115 Ponce, cited, p. 24. “... la única garantía posible, el único medio por excelencia para obtener los mejores gobernantes....”
119 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 266, note 1. Father d’Elia discusses the reasons which made it seem more probable that Sun was transliterating the name Millar into Chinese rather than (John Stuart) Mill.
120 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 256 and following.
123 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 242-243.
124 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 223 and following. Dr. Hsü (cited, p. 263 and following) translates these four epochs as following: _hung fang_, “the stage of the great wilderness”; _shen ch’üan_, “the state of theocracy”; _chun ch’üan_, “the stage of monarchy”; and _min ch’üan_, “the stage of democracy.”
125 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 241-242.
126 Linebarger, _Conversations_, cited, Book II, ch. 2.
127 It is of interest to note that the “New Life Movement” inaugurated by Chiang Chieh-shih is concerned with many such petty matters such as those enumerated above. Each of these small problems is in itself of little consequence; in the aggregate they loom large.
129 Hsü translation, cited, p. 352. It is interesting to note that the translation by Father d’Elia gives a more literal translation of the names that Sun Yat-sen applied to these categories. He translates the Chinese terms as _pre-seeing_, _post-seeing_, and _non-seeing_.
132 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 352. Sun Yat-sen defined democracy thus: “... under a republican government, the people is sovereign.”
133 Tai Chi-tao, cited, p. 25, refers to this distinction as being between force (_Gewalt_) and power (_Macht_). To the people belonged, and rightfully, the force which could sanction or refuse to sanction the existence of the government and the confirmation of its policies. The government had the power (_Macht_), which the people did not have, of formulating intelligent policies and carrying them out in an organized manner.
135 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 279 and following.
137 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 368-9. Dr. Wou Saofong, in his _Sun Yat-sen_ (Paris, 1929), summarizes his thesis of Sun Yat-sen in somewhat different terms: “... Sun Yat-sen compare, le gouvernement à un appareil mécanique, dont le moteur est constitué _par les lois_ ou les ministres, tandis que l’ingénieur que dirige la machine était autrefois le roi et aujourd’hui le peuple,” p. 124. (Italics mine.) This suggestion that the state-machine, in the theory of Sun Yat-sen, is composed of laws as well as men is quite interesting; Sun Yat-sen himself does not seem to have used this figure of speech and it may be Dr. Wou’s applying the juristic interpretation on his own initiative. Sun Yat-sen, in his sixth lecture on democracy, says, “Statesmen and lawyers of Europe and America say that government is a machine of which law is a tool.” (d’Elia translation, cited, p. 368.)