11l an article in the Journal of the American Oriental Society1 Professor Dubs discussed and condemned the usual translation of the Chinese word {ia as 'emperor,' as Legge and Chavannes had done. His arguments ean be summarized as follows . Ti has two diferent meanings. 1. It is the denotation of a god, who later by euhemerization becomes an earthly ruler; it occurs in names like Shang-tib, Euang TiC, Ti Yaod, Ti Shune, ete 2. It is an ellipsis of the title; huang-tif,, and used for it. In 221 B. a. the major part of what is now China iE>roper was for the first time united under one rule, and the ruler, to signalize the fact that he had risen to a condition above that of the rulers in all other Chinese states? who had styled themselves wangg (usually and correctly translated as vking), adopted the new title of hqbang-ts, tt alone having been used for a brief period beforeh This title of huang-ti can be properly translated as s emperor,' since in English, according to the Osford dictionary, ' emperor ' means ' a title of sovereignty considered superior to that of king.' Ts as an ellipsis of hqbang-ti may thus also be rendered as ' emperor.' But, as before 221 B. a. there were no emperors in China since there was no empire, the translation of ti as ' emperor' in expressions referring to a period before that date is an anachronism. So, to speak of the ' Emperor on Eigh ' as a translation for Shang-ti, or the v Yellow Emperor ' as a translation for Euang Ti, or ' Emperor Yao ' as a translation for Ti Yao, etcv is wrong. As a substitute for this erroneous translation, Professor Dubs suggests the English word ' lord > in its Biblical sense, which possesses a convenient ambiguity, denoting either a divine being or a euhemerized rlller. So much for Professor Dubs, whose sound reasoning we can accept to a great extent. For the practical purpose of avoiding historical misconceptions it would indeed be better not to speak of an emperor and an empire for the period before 221 B. C., because in every-day lanpage the words