The author, Dr. John Y Wong, is a professor in the Department of History at Sydney University and also a fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. His research focuses on two basic themes: British imperialism and China, especially the first and second Opium Wars; and early Sun Yatsen, especially his stay in London (1896–1897). His excellent book, The Origins of an Heroic Image: Sun Yatsen in London, 1896–1897 (Oxford University Press, 1986) makes clear that his kidnapping was the moment at which world media formed his heroic image. His second book about Sun, 孫逸仙倫敦蒙難真相 (The Truth about Sun Yatsen's Kidnapping in London)Footnote ¹ indicates with certainty that his kidnapping incident was arranged by the Chinese legation in London. The author's third book, 中山先生與英國 (variant title, Sun Yatsen and the British, 1883–1925),Footnote ² traces Sun's relationship with Britain, and argues that although Sun's desire around the time of the Xinhai Revolution (1911) to unify and modernize China was not opposed to British special interests in China, the British preferred the strongman Yuan Shihkai to undertake the initiative to build a new China, the ROC. Faced with a low evaluation by the British, Sun adopted a more familiar policy with Russia and then the Soviet Union. In this book, Wong's fourth in the field, the author revisits the issue of Sun's stay in London in order to bring into sharper focus Sun's experience there and consider how it influenced his “Three Principles of the People” (Sanmin zhuyi 三民主義), the crux of which is thought to have been formulated while he was in London.

Sun Yatsen arrived at London on 30 September 1896, after the failure of his resistance movement at Guangdong the previous year. He left London on 1 July 1897. During his stay Sun came to be recognized as the symbol of the Chinese revolution through the “kidnapping” incident carried out by officials of the Chinese Legation on 11 October. “Chinese revolutionary arrested” – such headlines appeared all over the world. On 23 October he was released when the British government intervened. For the remaining eight months, Sun took advantage of London's many facilities and imbibed a flood of modern thought, leading to the creation of the basic elements of his original philosophy, the Three Principles of the People. This book emphasizes that the essence of the principles was achieved in this period, although the text of the principles would subsequently be revised many times.

Researchers of Sun Yatsen have discussed at length the nature of the influence of his London stay on the development of his thought. Most of them have sought to examine the books he read while in London, with emphasis on his reading at the British Museum. A few scholars have paid attention to the impact of Sun's time spent in observing British society, for example the way the engineering lock-out (begun in 1897) may have affected his thought about the “People's Welfare”. This book criticizes approaches centered on reading and seeks to establish a new perspective. Wong retraces all of Sun's daily life in London in detail and reconsiders its influences on the formation of the Three Principles of the People. In Chapter 2 the author investigates in detail all of Sun's daily chronological tables, and in Chapter 3 he arranges Sun's experiences and observations so that they correlate with the three principles. Chapters 4–6 discuss the relations between each of these principles and Sun's London experiences and observations.

Regarding the principle of “The People's Relation/Connection” (Minzu zhuyi 民族主義)”, for example, Wong argues that Sun was impressed by the Sixtieth Anniversary celebration of Queen Victoria, an event which, at least to Sun's mind, displayed Britain's glory as a nation-state existing as a single civic community. China actually had been conceived of as being comprised of many nations, and Sun himself had advocated the slogan “Five races together in harmony” (wuzu gonghe 五族共和). Sun's newly devised principle seemed instead to point to an ideal nation-state comprised of people who, although “racially” diverse, feel themselves to be part of a larger, overarching Chinese civic identity. Wong argues that of the three principles the conception of this one was affected the most by Sun's life in Britain.

Wong also argues that in the formulation of the principle of “The People's Power” (Minqua zhuyi 民権主義) Sun was influenced by a series of strikes and labor movement activities that took place in London during his stay. For example, he witnessed the London carriage driver strike of 4 October 1896. Besides the labor movements, he also was impressed by the political system, specifically the separation of administrative, legislative, and judicial powers, the Westminster system and the dignity of the Houses of Parliament. Sun recognized that the salvation of China depended upon the establishment there of a similarly strong government based on a separation of the three powers. Sun's Minquan zhuyi thus was devised for Chinese to gain independence from imperialism and warlords. For Sun, so-called Western liberty and democracy for the people were regarded as devices to rescue China.

The gap between the wealthy and poor in London left a strong impression on Sun, and may well have affected his formulation of the principle of “The People's Welfare” (Minsheng zhuyi 民生主義). The essence of this principle is twofold: to control the development of capitalism and to distribute lands to the people with parity. In his strategy to overcome the Qing Dynasty reign, Sun gave precedence to the other two principles, but the author emphasizes that Sun in no way forgot the principle of “The People's Welfare,” because, after all, it was the final purpose of the revolution that he envisioned.

Again, the strength of his book lies in the minute detail with which it traces Sun's daily life in London and the explanation of how Sun's experience there may have influenced the formation of the three principles. It not only succeeds in revising the fact of Sun's activity in London, even that of the day of his arrival in 1896, but also reinterprets the influence of Sun's London life on his thought via a critique of the prior book-centered approach and a strong emphasis on an holistic appraisal of Sun's London experience. This historical approach likely will win approval among many readers, as it suggests a reconfiguration of Chinese history under the context of a global “modern” history. Because both Sun's history as an individual and, more generally, Chinese modern history often are cloaked in myth and propaganda, this book surely will garner high esteem.

I find the thesis concerning the process of formation of the Three Principles, that is, that their essence was devised by Sun during his stay at London and remained basically unchanged until his death, to be fundamentally plausible. However, it is difficult to assess with certainty the impact of Sun's time in London on the formation of the principles because his life there was not his sole overseas experience. In other words, it seems somewhat idealistic to attribute so exclusively the entirety of the origin and formation of his thought to his life and observations of society in London. Besides London, Sun often visited Japan, where he witnessed many things: rapid industrialization, for one, and after the Sino-Japanese War, early Diet democracy and an upsurge of nationalist sentiment. Even the name of the Three Principles, as denoted by Chinese characters (三権分立), contained terms translated from Western language into the Japanese language via new Chinese-character compounds. Additionally, Sun's experiences in Hawaii and South East Asia – even shipboard experiences during his many long voyages – might also have borne some influence on the formation of his thought.

Thus, while it is valid to trace in thorough detail the daily experiences of Sun's life, such a project seems to me also to require a considered comparison of Sun's experiences in London with his other experiences in Tokyo, Hawaii, and elsewhere, even if ultimately Sun did formulate the Three Principles in London. Also, though many readers may agree that his core thought was achieved in 1896–1897, and then, during the twentieth century, was developed further by himself and the KMT, one wonders whether more time couldn't have been spent on the issue of continuity and the important subsequent changes wrought on his three principles. Ultimately I think Sun's London experience may be just one comparatively large piece among many factors that influenced the formation and transformation of the principles. That being said, it is clear that this book serves to enhance a new field of Sun studies and, more broadly, Chinese modern history, and one can expect it to stimulate the emergence of new studies.

Finally, as a Japanese reader, it is regrettable that some names of Japanese should be printed erroneously; for example, the name of the famous historian Nakamura Tadashi, is not 中川義 but 中村義. More significantly, it is difficult to accept the author's criticism of current Japanese academic circles. For example, the author declares that it is incredible that some Japanese scholars working in Chinese history insist upon the non-existence of the Nanjing Massacre, using as their basis the concept (derived from postmodern theory) of the “non-existence of historical facts” (p. 460). Though it is true that some books seek to promote the propaganda that the Nanjing Massacre was fabricated by China, such ridiculous claims have no impact on the Japanese academic community. Still, it is quite easy to find on the internet and in other media outlets a multitude of unbalanced discourse about Japanese controversies over the Sino-Japanese War.