143 Father d’Elia devotes the whole second chapter of his introduction to the consideration of a suitable rendition of _San Min Chu I_, which he calls the Triple Demism. (Work cited, pp. 36-49.) Again on p. 402, he explains that, while he had translated _min shêng_ as _socialism_ in the first French edition of his work, he now renders it as _the economic Demism_ or _sociology_. The most current translation, that of Frank Price, cited, gives _the principle of livelihood_. Paul Linebarger gave it as _socialism_ as far back as 1917 (_The Chinese Nationalist Monthly_, December, 1917, Chicago) in Chicago, at the time when Lin Shen, Frank C. Lee and he were all working for Sun in that city. Dr. H. H. Kung, a high government official related by marriage to Mme. Sun Yat-sen, speaks of the three principles of _liberty_, _democracy_, and _economic well-being_ (preface to Hsü, _Sun_, cited, p. xvi). Dr. V. K. Wellington Koo, one of China’s most eminent diplomats, speaks of _social organization_ (_Memoranda Presented to the Lytton Commission_, New York City, n. d.). Citations could be presented almost indefinitely. _Min_ means “people,” and _shêng_ means “life; vitality, the living, birth, means of living” according to the dictionary (S. Wells Williams, _A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language_, Tungchou, 1909). The mere terms are of very little help in solving the riddle of _min shêng_. Laborious examination is needed, and even this will not, perhaps, lead us to anything more than probability. Sun Yat-sen, in his lectures, called it by several different names, which seem at first sight to contradict each other. 144 d’Elia translation, cited, pp. 91-92. 145 Linebarger, _Conversations_, cited, Bk. IV, p. 62: “I must confess that the idea of using the sacred cult of ancestor worship as a political machine is very abhorrent to me. In fact, I think that even the rashest fool would never attempt to use this intimate cult with its exclusively domestic privacy as a revolutionary instrument.” 146 Linebarger, _Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Republic_, New York, 1925, pp. 68-9. 147 The same, pp. 135-139. 148 The same, pp. 104-105. 149 The same, pp. 122-123. 150 d’Elia translation, cited, p. 472.