《中国人的性格》是美国传教士阿瑟·史密斯（明恩溥）基于1872年赴华传教期间的社会观察撰写的著作，首版英文名《Chinese Characteristics》于19世纪末问世，。作者在华生活逾五十年，书中融合人类学视角与传教士立场，记录了晚清民众的性格特征与文化形态。
全书以27个主题章节剖析中国人行为模式，包含“保全面子”“省吃俭用”等生活哲学，以及“漠视精确”“因循守旧”等社会现象。通过对比西方工业文明，着重探讨东方特有的生存韧性，如环境适应力与疼痛耐受性。书中案例多源自山东乡村生活经历，涉及衣食住行、孝悌观念等主题，部分结论因宗教立场存在视角争议。该著作开创西方研究中国国民性先河，被译成多国文字，成为近代中西文化互鉴的重要文本。
第六章 疏于精确
外国人初到中国，对中国人的第一眼印象就是千人一面。他们的面孔似乎都是同一个模子做出来的，所有人身上总是穿着蓝布衣服，每一双眼里的“焦点”都好似一成不变，好像发直了一样。两个拖着辫子的中国人，就像是同一个豆荚中的两粒豆仁，一模一样。但是，无论别人怎么看待中国人，只要略加体验，即使是一个最不善于观察的旅行者，也会发现，所谓中国人是千人一面的说法是不能成立的。任意两个地区，无论多么靠近，口音上都存在着有趣的、莫名其妙的差异。而且地区间隔越远，差异就越大，日积月累，以至于形成不同的“方言”。
常常会有人郑重地提醒我们，中国人的语言写起来都一样，说起来却大不相同。我们常常被告之，中国各地的风俗习惯也有同样的差异，用中国人的一句俗话来讲，那就是“十里不同俗”。诸如此类的例子，比比皆是。最普遍的是，计量标准上的不一致。而在西方国家，统一、恒定的度量衡是保证生活舒适的一个重要前提。
那些无处不在的双重标准，对西方人来说，常常是令人苦恼不已的，而对中国人，却能从中获得乐趣。两种货币单位、两种重量单位、两种度量单位，这些对他们来说似乎很自然、很平常，不值得去抱怨什么。向一位卖猪肉水饺的人询问每天做多少这样的水饺，他回答说，大概“一百斤面粉”。至于这么多面粉能做成多少水饺，这个问题只能留待询问者自己去猜想。
同样，有人向一位农民打听他的一头牛有多重，他给出的重量似乎太轻了，与实值相差太大。最后，他解释说，这个数不包括骨头！一位仆人被问及身高是多少，如果他给出的数与他的实际身高相差得太离奇，经过查问，他会承认他给的数没有把肩膀以上的部位算在内！原来，他曾当过兵，在部队里人的锁骨的高度比较重要，因为他要担运物资。既然一个中国士兵的脑袋没有任何实际用途，所以他说自己的身高时一直就没有把头部算在内，这次他是疏忽了。与这种算法相反，一位乡下人硬说他的家“离城九十里”，但经过盘问，他才承认消减一点。他承认那是往返的路程，实际距离只有单程“四十五里”！
在中国，有关计量最不一致的突出事例，就是计量铜钱——这个国家唯一的货币——的办法。这个国家所有地方都采用十进制，这的确也是最简易的计量方式。但是，在中国没有人敢打包票说“一贯钱”理所当然就是一百个铜钱，除非他亲自数好串好。走遍了十八个省份的绝大多数地区，我们就会发现一贯钱的铜钱数目各不相同，而且无法解释。按道理，“一贯”就是“一百个”铜钱，但事实上从一百个至九十九个、九十八个、九十六个、八十三个（如山西太原），直到直隶省东部的三十三个，各种数目都有，或许有些地方可能更低。
白银交易中的称重情况也是这样，甚至更为严重。除非是巧合，任意两个地区的“两”都不一样，甚至同一地区的不同区域也各不相同。这种情况把外国人搞得稀里糊涂，除了那些与白银有关的商人，其他人都会遭受一定的损失，特别是会给那些诚信守实的人带来无尽的烦恼。这种货币混乱的现象是显而易见的，其得以长期存在的动机也是显而易见的。但我们眼下关心的只是这一现象存在的事实。
所有各种度量标准都有同样的混乱。一个地方的“斗”不同于其他任何地方的“斗”。在征粮中总是采用这种混乱的“斗”，如果在那些不像中国人那样会忍气吞声的民族，就很容易引发政治动乱。至今为止，“一品脱就是一品脱，一磅就是一磅，全世界都一样。”这句话在中国却是不适用的，一“斗”不是一“斗”，一磅也不是一磅。每一种随意所造成的混乱，在中国居然还有道理可言。而且，这种武断的标准随处还加以应用（例如在盐业专卖中），比如把十二两叫一斤。买家付的是十六两一斤的钱，得到的却只有十二两。但这样的交易居然是公开进行的，同行的商人也都这样做。据说，这不算做事欺诈，人们知道了这一点，只不过是盐业买卖中的“陋规”而已。
在土地面积的丈量方面，也普遍存在类似的不确定性。有些地方，一“亩”土地只相当于另一个地方的半亩，如果有人碰巧住在边界线上，那么他们就不得不准备两套丈量土地的工具，以分别应对不同的田亩制度。
想要知道一斤粮食或者一斤棉花的价格，仅凭现有的报告（正像到中国的旅行者经常做的那样）是非常不可靠的，还必须首先弄清楚这里的“斤”是指哪一种斤。同样的情况，也出现在每亩的粮食产量计算上，不能仅凭现有的统计数字，还必须弄清楚这里的“亩”是哪一种亩。在计量的距离测算方面，也普遍存在着类似的问题，每位到中国的旅行者都可以证明这一点。在中国大地旅行时，如果路程是以“里”计量，那么就有必要弄清楚这个“里”是指“大里”还是“小里”！
我们并不否认这样计量路程有某种根据，但我们要指出的是这种计量既不精确也不统一。据我们所知，人们普遍感觉到，一走下宽阔的官道，“里”就变得更“长”了。如果在官道上每天能走一百二十里路，那么在乡村的小道上，满打满算也只能是每天走一百里，若到了山区，就只能每天走八十里了。
此外，测算路程的长短往往不是根据实际的绝对距离，甚至不以中国人意识中距离长短为基础，而是根据行走的难易程度。如此一说，若是说到山顶有“九十里”，实际的里数还不到一半。但中国人还咬定不放松，理由是要走完这段路程，困难程度相当于在平地上走“九十里”。还有一件与测算直线距离有关的颇为奇特的事实，即从A到B的距离不一定等于从B到A！在中国，欧氏几何所设定的“等量之间彼此相等”基本原则已不起作用了。这个定理要想实现，则需要插入一个否定词加以修改。我们可以举一个例子加以说明：在中国最重要的一条官道，有一段路根据里程碑所示从北到南长一百八十三里，而从南到北却是一百九十里。这也真是太奇怪了，无论你来回走几趟，也无论多么仔细地看里程碑，事实就是这样。
与此类现象异曲同工的是，“整体等于部分相加之和”这一公理在中国也不能成立。在河道航行尤其如此。经过询问，你得知前方的某一地点有“四十里”，然后，通过更细致的分析，你才知道这个“四十里”原来是两个“十八里”相加得来的。你还会被这种振振有词的说法弄得哑口无言：“四个九相加是四十，不对吗？”根据这种说法，“三个十八相加”就是“六十”。我们还曾听说过这样一件事，一个信使在规定的时间内没有跑完规定的路程，他为自己辩解说，这个“六十里”是“大里”。由于他的申辩理由很充分，地方官员便下令重新测量这段路程，结果发现实际上是“八十三里”，从那以后，那个新里程就被沿用了下来。
分布在一座城市周围的几个乡村，离城里从一里到六里各不相等，但每个村子都可以叫“三里屯”。人们经常还可以看到这种情形，一段据估算只有一里的路程，如果道路两边都盖满了房子，就会被说成是五里长。而且每个村民都会信誓旦旦向我们保证，这条街确实是那么长。
在这些情况下，当每个人都可以根据各自的需要制定度量标准时，你也大可不必为此大惊小怪。造秤的人徘徊于街上，根据每个雇主的要求，在秤杆上镶上小点点（这些点点被称为“星”）。每个买卖人至少备有两杆秤，一杆是用于买东西，另一杆是用于卖东西。一个现成的秤是没有人愿意要的，除非它是一杆旧秤，因为所有的刻度都可以改变，秤的标准只能根据每个买卖人的需要而定。
计算人的年龄大小也是如此，其中特别能反映出中国人的民族特性。得知一个人确切的年龄并不难，可中国人却普遍凭着一个人出生年的动物属相，来轻易地推测出这个人的年龄。说一位老人已经有“七八十岁”了，其实你确切地知道，他是去年才满七十岁。事实上，在中国，一个人刚过七十岁，也就是“八十”的人了。如果想得出准确年岁，就必须减去这个“常数”。
即使一位中国人想说出他的准确年龄，他所给出的也只是下一个春节后的年龄。以“十”为单位计算岁数的习惯根深蒂固，这使得他们的年龄总是含混不清。一些人是“一二十岁”，“没几十岁”，或许“好几十岁”，在中国，严格准确地说出年龄是非常罕见的事。这种模糊，甚至还延伸至“好几百”，“好几千”和“好几万”。这样的表述中，“数以万计”是中国人数方面的极限。对于比这些笼统说法更加准确的计数法，中国人并不怎么感兴趣。
笔者的一位朋友告诉笔者，有两个人花了“两百贯钱”看一场戏，过一会又改口说道：“是一百七十三贯，不过，这与二百贯也差不离，不是吗？”
一位绅士及其夫人在中国生活了好几年后要回国。他们的中国朋友送来两幅卷轴，是要分别转赠给他们夫妇俩各自的老母亲——父亲都已去世，他们夫妇俩各自的老母亲恰好同岁。两个条幅上的题字分别是“福如东海”和“寿比南山”，每个条幅旁边还有一行写着祝福的小字。其中一个条幅上的小字恭贺受赠者“享福七十载”，而另一个条幅则赞美贵夫人享有“六十华诞”。夫妇俩在对这两幅卷轴大加赞赏之余，其中一位小心翼翼询问，为什么明明知道两位母亲是同岁，却还要说一个是七十，另一个只有六十呢？对方给予一个典型的回答：如果每幅卷轴上都写“七十岁”，那会显得题写者太没有想象力了！
在我们要求精准的地方，中国人根深蒂固地讲究社会连带关系。这是一个致命的干扰。一位希望获得法律咨询的人告诉笔者，他“住在某一个村子里”，但从他的口述中可以明显得知，他的住所是在城郊。经过一番追根查问，他承认他如今不是住在那个村里；而经过进一步的调查才发现，他的家族十九代之前就已搬出该村了。我就问他：“你难道不认为你自己现在是城市居民吗？”他坦然地回答道：“没有，我们现在的确住在城里，但我的老家是在那个村子里！”
另外有一个人曾经要求笔者去看看他村里的一座古庙，他骄傲地指给我看，说：“那座庙是我建的！”对于他语气中那个“我”进一步调查，我才发现，那座庙建于明朝的某个时期，至今已有三百多年的历史。
学习中文的学生，最初遇到的一个障碍是如何找一个满意的词语表示自己的身份，以区别于他人。中国人的整个思维，建立在我们不习惯的某种假设之上，他们完全不能理解西方人为什么会有把一切都弄得准确无误的癖好，甚至认为是病态的。一个中国人并不确切地知道他的村子里有多少人，而且他也确实不想知道。人类的任何一员都有弄清楚这一数字的意愿，但对他来说，则始终不能明白那些想知道这个数字的人到底为了什么。他们只有“几百家”、“好几百家”或者“没多少人家”，而没有准确的数字，过去没有，将来也不可能有。
中国人疏于精确，不仅表现在对数字的运用上，同样也反映在文字书写，甚至表现在他们的印刷上。在中国的廉价出版物中，想要弄到一本没有大量错别字的书并非易事。有的时候，那些错别字频繁出现，严重地干扰了读者对意思的理解。如此看来，之所以出现错别字，显然不是为了图省事，而是由于人们在日常生活中不重视精确性。在一般的书信往来中，这种含糊其辞的做派更加突出了。文字的书写不准确，大量的是表现在常用字中，有些字经常用同音字代替，出现这种错误，或者是由于教育的缺乏，但同样也因为马马虎虎的态度。
疏于精确这种态度，在书信的称呼上更是表现得一清二楚。中国人写信的称呼一般是用醒目的字体写的，“父亲大人启”，“慈母大人启”，“叔祖大人启”，“贤弟大人启”，等等，却一般不写出“大人”的姓名。
中国人是非常讲究实际的民族，但正如我们所看到的那样，他们对自己的名字却满不在乎，这令人非常惊讶。像这样的民族实在是独一无二的，我们常常发现，他们的名字一会儿写成这样，一会儿又写成那样，我们看到名字，但并不知是谁，还要询问一下，这种情况经常可以见到。但，最使人感到困惑的是，同一人常常有好几个不同的名字，他的原名，他的“字”、“号”，说来奇怪，甚至还有科举考试注册时专用的学名。正因为如此，外国人往往会把一个中国人误认为其他的两个或三个人。他们村子的名字更不确定，有时会有两三个全然不同的名字，并且这些名字也都同样的“正确”。如果一个名字是另一个名字的误用，他们可以互相交替使用，在官样公文上用正确的名字，在平时交谈中可用另一个名字。更有甚者，也可以把那个误用的名字当做形容词，与原名一起共同构成一个复合地名。
中国人很不幸地缺乏类似于研习化学分子式那样，需要绝对精确意识的教育。中国的第一代化学家也许会因为把“几十个格令”的什么东西与“好几十个格令”的另一种东西混合在一起，其结果会少了许多数字，造成预想不到的严重后果。中国人完全有能力像其他民族一样，学会对一切事物都把握得非常精确——甚至更加精确。因为他们天生就有无限的耐心——但我们不得不说，就现在的社会状况而言，他们目前还不重视精确的素养，他们还不知道精确是什么。
如果这一判断是成立的，那么就可以有两条推论：其一，我们在查考中国历史档案记录时，必须考虑到中国人疏于精确这一特性。如果我们轻易采用中国人所提供的数字和数量，则肯定会使我们自己受骗，因为他们从来就想不到精确。其二，对于中国人所提供的，冠以“人口调查”以抬高其权威性的各种结果，必须持有保留态度。整体并不大于部分之和，可中国人的统计数字却与之相反。我们在审查中国人的一份“统计数字”后，就非常有可能说：“这是案子的最后一个谜！”这句话，是一位聪明的苏格兰人在美利坚合众国最高法院说的，他坚信“美国的法律有高贵的不确定性”。
英文原版：
CHAPTER VI. THE DISREGARD OF ACCURACY
THE first impression which a stranger receives of the Chinese is that of uniformity. Their physiognomy appears to be all of one type, they all seem to be clad in one perpetual blue, the " hinges " of the national eye do not look as if they were "put on straight," and the resemblance between one Chinese cue and another is the likeness between a pair of peas from the same pod. But in a very brief experience the most unobservant traveller learns that, whatever else may be predicated of the Chinese, a dead level of uniformity cannot be safely assumed. The speech of any two districts, no matter how contiguous, varies in some interesting and perhaps unaccountable ways. Divergences of this sort accumulate until they are held to be tantamount to a new " dialect," and there are not wanting those who will gravely assure us that in China there are a great number of different "languages" spoken, albeit the written character is the same. The same variations, as we are often reminded, obtain in regard to customs, which, according to a saying current among the Chinese, do not run uniform for ten li together, a fact of which it is impossible not to witness singular instances at every turn. A like diversity is found to prevail in those standards of quantity upon the absolute invariability of which so much of the comfort of Western lands depends.
The existence of a double standard of any kind, which is often so keen an annoyance to an Occidental, is an equally keen joy to the Chinese. Two kinds of cash, two kinds of weights, two kinds of measures, these seem to him natural and normal, and by no means open to objection. A man who made meat dumplings for sale was asked how many of these dumplings were made in a day ; to which he replied that they used about " one hundred [Chinese] pounds of flour," the unknown relation between this amount of flour and the number of resultant dumplings being judiciously left to the inquirer to conjecture. In like manner, a farmer who is asked the weight of one of his oxen gives a figure which seems much too low, until he explains that he has omitted to estimate the bones! A servant who was asked his height mentioned a measure which was ridiculously inadequate to cover his length, and upon being questioned admitted that he had left out of account all above his shoulders! He had once been a soldier, where the height of men's clavicle is important in assigning burdens. And since a Chinese soldier is to all practical purposes complete without his head, this was omitted. Of a different sort was the measurement of a rustic who affirmed that he lived " ninety li from the city," but upon cross-examination he consented to an abatement, as this was reckoning both to the city and back, the real distance being only forty-five li one way!
The most conspicuous instance of this variability in China is seen in the method of reckoning the brass cash, which constitute the only currency of the Empire. The system is everywhere a decimal one, which is the easiest of all systems to be reckoned, but no one is ever sure, until he has made particular enquiries, what number of pieces of brass cash are expected in any particular place to pass for a hundred. He will not need to extend his travels over a very large part of the eighteen provinces to find that this number varies, and varies with a lawlessness that nothing can explain, from the full hundred which is the theoretical " string," to 99, 98, 96, 83 (as in the capital of Shansi), down to 33, as in the eastern part of the province of Chihli, and possibly to a still lower number elsewhere. The same is true, but in a more aggravated degree, of the weight by which silver is sold. No two places have the same " ounce," unless by accident, and each place has a great variety of different ounces, to the extreme bewilderment of the stranger, the certain loss of all except those who deal in silver, and the endless vexation of all honest persons, of whom there are many, even in China. The motive for the perpetuation of this monetary chaos is obvious, but we are at present concerned only with the fact of its existence.
The same holds true universally of measures of all sorts. The bushel of one place is not the same as that of any other, and the advantage which is constantly taken of this fact in the exactions connected with the grain tax would easily cause political disturbances among a less peaceable people than the Chinese. So far is it from being true that " a pint is a pound the world around," in China a " pint " is not a pint, nor is a " pound " a pound. Not only does the theoretical basis of each vary, but it is a very common practice (as in the salt monopoly, for example) to fix some purely arbitrary standard, such as twelve ounces, and call that a pound (catty). The purchaser pays for sixteen ounces and receives but twelve, but then it is openly done and is done by all dealers within the same range, so that there is no fraud, and if the people think of it at all, it is only as an old-time custom of the salt trade. A similar uncertainty prevails in the measurement of land. In some districts the " acre " is half as large again as in others, and those who happen to live on the boundary are obliged to keep a double set of measuring apparatus, one for each kind of "acre."
It is never safe to repeat any statement (as travellers in China are constantly led to do) in regard to the price of each "catty" of grain or cotton, until one has first informed himself what kind of catty they have at that point. The same holds as to the amount of any crop yielded per "acre," statistics of which are not infrequently presented in ignorance of this vital fact. That a like state of things prevails in regard to distance every traveller in China is ready to testify. It is always necessary in land travel to ascertain, when the distance is given in "miles" (li), whether the "miles" are "large" or not! That there is some basis for estimates of distances we do not deny, but what we do deny is that these estimates or measurements are either accurate or uniform. If 120 li constitute a fair day's journey on the main road, then on country roads it will take fully as long to go 100 li, and in the mountains the whole day will be spent in getting over 80 li. Besides this, the method of reckoning is frequently based, not on absolute distance, even in a Chinese sense, but on the relative difficulty of getting over the ground. Thus it will be " ninety li to the top of a mountain," the summit of which would not actually measure half that distance from the base, and this number will be stoutly held to, on the ground that it is as much trouble to go this " ninety li " as it would be to do that distance on level ground. Another somewhat peculiar fact emerges in regard to linear measurements, namely, that the distance from A to B is not necessarily the same as the distance from B to A! It is vain to cite Euclidian postulates that quantities which are equal to the same quantity are equal to each other. In China this statement requires to be modified by the insertion of a negative. We could name a section of one of the most important highways in China, which from north to south is 183 li in length, while from south to north it is 190 li, and singularly enough, this holds true no matter how often you travel it or how carefully the tally is kept!
Since this was written, we have met in Mr. Baber's " Travels in Western China " with a confirmation of the view here taken. " We heard, for instance, with incredulous ears, that the distance between two places depended upon which end one started from ; and all the informants, separately questioned, would give the same differential estimate. Thus from A to B would be unanimously called one mile, while from B to A would, with equal unanimity, be set down as three. An explanation of this offered by an intelligent native was this : Carriage is paid on a basis of so many cash per mile, it is evident that a coolie ought to be paid at a higher rate if the road is uphill. Now it would be very troublesome to adjust a scale of wages rising with the gradients of the road. It is more convenient for all parties to assume that the road in difficult or precipitous places is longer. This is what has been done." In Mr. Little's " Through the Yang-tse Gorges," he mentions a stage which down the river was called ninety li while up-stream it was 120 li. He estimates 3.62 li to a statute mile, or 250 to a degree of latitude.
Akin to this is another intellectual phenomenon, to wit, that in China the whole is not equal to the sum of all its parts. This is especially the case in river travel. On inquiry you ascertain that it is " forty li to a point ahead." Upon more careful analysis, this " forty " turns out to be composed of two " eighteens," and you are struck dumb with the statement that " four nines are forty, are they not ? " In the same manner, " three eighteens " make " sixty," and so on generally. We have heard of a case in which an imperial courier failed to make a certain distance in the limits of time allowed by rule, and it was set up in his defence that the " sixty li were large." As this was a fair plea, the magistrate ordered the distance measured, when it was found that it was in reality eighty-three li and it has continued to be so reckoned ever since.
Several villages scattered about at distances from a city varying from one li to six, may each be called " The Three-Li Village." One often notices that a distance which would otherwise be reckoned as about a li if there are houses on each side of the road, is called five li, and every person in that hamlet will gravely assure us that such is the real length of the street.
Under these circumstances, it cannot be a matter of surprise to find that the regulation of standards is a thing which each individual undertakes for himself. The steel-yard maker perambulates the street, and puts in the little dots (called " stars ") according to the preferences of each customer, who will have not less than two sets of balances, one for buying and one for selling. A ready-made balance, unless it might be an old one, is not to be had, for the whole scale of standards is in a fluid condition, to be solidified only by each successive purchaser.
The same general truth is illustrated by statements in regard to age, a particularity in which is a national trait of the Chinese. While it is easy to ascertain one's age with exactness by the animal governing the year in which he was born, and to which he therefore " belongs," nothing is more common than to hear the wildest approximation to exactness. An old man is " seventy or eighty years of age," when you know to a certainty that he was seventy only a year ago. The fact is, that in China a person becomes eighty the moment he stops being seventy, and this " general average " must be allowed for, if precision is desired. Even when a Chinese intends to be exact, he will often give his age as it will be after the next New-Year's day—the national birthday in China. The habit of reckoning by tens is deepseated, and leads to much vagueness. A few people are " ten or twenty," a " few tens," or perhaps " ever so many tens," and a strictly accurate enumeration is one of the rarest of experiences in China. The same vagueness extends upwards to " hundreds," " thousands," and " myriads," the practical limit of Chinese counting. For greater accuracy than these general expressions denote, the Chinese do not care.
An acquaintance told the writer that two men had spent " 200 strings of cash " on a theatrical exhibition, adding a moment later, " It was 173 strings, but that is the same as 200 - is it not ? "
Upon their departure for the home land, a gentleman and his wife who had lived for several years in China, were presented by Chinese friends with two handsome scrolls, intended not for themselves but for their aged mothers—the only surviving parents—who happened to be of exactly the same age. One of the inscriptions referred to " Happiness, great as the sea," and to " Old age, green as the perpetual pines," with an allusion in smaller characters at the side to the fact that the recipient had attained " seven decades of felicity." The other scroll contained flowery language of a similar character, but the small characters by the side complimented the lady on having enjoyed " six decades of glory." After duly admiring the scrolls, the gentleman ventured to inquire why, considering the known parity of ages of the two mothers, one was assigned seventy years, and the other only sixty. The thoroughly characteristic reply was given, that to indite upon each of two such scrolls the identical legend, " seven decades," would look as if the writers were entirely destitute of originality!
Chinese social solidarity is often fatal to what we mean by accuracy. A man who wished advice in a lawsuit told the writer that he himself " lived " in a particular village, though it was obvious from his narrative that his abode was in the suburbs of a city. Upon inquiry, he admitted that he did not now live in the village, and further investigation revealed the fact that the removal took place nineteen generations ago! " But do you not almost consider yourself a resident of the city now ? " he was asked. " Yes," he replied simply, " we do live there now, but the old root is in that village."
Another individual called the writer's attention to an ancient temple in his own native village, and remarked proudly, " I built that temple." Upon pursuing the subject, it appeared that the edifice dated from the Ming Dynasty, more than three hundred years ago, when " I " only existed in the potential mood.
One of the initial stumbling-blocks of the student of Chinese is to find a satisfactory expression for identity, as distinguished from resemblance. The whole Chinese system of thinking is based on a line of assumptions different from those to which we are accustomed, and they can ill comprehend the mania which seems to possess the Occidental to ascertain everything with unerring exactness. The Chinese do not know how many families there are in his native village, and he does not wish to know. What any human being can want to know this number for is to him an insoluble riddle. It is " a few hundreds," " several hundreds," or " not a few," but a fixed and definite number it never was and never will be.
The same lack of precision which characterises the Chinese use of numbers, is equally conspicuous in their employment of written and even printed characters. It is not easy to procure a cheap copy of any Chinese book which does not abound in false characters. Sometimes the character which is employed is more complex than the one which should have been used, showing that the error was not due to a wish to economise work, but it is rather to be credited to the fact that ordinarily accuracy is considered as of no importance. A like carelessness of notation is met with in far greater abundance in common letters, a character being often represented by another of the same sound, the mistake being due as much to illiteracy as to carelessness.
Indifference to precision is nowhere more flagrantly manifested than in the superscription of epistles. An ordinary Chinese letter is addressed in bold characters to " My Father Great Man," " Compassionate Mother Great Man," " Ancestral Uncle Great Man," " Virtuous Younger Brother Great Man," etc., generally with no hint as to the name of the " Great Man " addressed.
It certainly appears singular that an eminently practical people like the Chinese should be so inexact in regard to their own personal names as observation indicates them to be. It is very common to find these names written now with one character and again with another, and either one will answer. But this is not so confusing as the fact that the same man often has several different names, his family name, his " style," and, strange to say, a wholly different one, used only on registering for admission to literary examinations. It is for this reason not uncommon for a foreigner to mistake one Chinese for two or three. The names of villages are not less uncertain, sometimes appearing in two or even three entirely different forms, and no one of them is admitted to be more " right " than another. If one should be an acknowledged corruption of another, they may be employed interchangeably, or the correct name may be used in official papers and the other in ordinary speech, or yet again, the corruption may be used as an adjective, forming a compound title.
The Chinese are unfortunately deficient in the education which comes from a more or less intimate acquaintance with chemical formulae, where the minutest precision is fatally necessary. The first generation of Chinese chemists will probably lose many of its number as a result of mixing " few tens of grains " of something with " several tens of grains " of something else, the consequence being an unanticipated disaster. The Chinese are as capable of learning minute accuracy in all things as any nation ever was—nay, more so, for they are endowed with infinite patience—but what we have to remark of this people is that, as at present constituted, they are free from the quality of accuracy and that they do not understand what it is. If this is a true statement, two inferences would seem to be legitimate. First, much allowance must be made for this trait in our examination of Chinese historical records. We can readily deceive ourselves by taking Chinese statements of numbers and quantities to be what they were never intended to be—exact. Secondly, a wide margin must be left for all varieties of what is dignified with the title of a Chinese " census." The whole is not greater than its parts, Chinese enumeration to the contrary notwithstanding. When we have well considered all the bearings of a Chinese " census," we shall be ready to say of it, as was remarked of the United States Supreme Court by a canny Scotchman, that it has " the last guess at the case! "
热门跟贴