¹ Facsimile reproduction of the original can be found in Kuo-fu nien-p‘u ch‘u-kao ‘The draft of a chronological biography of the founder of the Republic’ by Lo Chia-lun, Taipei, 1959, II, [26], and Chung-shun hsien-shêng ch‘in-chêng lu ‘The campaigns under Dr. Sun’s personal command’ by Huang Hui-lung (captain of Sun’s bodyguard), Shanghai, 1930, pl. 2. The will is dated 24 February 1925 and the order of the witnesses given above is the same as in the reproductions. Wang Ching-wei, however, named H. H. Kung as a witness in his speech commemorating the first anniversary of Dr. Sun’s death (Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 112) and this was supported by Lu, Tsou in both his Chung-huo Kuo-min-tang shih-kao ‘A draft history of the Kuomintang’, 1941 ed., I, 426Google Scholar, and Hui ku lu ‘Memoirs’, 1943, I, 163. That H. H. Kung was in Peking at that time is beyond doubt, but, for unaccountable reasons, he did not witness the will.

T. V. Soong was Dr. Sun’s brother-in-law, Sun Fo (Sun K‘o) his son, Tai En-sai his son-in-law (Lo Chia-lun, 520), Ho Hsiang-ning (Madame Liao Chung-k‘ai) the head of the Women’s Department of the Kuomintang and a leader of the Left Wing, and Tsou Lu, Chang Chi, Shao Yüanch‘ung, Wu Ching-hêng, and Tai Chi-t‘ao—all Dr. Sun’s comrades for many years—were leaders of the Right Wing.

² ‘Wo-ti hui-i’, People’s Daily (Peking), 7 October 1961, p. 7, col. 4. These ‘Reminiscences’ are also published in the Hong Kong Ta-kung Pao and the Chung-kuo Hsin-wên (the ‘Weekly Bulletin’ published by the Chinese Chargé d’Affaires’ Office, London, no. 155) and will be included in a forthcoming collection of memoirs of the 1911 revolution From the frequency with which this article was reproduced in such a short period of time, one may see the importance the Peking Government attaches to it. Indeed, Madame Liao’s is the most detailed account of Dr. Sun‘s death by an eyewitness, and therefore I use it here as the introduction to our discussions. The italics are all mine, indicating doubtful statements.

¹ The text taken from the People’s Daily has been checked against both the Ta-kung Pao and the London versions.

² Wang’s report is quoted in Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., II, 750, n. 12; Tsou Lu, op. cit., I, 543, n. 17; see also Lo, op. cit., n, 740–1, and Hua, op. cit., 98–9. Hua’s book (Shanghai, 1930) is edited by Ts‘ai Yuan-p‘ei and Wu Ching-hêng, the latter being a witness to the celebrated will.

³ Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., n, 730, 740; Tsou Lu, op. cit., 424.

⁴ Wên, Sun, Sun Chung-shan hsüan-chi ‘Selected works of Sun Yat-sen’, Peking, 1956, II, 922Google Scholar; the International Press Correspondence, 19 March 1926, 286Google Scholar; Vilenski-Sibiryakov, V., Gomindan, Moscow, 1926, 25Google Scholar; Martin, B., Strange vigour, London, 1944, 225Google Scholar; and Wilbur, C. Martin and How, J. L., Documents on Communism, nationalism, and Soviet advisers in China 1918–1927, Columbia University Press, 1956, 158–9Google Scholar.

¹ According to Lo Chia-lun (op. cit., n, 745), the letter was drafted by Dr. Sun’s English secretary, Eugene Ch‘en, and Mikhail Marcovich Borodin, and approved by Sun himself after T. V. Soong had read it to him only once on 11 March 1925. Hence many important members of the Kuomintang refused to treat this letter with equal respect as Sun’s will to the Party. Indeed, they disagreed with the manner in which it was approved. Dr. Sun‘s ‘Complete works’ (Tsung-li ch’üan-chi, 3 vols., Shanghai, 1930Google Scholar) does not include this letter.

² Tsou Lu, ‘Draft history’, I, 454, n. 17.

³ Lo, op. cit., II, 745. See also Hua Lin-i, op. cit., 101.

⁴ Quoted from Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., II, 751, n. 13, and Wang Ching-wei, Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 112. Cursive script is informal, hence carries a suggestion of disrespect. Wang’s reference to it is by way of an apology. The original of the will to the Party is in cursive script.

² Tsou Lu, ‘Draft history’, I, 453, n. 17.

³ Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., ii, 751, n. 13.

¹ Hui ku lu, I, 163.

² Tsou Lu, ‘Draft history’, I, 443, and Han-min, Hu, Hu Han-min hsüan-chi ‘Selected works of Hu Han-min’, Taipei, 24Google Scholar.

¹ B. Martin, Strange vigour, 224.

² The full text of the Manifesto is reproduced in Tsung-huang, Li, Chung-kuo Kuo-min-tang tang shih ‘A history of the Kuomintang’, Nanking, 1935, 325–39Google Scholar. My italics.

¹ Yat-sen, Sun, The principle of nationalism, tr. price, F. W., preface dated 1927, Taipei, 1953Google Scholar. Mr. Price–s is the authorized translation.

² Tsung-huang, Li, op. cit., 252–3.Google Scholar

³ Yat-sen, Sun, The principle of democracy, tr. Price, F. W., preface dated 1927, Taipei, 1953, 140–1Google Scholar.

¹ Ibid., 133–4, 137.

² Yat-sen, Sun, Fundamentals of national reconstruction (1924), Taipei, 1953, 1, and also 10Google Scholar.

³ Tuan-sheng, Ch'ien, The government and politics of China, Harvard University Press, 1950, 114Google Scholar. The League of Nations' refusal to include the Japanese proposal of racial equality in its Convenant is a case in point.

⁴ Revolution and counter-revolution in China, Calcutta, 1946, 274–5Google Scholar.

⁵ Chung-kuo, be-ming shih chiang-i ‘Lectures on the history of the Chinese Revolution’, Peking, 1959, 92Google Scholar.

⁶ Fundamentals of national reconstruction, quoted from Tsou Lu, ‘Draft history’, I, 643–4Google Scholar.

¹ The Kuomintang and the future of the Chinese Revolution, London, 1928, 163Google Scholar.

² Yat-sen, Sun, San-min chu-i, Min-chih-shu-chü ed., 1927Google Scholar, first page of the first lecture on the min-shêng chu-i. The Great Harmony is an ideal described in the ‘Book of rites’, the main characteristics of which are the world being a commonwealth, sagacious people being selected for various posts in the government, faithfulness and friendliness being the rule, all people being happy, selfishness being despised, and even doors being left safely open at night.

³ Ibid., 52; also 63, 64, 66, 69, 77.

⁴ Fundamentals of national reconstruction, 162.

⁵ San-min chu-i, min-shêng chu-i, 1st lecture, 28.

¹ Ibid., 21, 28.

² Later in the hands of Ch'en Kuo-fu and Ch'en Li-fu, this b came what Fairbank, J. K. called ‘Vitalism’. See The United States and China, 1948, 256Google Scholar.

³ San-min chu-i, min-shêng chu-i, 2nd lecture, 45, 71–2Google Scholar.

⁴ Ibid., 2nd lecture, 66–8.

⁵ Ibid., 2nd lecture, 53–4.

⁶ Ibid., 2nd lecture, 75.

⁷ Ibid., 2nd lecture, 20.

⁸ Dr. Sun accuses Marx of ignoring the labour of people other than industrial workers, which is presumably not subject to the exploitation of capitalists (Ibid., 1st lecture, 28–30). This is a common mistake. In criticizing Marx, one must always bear in mind that Marxian economics is macro-economics, dealing with the society as a whole rather than individual industries or firms. In Marx's view, value as a whole is created by man's labour and nature, and capital is a part of the value already created. Consequently the income of an owner of capital cannot but come from exploitation which is composed of nothing else but surplus labour. See Capital, I, 191–2, 194–5, 198, and in, 993.

¹ Quoted from a speech made in 1926. Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 128.

² Quoted from an article published in 1927. Hu Han-min hsüan-chi, 8.

³ Fêng-kang, Shên (ed.), Chiang Wei-yüan-chang ch'uan-chi ‘Complete works of Generalissimo Chiang’, Shanghai, 1937, I, 29–30Google Scholar.

⁴ For a fuller commentary on the principles, see Purcell, V., Problems of Chinese education, 1936, 190–206Google Scholar. Dr. Purcell's views on this matter, though written nearly 30 years ago, are still fresh and eminently cogent.

⁵ The principle of nationalism, 35–6Google Scholar; cf. Levenson, J. R., Confucian China and its modern fate, London, 1958, 68IJ9Google Scholar.

¹ A documentary history of Chinese Communism, Harvard University Press, 1952, 66Google Scholar.

² The principle of nationalism, 8; and V. Purcell, op. cit., 191.

³ The principle of nationalism, 37. See also Purcell's, V.discussion on this point in Problems of Chinese education, 129–30Google Scholar.

¹ The original quoted from B. Martin, Strange vigour, 225; my translation (also italics) based on Sun Chung-shan hsüan-chi, II, 922.

² Quoted from a speech made at Canton, 5 November 1927. See Wang Ching-wei chi, in, 217, and C. Martin Wilbur and J. L. How, Documents on Communism, nationalism, and Soviet advisers, 392. Mao Tse-tung, writing in March 1926, referred only to the alliance with Russia and the admission of the Communists. Apparently even he did not know of the Three Cardinal Policies. See Mao Tse-tung hsüan-chi, I, 4.

¹ Tsou Lu, ‘Draft history’, I, 388.

² Ibid., i, 420–1.

³ Wang Ching-wei chi, II, 218.

⁴ Hong Kong, 1954, 11.

⁵ See Ching-heng's, Wu motion of censure, 1 April 1927, and Wang Ching-wei's ‘Message to the people of Kiangsi’, 31 July 1927Google Scholar; Ch'i-yün, Chang, Chung-hua Hin-huo shih-lcang ‘An outline of the history of the Chinese Republic’, Taipei, 1954, II, 239Google Scholar; Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 157.

⁶ Leang-li, T'ang, Wang Ghing-wei, a political biography, Tientsin, preface dated 1931, 93Google Scholar. See also Kai-shek, Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, London, 1957, 27Google Scholar.

⁷ T. C. Woo, op. cit., 174. Woo charges Wang with being ‘unfaithful to the party principles’.

¹ This declaration was made on 20 July 1927. Tung-fang Tsa-chih, 25 September 1927, and T. C. Woo, op. cit., 273.

² Isaacs, H., The tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, California University Press, 1951, 162Google Scholar. Stalin's statement was made in Moscow on 5 April 1927.

³ Li Tsung-huang, op. cit., 246, and Lu, Tsou, Hui hv, lu, I, 147–8Google Scholar.

⁴ Li Tsung-huang, op. cit., 278. The Leftists were Liao Chung-k'ai, Wang Ching-wei, and T'an P'ing-shan, and the Rightists, Tai Chi-t'ao, P'êng Su-min, Shao Yüan-ch'ung, Hu Han-min, and Tsou Lu.

⁵ C. Brandt comes the closest to recognizing that the Left Wing was no more than an empty shell. See his Stalin's failure in China, 1924–1927, Oxford, 1958Google Scholar, ch. iii.

¹ Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., II, 657, 677; Li Tsung-huang, op. cit., 278.

² Lo Chia-lun, op. cit., n, 676.

³ Kuan-chiao, Ku, San-shih-nien lai ti Chung-hung ‘Thirty years of the Chinese Communist Party’, Hong Kong, 1955, 24Google Scholar. This book is a rebuttal of Ch'iao-mu's, HuThirty years of the Chinese Communist Party, Peking, 1951Google Scholar, and contains some valuable information. See also Chang Ch'i-ytin, Chung-hua Min-kuo shih-lcang, II, 232.

⁴ The Leftists were Wang Ching-wei, T'an Yen-k'ai, Madame Sun Yat-sen, Chu P'ei-te, Hsu Ch'ien, Ku Mêng-yii, Ching Heng-i, Sung Tzǔ-wên, Madame Liao Chung-k'ai, Ting Wei-fên, Eugene Ch'en, Wang Fa-ch'in, Liu Shou-chung, and Sun Fo; the Communists were Tyan P'ing-shan, Lin Tsu-han, Yü Shu-te, Wu Yü-chang, Yang P'ao-an, Yün Tai-ying, and Li Ta-chao. See Li Tsung-huang, op. cit., 322–3, and C. Martin Wilbur and J. L. How, op. cit., 214.

⁵ Yin-tsu, Kao, Chung-hua Min-kuo ta-shih chi ‘A chronology of the Republic of China’, Taipei, 1957, 199Google Scholar.

⁶ Li Tsung-huang, op. cit., 323; Kao Yin-tsu, op. cit., 198.

¹ Tsou Lu wên-ts'un, III, 122.

² Ssǔ-ch'êng, Mao, Min-kuo shih-wu-nien i-ch'ien chih Chiang Chieh-shih hsien-shêng ‘Mr. Chiang Kai-shek before 1926’, Shanghai, 1936, VIII b, 66 a–bGoogle Scholar.

³ Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 169–71, 229Google Scholar.

⁴ Chung-kuo Hsien-tai-shih Tzǔ-liao Ts'ung-k'an, Ti-i-tz'ǔ kuo-nei ke-ming chan-chêng shih-ch'i ti kung-jên yün-tung ‘The labour movement in the First Revolutionary War’, Peking, 1954, 9, 399, 407–8; Kuan-chiao, J. K., op. cit., 16–17Google Scholar; China Year Book, 1928, 956Google Scholar; N. Wales, Red dust, 84, 201; Shao-hsiung, Huang, Wu-shih hui-i ‘Reminiscences at fifty’, Shanghai, 1945, I, 171–2Google Scholar.

⁵ Tsou Lu, Hui ku lu, I, 166.

⁶ C. Martin Wilbur and J. L. How, op. cit., 74.

⁷ China Year Book, 1928, 1315Google Scholar; Hsiao-hsüan, Pien, Liu-fa ch'in-kung chien-hsüeh tzu-liao, in the Chin-tai-shih Tzǔ-liao, 1955, no. 2, 176–206Google Scholar; Jui, Li, Mao Tse-tung T'ung-chih ti ch'u-ch'i ke-ming huo-tung ‘Early revolutionary activities of Comrade Mao Tse-tung’, Peking, 1957, 86Google Scholar.

⁸ These are figures published by the Peasant Department of the Wuhan Kuomintang. See Chung-kuo Hsien-tai-shih Tzǔ-liao Ts'ung-k'an, op. cit., 17–19; Kan-chih, Ho, A history of the modern Chinese Revolution, Peking, 1960, 157Google Scholar.

⁹ Wang Ching-wei chi, III, 229.

¹ Wilbur, C. Martin and How, J. L., op. cit., 394–5Google Scholar; China Year Book, 1928, 1294–5Google Scholar; and Huang, Wu-shih hui-i, I, 181. These divergent estimates show that further studies on this question are needed.

² Strong, A. L., China's millions, New York, 1928, London, 1936, 38–9Google Scholar.

³ Fêng Yü-hsiang, Wo-ti shêng-huo ‘My life’, III, 697.

⁴ Chapman, O. H., The Chinese Revolution 1926–1927, London, 1928, 24–5Google Scholar.

⁵ Degras, J., The Communist International documents, Oxford, 1943, II, 414Google Scholar.

⁶ Degras, J., Soviet documents on foreign policy, Oxford, 1951, II, 436Google Scholar.

⁷ M. N. Roy, op. cit., 563.

⁸ Kang, Hua, Chung-kuo Ta-ke-ming shih ‘A history of the Great Revolution of China’, Shanghai, 1932, II, B229Google Scholar.

¹ Mif, P., Heroic China, New York, 1937, 139Google Scholar.

² Although Wang Ching-wei and other left-wing leaders continued to wage a struggle against Chiang Kai-shek, they had to rely on the support of miscellaneous local military forces for their precarious existence. Eventually, Wang had to resort to the support of Japan for the realization of his idea of ‘Asia for Asians’ or the ‘liberation of Asia’. As Mamoru Shigemitsu recalls in his Japan and her destiny (tr. White, O., London, 1958, 165Google Scholar), ‘He keenly hoped to find ways and means by which Japan and China might agree on a common policy. As Foreign Minister he hadwarmly supported my exertions over the cease-fire at the first battle of Shanghai [1932] and thereafter, also, he had spared no effort to bring about an understanding with Japan’.

³ Norty, R. C., ‘M. N. Roy and the Fifth Congress of the Chinese Communist Party’, China Quarterly, No. 8, 1961, 184–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. North confirms in this article the existence of a great confusion in the minds of the Russian advisers in China in the 1920's about the forces at work in the Chinese revolution. Consequently their reports to Moscow were also confused. C. Brandt, Stalin's failure, also throws some light on this question.