p. 266:  M. Ricci’s diary (Matthew Ricci, China in the Sixteenth Century, The Journals of M. Ricci, transl. by L. J. Gallagher, New York 1953) gives much insight into the life of Chinese officials in this period.  Recently, J. Needham has tried to show that Ricci and his followers did not bring much which was not already known in China, but that they actually attempted to prevent the Chinese from learning about the Copernican theory.

p. 267:  For Coxinga I used M. Eder’s study.—­The Szechwan rebellion was led by Chang Hsien-chung (1606-1647); I used work done by James B. Parsons.  Cheng T’ien-t’ing, Sun Yueh and others have recently published the important documents concerning all late Ming peasant rebellions.—­For the Tung-lin academy see Ch.  O. Hucker in J. K. Fairbank, Chinese Thought and Institutions, Chicago 1957.  A different interpretation is indicated by Shang Yueeh in Li-shih yen-chiu 1955, No. 3.

p. 268:  Work on the “academies” (shu-yuean) in the earlier time is done by Ho Yu-shen.

p. 273-4:  Based upon my own, as yet unfinished research.

p. 274:  The population of 1953 as given here, includes Chinese outside of mainland China.  The population of mainland China was 582.6 millions.  If the rate of increase of about 2 per cent per year has remained the same, the population of mainland China in 1960 may be close to 680 million.  In general see P. T. Ho. Studies on the Population of China, 1368-1953, Cambridge, Mass., 1960.

p. 276:  Based upon my own research.—­A different view of the development of Chinese industry is found in Norman Jacobs, Modern Capitalism and Eastern Asia, Hong Kong 1958.  Jacobs attempted a comparison of China with Japan and with Europe.  Different again is Marion Levy and Shih Kuo-heng, The Rise of the Modern Chinese Business Class, New York 1949.  Both books are influenced by the sociological theories of T. Parsons.

p. 277:  The Dzungars (Dsunghar; Chun-ko-erh) are one of the four Oeloet (Oirat) groups.  I am here using studies by E. Haenisch and W. Fuchs.

p. 278:  Tibetan-Chinese relations have been studied by L. Petech, China and Tibet in the Early 18th Century, Leiden 1950.  A collection of data is found in M. W. Fisher and L. E. Rose, England, India, Nepal, Tibet, China, 1765-1958, Berkeley 1959.  For diplomatic relations and tributary systems of this period, I referred to J. K. Fairbank and Teng Ssu-yue.

p. 279:  For Ku Yen-wu, I used the work by H. Wilhelm.—­A man who deserves special mention in this period is the scholar Huang Tsung-hsi (1610-1695) as the first Chinese who discussed the possibility of a non-monarchic form of government in his treatise of 1662.  For him see Lin Mou-sheng, Men and Ideas, New York 1942, and especially W. T. de Bary in J. K. Fairbank, Chinese Thought and Institutions, Chicago 1957.

p. 280-1:  On Liang see now J. R. Levenson, Liang Ch’i-ch’ao and the Mind of Modern China, London 1959.