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.