMS

America (_see also_ United States), 62, 220

American Indians, 124

Anglo-Saxons, 62

Annam, 127

Austria, 62

Beresford, Lord Charles, 187

Bismarck, 254 ff.

Bolsheviks (_see_ Russians, Marxian philosophy)

Borodin, 5, 7, 161

Boxer Rebellion, 78

British Empire, 71, 199

Burgess, J. S., 41..

Cantlie, Sir James, 84

Canton, 7, 66, 126, 233

Catherine I of Russia, 243

Catholic Church, 54n., 122

Chang Tso (Djang Chu), 186n.

Ch’en Ch’iung-ming, 6

Chen, Eugene, 159n.

Chêng, state of, 27

_chêng ming_, 31ff., 83ff., 104, 114, 210

_ch’i_, 110

Chiang Chieh-shih (Chiang Kai-shek), 102n., 158n., 163n., 206

_Chien Kuo Fang Lo_ (see _The Program of National Reconstruction_)

_Chien Kuo Ta Kang_ (see _see The Outline of National Reconstruction_)

Ch’ien Lung, the Emperor, 168

Ch’in dynasty, 47

Ch’in Shih Huang Ti, the, 26n., 37

Chinese Eastern Railway, the, 201

Ch’ing dynasty (_see_ Manchu dynasty)

Chou dynasty, 25, 28

Christianity, 49, 67, 133n., 155n.

_ch’üan_, 107ff., 141, 218

_chun ch’üan_, 100n.

Chung Hua, The Republic of, 190

Cohen, Morris, 8n.

Coker, Francis W., 147ff.

Communists, 10, 64ff., 66, 106, 122, 160, 161, 163ff., 189, 205, 246ff.

Confucianism, 23ff., 60, 66ff., 82ff., 90ff., 106, 109, 113ff., 210

Confucius (K’ung Ch’iu), 25ff., 60, 76, 97, 105, 261

Creel, H. G., 23n.

Cressey, George B., 127n.

Davrout, L., 32n.

d’Elia, Paschal M., 4n.

Donbas region, 246

Douglas, Sir Robert K., 243n.

Dutch, the, 44n.

Empress Dowager, Tzŭ Hsi, the, 131

England, 62, 150n., 188

Erdberg, Oskar, 161n.

Fascism, 54, 146ff., 244

Ford, Henry, 132

_Four Books, The_, 75

France, 188

Gandhi, M. K., 156n., 180

Genro, the, 131

George III of England, 243

George, Henry, 72, 136ff., 144, 256

Germany, 62, 100, 196, 254ff.

Goodnow, Frank J., 97

Granet, Marcel, 23n.

Great Britain (_see_ British Empire, England)

_Great Learning, The_, 74

Greeks, the, 133

Hai Ching Kung, the, 44n.

Hamilton, Alexander, 77

Han Fei-tzŭ, 29, 93

Harvey, E. D., 154n.

Hawaii, 61n.

Hitler, Adolf, 56

Holcombe, Arthur N., 11n.

Hongkong, 51n.

Honolulu, 126

_hou chih hou chou_, the, 105

Hsieh, Pao-chao, 45n.

_hsien_, 45, 211ff., 230ff.

_hsien chih hsien chou_, the, 104, 106

Hsin dynasty, 58

Hsü, Leonard Shih-lien, 4n.

Hu Han-min, 4n., 186

_hui_, 38, 41, 95, 165

Hulutao port, 260

_hung fang_, 100n.

Hung Hsiu-ch’üan, 58

Hung Jair, 236n.

“ideology,” 18ff.

India, 90, 181

_International Development of China, The_, 4

Isaacs, Harold, 161n.

Japan, 28, 40, 47, 48, 51, 59, 63, 90, 170, 184, 188, 199ff., 240, 260

_jên_, 14, 30ff., 72ff., 141, 142, 144ff., 154, 263

Jên T’ai, 31n.

Jews, the, 168

Joffe, Adolf, 64

Johnston, Sir Reginald, 119

Kailan Mining Administration, The, 179

K’ang Hsi, the Emperor, 168

“Kang Têh” (_see_ P’u Yi)

Koo, V. K. Wellington, 122n.

Korea (Chosen), 48, 59, 70, 127, 200

Kulp, D. H., 38n.

Ku Hung-ming, 77

K’ung family, 90

Kung, H. H., 122n.

Kuo Hsing-hua, 44n.

Kuomintang, the, 104, 158ff., 205

Kwangtung Province (_see_ Canton)

Kuzbas region, 246

Lao Tzŭ, 25

Latins, the, 62

Latourette, Kenneth Scott, 91n.

Lea, Homer, 195

Lee, Frank C., 122n.

Legge translations, the, 23n., 75n.

Lenin, V. I., 132, 230n., 247

_li_, 31ff., 104, 115

Li Chao-wei, 219n.

Li Chi, 86n.

Li Ti-tsun, 137n.

Liang Ch’i-ch’ao, 30, 31n.

Lin Shen, President, 122n.

Lincoln, Abraham, 262

Linebarger, Paul Myron Wentworth, 8n., 84

Lotus society, the, 41

Lovejoy, Arthur O., 18n.

Lynn, Jermyn Chi-hung, 221n.

Macao, 49

Machiavelli, Niccolò, 26

“machine state,” 54

MacNair, Harley Farnsworth, 11n.

Malaysia, 186

Manchu (Ch’ing) dynasty, 22, 43, 44n., 47, 58ff., 96, 111, 119, 124, 131, 159ff., 167ff., 172ff., 182, 190, 227

“Manchukuo” (“Manchoukuo”), 71

Manchuria, 2, 51, 201, 205, 260

Mandarins, 104ff.

_Manifesto_ of the first Party congress, 4

Mannheim, Karl, 18n.

Marx, Karl, 72n., 163

Marxian philosophy, 14ff., 52, 55, 70, 72, 81n., 106, 125, 134n., 137ff., 144, 192ff., 209ff., 236, 257ff.

Marxism-Leninism, 81, 136, 182, 189, 192ff.

Mayers, William Frederick, 45n.

Meiji Emperor, the, 82, 131

Mencius (Mêng Tzŭ), 76, 93, 97

Miao tribes, 168

Mill, John Stuart, 98n.

Millar, John, 98

_min_, 217

_min ch’üan_, 99, 100n., 209ff.

_Min Ch’üan Ts’u Pu_ (see _The Primer of Democracy_)

_min shêng_, 12, 101, 121, 122ff., 141, 180, 193, 236ff.

_min tsu_, 36, 99, 120

Ming dynasty, 96, 124

Ming T’ai Tsung, the Emperor, 124

Mo Ti, 93

Mohammedans, 190

Mongol (Yüan) dynasty, 47

Mongolia, 2, 87, 190

Montesquieu, Charles de S., Baron, 112, 221

Mussolini, Benito, 56

National Government of China, The, 3

_nêng_, 107ff., 141, 218

New Deal, the, 238n.

New Life Movement, the, 102n.

_Outline of National Reconstruction, The_, 4

_pa tao_, 71, 200

Pan-Asia, 197ff.

Pareto, Vilfredo, 15ff.

Peffer, Nathaniel, 10n.

Peru, 165

Philippines, 186, 187n., 200

_Philosophy of Sun Wên, The_ (see _Sun Wên Hsüeh Shê_)

Piatiletka (The Five-Year Plan), 132, 238n., 246

Plato, 79

Poland, 168

_Political Testament, The_, 2

Ponce, Mariano, 97

Portuguese, the, 49

Presidency of ancient states, the, 28

Price, Frank W., 4n.

_Primer of Democracy, The_, 4

_Program of National Reconstruction, The_, 4

_pu chih pu chou_, the, 105

P’u Yi, 119n.

Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 91

Rea, George Bronson, 183

Reichwein, Adolf, 50n.

_Republic, The_, 79

Rome, 215

Roy, Manabendra Nath, 52n.

Russians (_see also_ Soviet Union), 49, 51, 100, 103n., 137, 194ff., 240

_San Min Chu I_, 4ff.

Sharman, Lyon, 1n.

Sheean, Vincent, 161n.

_shen ch’üan_, 100n.

_Shih Yeh Chi Hua_, 4

Shryock, John K., 36n.

Shun, the Emperor, 97, 168

Siam, 187

Smith, Adam, 237

Smith, Arthur, 40n.

South Manchuria Railway, The, 179

Soviets in China, 2, 212

Soviet Union (U. S. S. R.), 64, 147, 155n., 184ff., 189, 199, 201

Spring and Autumn Period, 27

Stalin, Joseph, 56, 158n.

Starr, Frederick, 23n.

Stoddard, Lothrop, 197

Sun-Joffe Manifesto, The, 64

_Sun Wên Hsüeh Shê_, 4

Sun Yat-sen, Mme. (née Soong Ching-ling), 122n., 158n., 159n., 253n.

Sung Chiao-jên, 138

Sung dynasty, 58

_ta chia_, 141

_ta t’ung_, 120, 210, 261

Tagore, Sir Rabindranath, 132, 156n.

Tai Chi-tao, 69

Tai-p’ing Rebellion, the, 50, 58, 172

Taiwan (Formosa), 44n., 51n.

T’ang Liang-li (T’ang Leang-li), 5n., 56n.

_tang pu_, 164

Taoism, 25

Tao Kuang, the Emperor, 243

Tawney, R. H., 45n.

_têh_ (_tê_), 31ff.

Thomas, Elbert Duncan, 25n.

Tibet, 2, 190

Triad Society, the, 41

_Triple Demism, The_ (see _San Min Chu I_)

_Ts’an Yi Yüan_, the, 228

Tsao Kun, 119n.

Tsiang Kuen, 236n.

Tsinanfu, 205

Tsui Shu-chin 10n.

_Tsung Li_, 162

Tung Meng Hui, 136ff.

Turkey, 199, 201

Tyau, Minch’ien T. Z., 5n.

United States of America, The, 79, 97, 112, 130, 187n., 188, 199, 205

Versailles Conference, the, 190

Vilenskii (Sibiriakov), V., 4n.

Vinacke, Harold Monk, 227n.

Vladislavich, 243

Wang An-shih, 58

Wang Ch’ing-wei, 5, 164, 206

Wang Mang, 58

_wang tao_, 71

Wang Yang-ming, 80n., 84

Warring States, the Age of, 27

Washington Conference, the, 188

Weale, Putnam (B. L. Simpson), 50, 225

Weber, Max, 15

Wei Yung, 4n.

Wên Wang, the, 168

Wieger, Leon, 32n.

Wilhelm, Richard, 23n., 68

William, Maurice, 10, 72, 142ff.

Williams, S. Wells, 44, 122n.

Wilson, Woodrow, 6, 190

Wittfogel, Karl, 4n.

Wou Saofong, 111n.

Wu Pei-fu, 222n.

Yangtze river (the _Ch’ang Chiang_), 100

Yao, the Emperor, 76, 97, 219, 233

Yellow river (the _Huang Ho_), 100

Yen Shing Kung, the, 44n.

_yi_ (_i_), 31ff.

Yoshemitsu, the Ashikaga Shogun, 183

Yuan, the Five, 224

Yüan dynasty (_see_ Mongol dynasty)

Yüan Shih-k’ai, 159, 166, 173, 183, 220, 251

_yüeh_, 91ff.

FOOTNOTES

_ 1 China Today_ (March, 1935), I, No. 6, p. 112. This is the leading
English-language journal of the Chinese Communists. Mme. Sun’s
letter to the paper is characteristic of the attitude toward Nanking
adopted throughout the magazine.

2 These manuscripts consist of the following chief items: Linebarger,
Paul Myron Wentworth, _Conversations with Sun Yat-sen 1919-1922_
(written in 1933-1935); the same, _A Commentary on the San Min Chu
I_ (four volumes, 1932-1933); and Sun Yat-sen, _How China Was Made a
Republic_ (Shanghai, 1919). These are all typescripts, with
autograph corrections by their respective authors. The manuscripts
of Judge Linebarger represent his attempts to replace, from memory,
books which were destroyed at the time of the bombardment of the
Commercial Press in Shanghai by the Japanese. He had prepared a
two-volume work on the life and principles of Sun Yat-sen and had
left his manuscripts and other papers in the vaults of the Press.
When the Press was bombed the manuscripts, documents, plates and
Chinese translations were all destroyed; the only things remaining
were a few pages of proof sheets for _The Life and Principles of Sun
Chung-san_, which remain in the possession of the present author.
Judge Linebarger attempted to replace these volumes. He had a few
notebooks in which he had kept the outlines of his own speeches; he
had not used these, because of the secondary value. When, however,
the major volumes were lost, he returned to these notebooks and
reconstructed his speeches. They were issued in Paris in 1932 under
the title of _The Gospel of Sun Chung-shan_. He also prepared the
_Commentary_ and the _Conversations_ from memory. These manuscripts
possess a certain somewhat questionable value. Judge Linebarger
himself suggested that they be allowed the same weight that
testimony, based upon memory but delivered under oath, upon a
subject ten years past would receive in a court of justice. The
seven volumes described are in the possession of the present author.
Other materials to which the author has had access are his father’s
diaries and various other private papers; but since he has not cited
them for references, he does not believe any description of them
necessary. Finally, there are the manuscripts of _Sun Yat-sen and
the Chinese Republic_, which contain a considerable amount of
material deleted from the published version of that work, which
appeared in New York in 1925. For comments on other source material
for Sun Yat-sen which is not generally used, see Bibliography.

3 Lyon Sharman, _Sun Yat-sen, His Life and Its Meaning_, New York,
1934, p. 405.

4 He did this in his _Political Testament_, which is given in almost
every work on Sun Yat-sen or on modern Chinese politics. It was
written in February and signed in March 1925, shortly before his
death.

5 The Chinese text of these is given in Hu Han-min, _ed._, _Tsung-li
Ch’üan Chi_ (_The Complete Works of the Leader_), 4 vol. in 1,
Shanghai, 1930. This collection comprises the most important works
of Sun which were published in his lifetime. Edited by one of the
two scholars closest to Sun, it is the standard edition of his
works. English versions of varying amounts of this material are
given in Paschal M. d’Elia, _The Triple Demism of Sun Yat-sen_,
Wuchang, 1931; Frank W. Price, _San Min Chu I, The Three Principles
of the People_, Shanghai, 1930; and Leonard Shih-lien Hsü, _Sun
Yat-sen, His Political and Social Ideals_, Los Angeles, 1933. Each
of these works will henceforth be cited by the name of its editor;
for brief descriptions and appraisals, see the bibliography.

6 The only English version of this work is one prepared by Wei Yung,
under the title of _The Cult of Dr. Sun_, Shanghai, 1931. Fragments
of this work are also to be found in Vilenskii (Sibiriakov), V.,
_Sun’ Iat-sen, Otets Kitaiskoi Revoliutsii_, (_Sun Yat-sen, Father
of the Chinese Revolution_), Moscow, 1925; _Zapiski Kitaiskogo
Revoliutsionera_, (_Notes of a Chinese Revolutionary_), Moscow,
1926; _Memoirs of a Chinese Revolutionary_, Philadelphia, n. d.; and
Karl Wittfogel, _Sun Yat Sen, Aufzeichnungen eines chinesischen
Revolutionärs_, Vienna & Berlin, n. d. (ca. 1927).

7 This work has not been translated into any Western language.

8 Sun Yat-sen, _The International Development of China_, New York and
London, 1929.

9 This is given in Hsü, cited above, and in Min-ch’ien T. Z. Tyau,
_Two Years of Nationalist China_, Shanghai, 1930, pp. 439-442. Dr.
Tyau substitutes the word “Fundamentals” for “Outline,” a rather
happy choice.

10 See bibliography for a complete list of the translations. d’Elia
translation, cited, pp. 36-49, dedicates a whole chapter to the
problem of an adequate translation of the Chinese phrase _San Min
Chu I_. He concludes that it can only be rendered by a nelogism
based upon Greek roots: _the triple demism_, “demism” including the
meaning of “principle concerning and for the people” and “popular
principle.”

11 T’ang Leang-li, _The Inner History of the Chinese Revolution_, New
York, 1930, p. 166.

12 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 58.

13 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 58.

14 See Lyon Sharman, _Sun Yat-sen, His Life and Its Meaning_, New York,
1934, p. 292, for a stimulating discussion of the parts that the
various documents played in the so-called "cult of Sun Yat-sen."

15 Sharman, cited, p. 270.

16 A typical instance of this sort of criticism is to be found in the
annotations to the anonymous translation of the _San Min Chu I_
which was published by a British newspaper in 1927 (_The Three
Principles_, Shanghai, 1927). The translator and annotator both
remained anonymous; the translation was wholly inadequate; and the
annotations a marvel of invective. Almost every page of the
translation was studded with notes pointing out and gloating over
the most trivial errors and inconsistencies. The inflamed opinion of
the time was not confined to the Chinese.

17 Paul M. W. Linebarger, _Deutschlands Gegenwärtige Gelegenheiten in
China_, Brussels, 1936, p. 53. Judge Linebarger repeats the story
told him by General Morris Cohen, the Canadian who was Sun’s
bodyguard throughout this period.

18 Nathaniel Peffer, _China: The Collapse of a Civilization_, New York,
1930, p. 155.

19 d’Elia, cited; Hsü, cited; and Wittfogel, cited.

20 Maurice William, _Sun Yat-sen Versus Communism_, Baltimore, 1932;
and Tsui Shu-chin, _The Influence of the Canton-Moscow Entente upon
Sun Yat-sen’s Political Philosophy_, in _The Social and Political
Science Review_, XVIII, 1, 2, 3, Peiping, 1934; and other works
listed in bibliography, pp. 268-269.

21 Two such are the chapters on Sun Yat-sen’s thought to be found in
Harley Farnsworth MacNair, _China in Revolution_, Chicago, 1931, pp.
78-91 (Chapter VI, “The Ideology and Plans of Sun Yat-sen”) and
Arthur N. Holcombe, _The Chinese Revolution_, Cambridge
(Massachusetts), 1930, pp. 120-155 (Chapter V, “The Revolutionary
Politics of Sun Yat-sen”). The former is the shorter of the two, and
is a summary of the various documents involved. The distinction
between the ideology and the plans is so convenient and illuminating
that the present writer has adopted it. Except for the comments on
the influence of William upon Sun Yat-sen, it is completely
reliable. The latter is a discussion, rather than an outline, and
admirably presents the gist of Sun’s thought.

22 Holcombe, cited, p. 136 ff.

23 The word “ideology” is one of the catchwords of the hour. The author
regrets having to use it, but dares not coin a neologism to replace
it. He does not desire that “ideology” be opposed to “truth,” but
uses the word in its broadest possible sense, referring to the whole
socio-psychological conditioning of a group of people. He does not,
therefore, speak of ideologies as a collection of Paretian
derivations, fictions which mask some “truth.” He considers his own
background—or Pareto’s, for that matter—as ideological, and—in the
sense of the word here employed—cannot conceive of any human belief
or utterance _not_ ideological. The task he has set himself is the
transposition of a pattern of Chinese ideas concerning government
from the Chinese ideology to the Western-traditionalist ideology of
the twentieth century. Whether one, the other, neither, or both, is
“right,” is quite beside the point, so far as the present enterprise
is concerned. In calling the whole non-physical background of a
society the ideology of that society, the author can excuse his
novel use of the term only if he admits that he establishes the new
meaning by definition, without any necessary reference to the
previous use of the term. He has no intention of following, in the
present work, any “theory of ideology” or definition of “ideology”
established by political philosophers, such as Marx, or sociologists
such as Weber, Mannheim, or Pareto. (Professor A. O. Lovejoy
suggested the following definition of the term, “ideology,” after
having seen the way it was employed in this work: “_Ideology_ means
a complex of ideas, in part ethical, in part political, in part
often religious, which is current in a society, or which the
proponents of it desire to make current, as an effective means of
controlling behavior.”)

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
comparison only, and not intended as valid for all purposes. (He
must acknowledge the stimulating criticism of Mr. Jan Tai, of the
Library of Congress, who made it clear that this distortion of
Confucius was one which could be excused only if it were
admitted.)—An interesting presentation of Confucius as transposed
into the older political theory, untouched by sociology, is to be
found in Senator Elbert Duncan Thomas, _Chinese Political Thought_,
New York, 1927.

26 Granet, _Chinese Civilization_, cited, p. 84. Granet’s work, while
challenged by many sinologues as well as by anthropologists, is the
most brilliant portrayal of Chinese civilization to the time of Shih
Huang Ti. His interpretations make the language of the _Odes_
(collected by Confucius) intelligible, and clear up the somewhat
obscure transition from the oldest feudal society to the epoch of
the proto-nations and then to the inauguration of the world order.

27 Granet, cited, pp. 87-88.

28 Richard Wilhelm, _Geschichte der chinesischen Philosophie_, Breslau,
1929, p. 19.

29 One could therefore say that membership in a society is determined
by the outlook of the individual concerned.

30 In modern Western political thought, this doctrine is most clearly
demonstrated in the Marxian thesis of the withering-away of the
state. The Marxists hold that, as the relics of the class struggle
are eliminated from the new society, and classlessness and uniform
indoctrination come to prevail, the necessity for a state—which
they, however, consider an instrument of class domination—will
decline and the state will atrophy and disappear.

31 Liang Ch’i-ch’ao, _History of Chinese Political Thought during the
early Tsin Period_, translated by L. T. Chen, New York, 1930, p. 38.

32 Liang Ch’i-ch’ao (cited, p. 48 and following) discusses these
points.—The author is indebted to Mr. Jên Tai for the explanation of
the relation of these various factors in the Confucian ideology.

33 Leon Wieger and L. Davrout, _Chinese Characters_, Hsien-hsien, 1927,
p. 6.

34 Hsü, cited above, chapter three, contains an excellent discussion of
the doctrine of rectification.

35 A stimulating discussion of the pragmatism of early Chinese thought
is to be found in Creel, cited.

36 It must be pointed out in this connection that Confucius advocated
an ideology which would not only be socially useful but
scientifically and morally exact. He did not consider, as have some
Western thinkers of the past century, that the ideology might be a
quite amoral instrument of control, and might contain deliberate or
unconscious deception. Hsü writes, in his _Confucianism_, cited, p.
93, of the various translations of the word _li_ into English: “The
word _li_ has no English equivalent. It has been erroneously
translated as ‘rites’ or ‘propriety’. It has been suggested that the
term civilization is its nearest English equivalent; but
‘civilization’ is a broader term, without necessarily implying
ethical values, while _li_ is essentially a term implying such
values.” _Li_ is civilized behavior; that is, behavior which is
civilized in being in conformance with the ideology and the values
it contains.

37 Hsü, cited, p. 103.

38 Confucius the individual was quite nationalistically devoted to his
native state of Lu, and, more philosophically, hostile to the
barbarians. Hsü, cited, p. 118.

39 John K. Shryock, _The Origin and Development of The State Cult of
Confucius_, New York, 1932, traces this growth with great clarity
and superlative scholarship. The work is invaluable as a means to
the understanding of the political and educational structure
commonly called “Confucian civilization.”

40 This expansion took place in China in the reign of Ch’in Shih Huang
Ti, who used the state of Ch’in as an instrument by means of which
to destroy the multiple state-system and replace it with a powerful
unitary state for all China. He sought to wipe out the past, raising
the imperial office to a position of real power, and destroying the
whole feudal organization. He abolished tenantry and supplanted it
with a system of small freeholds. Although his immediate successors
did much to restore the forms and appearances of the past, his work
was not altogether undone. Himself hostile to Confucius, his actions
implemented the teachings to an enormous degree. See Granet, cited,
pp. 96-104.

41 D. H. Kulp, _Family Life in South China_, New York, 1925, p. xxiv.

42 H. G. Creel, cited, p. 10. Creole writes as follows of the
significance of the village: “The village life is very important,
for it appears to be the archetype from which the entire Chinese
conception of the world and even of the cosmos grew. The village
was, as has been said, small. It was based on agriculture. It was
apparently a community of a peaceful regularity and a social
solidarity beyond anything which we of the present can imagine.”

43 Arthur Smith, one of the few Westerners to live in a Chinese village
for any length of years, wrote: “It is a noteworthy fact that the
government of China, while in theory more or less despotic, places
no practical restrictions upon the right of free assemblage by the
people for the consideration of their own affairs. The people of any
village can, if they choose, meet every day of the year. There is no
government censor present, and no restriction upon the liberty of
debate. The people can say what they like, and the local Magistrate
neither knows nor cares what is said.... But should insurrection
break out, these popular rights might be extinguished in a moment, a
fact of which all the people are perfectly well aware.” _Village
Life in China_, New York, 1899, p. 228. This was written thirteen
years before the fall of the Ch’ing dynasty.

44 J. S. Burgess, _The Guilds of Peking_, New York, 1928. This is
perhaps the best work on the subject of the guilds which has yet
appeared. The information was gathered by the students of the
author, who as a teacher had excellent facilities for developing
contacts. The students, as Chinese, were able to gather data from
the conservative guild leaders in a manner and to a degree that no
Westerner could have done. The classification here given is a
modification of Burgess’.

45 S. Wells Williams, _The Middle Kingdom_, New York, 1895, p. 405. Dr.
Williams, whose work is perhaps the most celebrated single work on
China in the English language, wrote as follows concerning the
nobility under the Ch’ing:

“The titular nobility of the Empire, as a whole, is a body whose
members are without power, land, wealth, office, or influence, in
virtue of their honors; some of them are more or less hereditary,
but the whole system has been so devised, and the designations so
conferred, as to tickle the vanity of those who receive them,
without granting them any real power. The titles are not derived
from landed estates, but the rank is simply designated in addition
to the name....” He also pointed out that, under the Ch’ing, the
only hereditary titles of any significance were _Yen Shing Kung_
(for the descendant of Confucius) and _Hai Ching Kung_ (for the
descendant of Kuo Hsing-hua, the formidable sea adventurer who drove
the Dutch out of Taiwan and made himself master of that island).

46 William Frederick Mayers, _The Chinese Government, A Manual of
Chinese Titles ..._, Shanghai, 1897, devotes one hundred and
ninety-five pages to the enumeration of the Ch’ing titles. His work,
intended to be used as an office manual for foreigners having
relations with Chinese officials, remains extremely useful as a
presentation of the administrative outline of the Chinese government
in its last days before the appearance of Sun Yat-sen and the
Kuomintang. Pao Chao Hsieh, _The Government of China (1644-1911)_,
Baltimore, 1925, is a more descriptive work dealing with the whole
administration of the Ch’ing dynasty. No work has as yet appeared in
the West, to the knowledge of the present author, which describes
the historical development of government in China in any detail.

47 The figures given are those of the present day, which may be more or
less exact for the past century. For earlier times, the number will
have to be reduced in proportion with the remoteness in time. See
Richard Henry Tawney, _Land and Labour in China_, London, 1932.

48 Richard Wilhelm, _Confucius and Confucianism_, cited, pp. 130-132.
The connection between the naming of names and the operation of the
popular check of revolution is made evident by Wilhelm in a
brilliant passage. If a righteous ruler died a violent death at the
hands of one of his subjects, he was murdered; were he unrighteous,
he was only killed. Confucius himself used such terms in his annals.
His use of varying terms, terms carrying condemnation or
condonement, even of such a subject as regicide, electrified the
scholars of his day.

49 An exception must be made in the case of the first Russian colony in
Peking, which was lost in two centuries and became virtually
indistinguishable from the mass of the population. The Portuguese,
at Macao, displayed that tendency to compromise and miscegenate
which marked their whole progress along the coasts of Asia, but they
maintained their political supremacy in that city; today the
Macanese are largely of Chinese blood, but Portuguese-speaking, and
proud of their separateness.

50 Too many works have been written on the relations of the Chinese and
Westerners to permit any citations, with one exception. Putnam
Weale’s _The Vanished Empire_, New York, 1925, is an extraordinarily
vivid history of the collision of the civilizations. It is not
particularly commendable as a factual record, but as a brilliant and
moving piece of literature presenting the Chinese viewpoint, it is
unexcelled.

51 See Adolf Reichwein, _China and Europe: Intellectual and Artistic
Contacts in the Eighteenth Century_, New York, 1925, which makes
apparent the full extent to which modern Europe is indebted to China
for the luxuries of its culture.

52 In this connection, it might be pointed out that the attractive
strength of the two civilizations has not, as yet, been adequately
studied, although there is an enormous amount of loose
generalization on the subject: “The Chinese are becoming completely
Westernized,” or “The Chinese, in spite of their veneer, are always
Chinese; they will, in the end, absorb their conquerors.” But will
they? In the face of a modern educational and propaganda system,
there is at least room for doubt; it is not beyond all conjecture
that the Chinese of Manchuria might be Japanized as easily as the
fiercely chauvinistic Japanese might be sinicized. The only adequate
answer to the question would be through detailed studies of the
social conditioning and preferences of Chinese under foreign
influence (as in Hongkong, Taiwan, Manchuria), and of foreigners
under Chinese influence (the White Russians in China, the few other
Westerners in preëminently Chinese milieux).

53 An example of this is to be found in Manabendra Nath Roy,
_Revolution und Konterrevolution in China_, Berlin, 1930. Roy was
one of the emissaries of the Third International to the
Nationalists, and his ineptness in practical politics assisted
materially in the weakening of the Communist position. His work
quite seriously employs all the familiar clichés of Western class
dispute, and analyzes the Chinese situation in terms that ignore the
fact that China is Chinese.

54 This same line of attack seems, in the West, to be employed only by
the Catholic church which, while opposing any avowedly
collectivistic totalitarian state, seeks to maintain control on an
ideological and not a political basis, over almost all aspects of
the life of its members. No political party or governing group seems
to share this attitude.

55 Karl A. Wittfogel, in his _Sun Yat-sen_, cited, as well as Roy, in
the work cited, thinks very little of the justice of Confucianism.
The extreme mobility of Chinese society, which largely precluded the
development of any permanent class rule, is either unknown to them
or ignored. If the ideologue-officials of old China composed a
class, they were a class like no other known, for they provided for
the continuous purging of their own class, and its continuous
recruitment from all levels of society—excepting that of prostitutes
and soldiers.

56 T’ang Leang-li writes, in _The Inner History of the Chinese
Revolution_, New York, 1930, p. 168, as follows concerning Sun
Yat-sen’s early teaching of nationalism:

“Previous to the Republican Revolution of 1911, the principle of
nationality was known as the principle of racial struggle, and was
in effect little more than _a primitive tribalism rationalized to
serve as a weapon_ in the struggle against the Manchu oppressors. It
was the corner-stone of revolutionary theory, and by emphasizing the
racial distinction between the ruling and the oppressed classes,
succeeded in uniting the entire Chinese people against the Manchu
dynasty.” (Italics mine.) In speaking of _min ts’u_ as a primitive
tribalism which had been rationalized as a weapon, Dr. T’ang might
lead some of his readers to infer that Sun Yat-sen did not believe
what he taught, and that—as a master-stroke of practical politics—he
had devised an ideological weapon which, regardless of its
truthfulness, would serve him in his struggles. But, it may be
asked, what was Sun Yat-sen struggling for, if not the union and
preservation of the Chinese people?

57 See sections, below, on the programs of nationalism.

58 d’Elia translation, p. 131. Sun Yat-sen said: “Formerly China too
entertained the ambition of becoming mistress of the whole world and
of rising above all other countries; so she (too) advocated
cosmopolitanism.... When the Manchus entered the Great Wall, they
were very few; they numbered 100,000 men. How were those 100,000 men
able to subject hundreds of millions of others? Because the majority
of Chinese at that time favored cosmopolitanism and said nothing
about nationalism.”

59 d’Elia translation, pp. 126 ff.

60 It seems to the present writer that, whatever criteria are selected
for the determination of the nationhood of a given society,
_uniqueness_ certainly is _not_ one of the qualities attributed to a
“nation.” It is not appropriate for the author to venture upon any
extended search for a “true nation”; he might observe, however, that
in his own use—in contrast to Sun Yat-sen’s—he employs the term in a
consciously relative sense, contrasting it with the old Chinese
cosmopolitan society, which thought itself unique except for certain
imitations of itself on the part of half-civilized barbarians. A
“nation” must signify, among other things, for the purposes of this
work, a society calling itself such and recognizing the existence of
other societies of more or less the same nature. Sun Yat-sen, on the
other hand, regarded a nation as a group of persons as real as a
family group, and consistently spoke of the Chinese nation as having
existed throughout the ages—even in those times when the Chinese
themselves regarded their own society as the civilized world, and
did so with some show of exactness, if their own viewpoint is taken
into account.

61 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 130-131. d’Elia’s italics, covering
the last two sentences in the quotation, have been omitted as
superfluous. As an illustration of the difference between the
translation of d’Elia and that of Hsü, the same paragraph might also
be cited from the latter translation. “The ethical value of
everything is relative and so nothing in the world is innately good
or innately bad. It is determined by circumstances. A thing that is
useful to us is a good thing; otherwise, a bad thing. Also, a thing
that is useful and advantageous to the world is a good thing;
otherwise, a bad thing.” Hsü translation, cited, pp. 210-211.
Excepting for occasional purposes of comparison, the translation of
Father d’Elia will be referred to in citing the sixteen lectures on
the _San Min Chu I_.

62 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 70. The curiously significant use of
the word “forever” is reminiscent of the teleology of the Chinese
family system, according to which the flesh-and-blood immortality of
man, and the preservation of identity through the survival of
descendants, is a true immortality.

_ 63 Wo-men Chung-kuo jen_ and _ni-men wai-kuo jen_.

64 Paul M. Linebarger, _The Life and Principles of Sun Chung-shan_, p.
102. There is here told the anecdote of Sun Yat-sen’s first
encounter with race-hatred. At Ewa, Hawaii, in 1880, Sun, then a
young lad just arrived from China, met a Westerner on the road. The
Westerner threatened him, and called him “Damn Chinaman!” and
various other epithets. When Sun Yat-sen discovered that the man was
neither deranged nor intoxicated, but simply venting his general
hatred of all Chinese, he was so much impressed with the incident
that he never forgot it.

65 Hsü translation, cited, p. 168; d’Elia translation, cited, p. 68.

66 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 70.

67 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 71.

68 Sun Yat-sen said: “A scrap of paper, a pen, and a mutual agreement
will be enough for the ruin of China ... in order to wipe her out by
common agreement, it suffices that the diplomats of the different
countries meet somewhere and affix their signatures.... One morning
will suffice to annihilate a nation.” d’Elia translation, cited, p.
170.

69 The danger of relying too much on foreign aid can be illustrated by
a reference to Sun-Joffe Manifesto issued in Shanghai, January 26,
1922. Sun Yat-sen, as the leader of the Chinese Nationalist
movement, and Adolf Joffe, as the Soviet Special Envoy, signed a
joint statement, the first paragraph of which reads as follows:

“Dr. Sun Yat-sen holds that the Communistic order or even the Soviet
System cannot actually be introduced into China, because there do
not exist here the conditions for the successful establishment of
either Communism or Sovietism. This view is entirely shared by Mr.
Joffe who is further of the opinion that China’s paramount and most
pressing problem is to achieve unification and attain full national
independence, and regarding this great task he has assured Dr. Sun
Yat-sen that China has the warmest sympathy of the Russian people
and can count on the support of Russia.”

See T’ang Leang-li, cited, p. 156.

In view of the subsequent Communist attempt, in 1927, to convert the
Nationalist movement into a mere stage in the proletarian conquest
of power in China, in violation of the terms of the understanding
upon which the Communists and the Chinese Nationalists had worked
together, the leaders of the Kuomintang are today as mistrustful of
what they term Communist politico-cultural imperialism as they are
of capitalist politico-economic imperialism. It is curious that the
APRA leaders in Peru have adopted practically the same attitude.

70 It is necessary to remember that in the four decades before 1925,
during which Sun Yat-sen advocated _nationalism_, the word had not
acquired the ugly connotations that recent events have given it. The
nationalism of Sun Yat-sen was conceived of by him as a pacific and
defensive instrument, for the perpetuation of an independent Chinese
race and civilization. See Paul M. W. Linebarger, _Conversations
with Sun Yat-sen, 1919-1922_, Book I, ch. 5, “Defensive
Nationalism,” and ch. 6, “Pacific Nationalism,” for a further
discussion of this phase of Sun Yat-sen’s thought.

_ 71 tien sha wei kung._

72 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 184. A reference to clan organization,
to be discussed later, has been deleted.

73 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 181 (summary of the sixth lecture on
nationalism).

74 Richard Wilhelm’s preface to _Die Geistigen Grundlagen des Sun Yat
Senismus_ of Tai Chi-tao (The Intellectual Foundations of
Sun-Yat-senism), Berlin, 1931 (henceforth cited as “Tai Chi-tao”),
pp. 8-9; “Die Grösse Sun Yat Sens beruht nun darauf, dass er eine
lebendige Synthese gefunden hat zwischen den Grundprinzipien des
Konfuzianismus and den Anforderungen der neuen Zeit, eine Synthese,
die über die Grenzen Chinas hinaus für die ganze Menschheit noch
einmal von Bedeutung werden kann. Sun Yat Sen vereinigt in sich die
eherne Konsequenz des Revolutionärs und die grosse Menschenliebe des
Erneuerers. Sun Yat Sen ist der gütigste von allen Revolutionären
der Menschheit gewesen. Und diese Güte hat er dem Erbe des Konfuzius
entnommen. So steht sein geistiges Werk da als eine verbindende
Brücke swischen der alten und der neuen Zeit. Und es wird das Heil
Chinas sein, wenn es entschlossen diese Brücke beschreitet.”

75 Tai Chi-tao, cited, p. 65.

76 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 186.

77 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 187-8. Sun Yat-sen’s discussion of
the old morality forms the first part of his lecture on nationalism,
pp. 184-194 of the d’Elia translation.

78 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 66. The translation employs the words.

79 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 129. In connection with the doctrine
of _wang tao_, it may be mentioned that this doctrine has been made
the state philosophy of “Manchukuo.” See the coronation issue of the
_Manchuria Daily News_, Dairen, March 1, 1934, pp. 71-80, and the
_Japan-Manchoukuo Year Book_, Tokyo, 1934, pp. 634-635. The advocacy
of _wang tao_ in a state which is a consequence of one of the
perfect illustrations of _pa tao_ in the modern Far East, is
astonishing. Its use does possess significance, in demonstrating
that the shibboleths of ancient virtue are believed by the Japanese
and by “Emperor Kang Teh” to possess value in contemporary politics.

80 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 528, 529.

81 See below, for discussion of the influence that Henry George, Karl
Marx, and Maurice William had upon the social interpretation of
history so far as economic matters were concerned.

82 See “The Theory of the Confucian World Society,” above.

83 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 341.

84 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 199.

85 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 194.

86 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 194. The original quotation, in
Chinese and in English, may be found in James Legge, translator,
_The Four Books_, Shanghai, 1930, p. 313.

87 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 194-195.

88 Judge Paul Linebarger, in _Conversations with Sun Yat-sen_
(unpublished), states that Sun said to him: “China will go down in
history as the greatest literary civilization the world has ever
known, or ever will know, but what good does this deep literary
knowledge do us if we cannot combine it with the modernity of
Western science?” p. 64, Book Four.

89 Tai Chi-tao, cited, p. 62. The passage reads in full: “Sun Yat-sen
umfasst vollkommen die wahren Gedanken Chinas, wie sie bei Yau und
Schun und auch bei Kung Dsï und Mong Dsï wiederfinden. Dadurch wird
uns klar, dass Sun Yat Sen der Erneuerer der seit 2000 Jahre
ununterbrochenen chinesischen sittlichen Kultur ist. Im vergangenen
Jahr hat ein russischer Revolutionär an Sun Yat Sen die folgende
Frage gerichtet: ‘Welche Grundlage haben Ihre Revolutionsgedanken?’
Sun Yat Sen hat darauf geantwortet: ‘In China hat es ein sittlichen
Gedanken gegeben, der von Yau, Schun, Yü, Tang, Wen Wang, Wu Wang,
Dschou Gung his zu Kung Dsï getragen worden ist; seither ist er
ununterbrochen, ich habe wieder an ihn angeknüpft und versacht, ihn
weiter zu entwickeln.’ Der Fragende hat dies nicht verstehen können
und sich weiter erkundigt; Sun Yat Sen hat noch mehrmals versucht,
ihm seine Antwort zu erklären. Aus dieser Unterredung können wir
ersehen, dass Sun Yat Sen von seine Gedanken überzeugt war,
gleichzeitig können wir ersehen, dass seine Nationalrevolution auf
dem Widererwachen der chinesischen Kultur beruht. Er hat die
schöpferische Kraft Chinas wieder ins Leben rufen und den Wert der
chinesischen Kultur fur die ganze Welt nutzbar machen wollen, um
somit den Universalismus verwirklichen zu können.” Allowance will
have to be made, as it should always in the case of Tai Chi-tao, for
the author’s deep appreciation of and consequent devotion to the
virtues of Chinese culture. Other disciples of Sun Yat-sen wrote in
a quite different vein. The present author inclines to the opinion,
however, that Tai Chi-tao’s summary is a just rendition of Sun
Yat-sen’s attitude. Sun Yat-sen loved and fought for the struggling
masses of China, whose misery was always before his pitying eyes; he
also fought for the accomplishments of Chinese civilization. In
modern China, many leaders have fought for the culture, and
forgotten the masses (men such as Ku Hung-ming were typical); others
loved the populace and forgot the culture. It was one of the
elements of Sun Yat-sen’s greatness that he was able to remember
both.

90 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 199-202.

91 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 259.

92 This idea, of wealth as national capacity to produce, is of course
not a new one. It is found in the writings of Alexander Hamilton,
among others.

93 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 337.

94 Wei Yung, translator, _The Cult of Dr. Sun, Sun Wên Hsüeh Shê_,
cited. See the discussion on dietetics, pp. 3-9.

95 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 337.

96 Wei Yung’s translation, cited, is an English version of _The Outline
of Psychological Reconstruction_ of Sun Yat-sen. This work is
devoted to a refutation of the thesis, first propounded by Wang
Yang-ming (ca. 1472-1528), that knowledge is easy and action
difficult. In a society where the ideology had been stabilized for
almost two millenia, this was undoubtedly quite true. In modern
China, however, faced with the terrific problem of again settling
the problem of an adequate ideology, the reverse was true: knowledge
was difficult, and action easy. This was one of the favorite
aphorisms of Sun Yat-sen, and he devoted much time, effort, and
thought to making it plain to his countrymen. The comparative points
of view of Wang Yang-ming and Sun Yat-sen afford a quite clear-cut
example of the contrast between an established and unsettled
ideology.

97 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 336-345. This discussion occurs in
the fifth lecture on democracy, incidental to Sun Yat-sen’s
explaining the failure of the parliamentary Republic in Peking, and
the general inapplicability of Western ideas of democracy to China.

98 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 344.

99 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 344.